The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of request to install solar panels
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.
Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.
Alj Quote
Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816
Topic Tags
solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition
Question
What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The hearing proceeds without them.
Detailed Answer
If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.
Alj Quote
Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.
Legal Basis
Procedural Due Process
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
attendance
default
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?
Short Answer
No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.
Alj Quote
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802
Topic Tags
definitions
cooperatives
planned community
Question
What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.
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
Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standards
Case
Docket No
23F-H026-REL
Case Title
Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date
2023-04-04
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Elizabeth Flint(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf and testified.
Respondent Side
Andrew Vizcarra(respondent representative) Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C. Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case documents via email address.
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
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
Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote
Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Articles of Incorporation (1972)
Articles of Amendment (1994)
Articles of Amendment (1999)
CLRs Unit One (1972)
Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Pamela McKinney(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Alan A. Meda(HOA attorney) Burch & Cracchiolo Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Sharon Grossi(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
Rebecca Bankov(property manager) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Also referred to as Rebecca fan
Amy Wood(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Secretary on the board
Thomas Noble(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
Stan Andrews(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
Ray Rose(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Recently resigned from the board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Jean Newman(CPA) Independent auditor who prepared financial report
Other Participants
Dennis Hope(Fire Chief) Northern Arizona Fire District External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Counsel
Jason Smith, Esq.
Alleged Violations
HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election
Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.
Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… '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
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… '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
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Eileen Ahearn(petitioner)
Robert Barfield(petitioner)
Randy Kling(witness / former board member) Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
Claire Peachey(witness / election committee member) Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
Joyce Green(witness) Testified for Petitioners.
Jeffrey Knox(witness) Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.
Respondent Side
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley PLLC
Nancy Sakarelli(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Board President; appeared virtually.
Corinthia Pangalinan(former board president / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
Becky Hilgart(Election Committee Chair / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
Tommy Smith(Election Committee Volunteer / property owner) Involved in denying votes.
Wally Oliday(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Amanda Miller(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH staff transmitting documents.
c. serrano(Administrative Staff) Staff transmitting documents.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Edna Barton(observer) On the line during the hearing.
Jill Burns(observer) Present in the hearing room.
John Kron(observer) Present in the hearing room.
Stacy(board director) Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
Deborah Bonesac(property owner) Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
Billy McFarland(board member) Subject of previous recall election.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.
Why this result: The ARC successfully argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only mandates open access for 'any regularly scheduled committee meetings.' Since they transitioned to using an online portal on an irregular schedule, they were no longer holding 'regularly scheduled meetings,' meaning the statute did not require them to be open.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to hold open meetings where members can comment prior to a vote.
Petitioner alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meetings statute) by failing to hold open meetings, particularly after the ARC began processing requests using an online portal which allows for discussion and voting among members outside of noticed meetings. Historically, the ARC held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month until March 2022. The ALJ ultimately ruled that since March 2022, the ARC was not holding 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' as defined by the statute.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Article 6.2 of the Bylaws
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Regularly Scheduled Meetings, Online Portal, Statutory Interpretation
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… 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”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H008-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… 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”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Amy Hilburn(petitioner) Stetson Valley Owners Association member Appeared pro se; former Board President
Respondent Side
Melissa Doolan(HOA attorney) Travis Law Firm
Danielle Miglio(community manager, witness) Oasis Community Management
Ann Renee Wilsey(ARC member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Nichollet Widner(board member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board President
Tom Young(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Pam Weller(ARC member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Omar Chavez(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Travis Law Firm Transmitting staff
Elizabeth Franco(community manager staff) Oasis Community Management Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
Benjamin Butler(ARC chairperson) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Anthony T Horn
Counsel
—
Respondent
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Counsel
Emily H. Mann, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.
Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARS 33-1804(F)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball
Briefing Document: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute, procedural history, and final judgment in the case of Anthony T. Horn (Petitioner) versus Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice for its July 6, 2021, Board of Directors meeting.
The petitioner claimed that the agenda item “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” was insufficient to inform members of the board’s plan to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, a decision that “blindsided” affected homeowners. In response, the HOA maintained a two-pronged defense: first, that the notice was legally sufficient, and second, that any potential procedural error was “unequivocally cured” by a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which featured an explicit agenda item detailing the conversion and at which the petitioner was present.
Following an initial dismissal and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single alleged statutory violation. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition, issuing a definitive two-part ruling: 1) the notice for the July 6, 2021, meeting did comply with state law, and 2) even if it had not, the violation was cured by the actions taken for the November 9, 2021, meeting.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Petitioner
Anthony T. Horn
Respondent
Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
Respondent Counsel
Emily H. Mann, Esq.
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Case Chronology
• July 6, 2021: The HOA Board of Directors holds an open meeting and unanimously approves “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair,” which includes the conversion of one tennis court to four pickleball courts.
• August 2021: Petitioner Anthony T. Horn files a dispute regarding the meeting.
• October 13, 2021: The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives Horn’s formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).
• November 9, 2021: The HOA holds a second board meeting to vote again on the conversion. The agenda explicitly details the plan, and the board unanimously re-approves it. Horn attends this meeting.
• February 15, 2022: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) grants the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition due to a lack of response from the petitioner.
• Post-February 15, 2022: Horn files a timely request for a rehearing.
• May 26, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and the scope of the rehearing.
• July 6, 2022: The ALJ issues an order limiting the rehearing to the single alleged violation concerning the July 6, 2021, meeting, while allowing the HOA’s “cure” defense related to the November 9 meeting.
• August 1, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is conducted.
• August 22, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision dismissing the petitioner’s petition.
Core Legal Dispute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
The central legal question revolved around compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which establishes the state’s policy on open meetings for planned communities. The statute requires that:
“…notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.”
The statute further mandates that its provisions be construed “in favor of open meetings.”
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Anthony T. Horn)
Primary Allegation: Insufficient Notice
The petitioner’s case was predicated on the argument that the agenda for the July 6, 2021, meeting was misleading. The motion was described as: Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund. Horn contended that this language failed to inform homeowners of the board’s intent to make a “major change” by converting a tennis court to pickleball courts.
• Key Quote: During the rehearing, Horn described his reaction at the July 6 meeting: “We were shocked. Just a complete uh something coming from the left field. We had no idea that anything like this was planned.”
Argument Against the “Cure” Defense
Horn argued that the November 9, 2021, meeting should not be considered a valid cure because it only occurred as a direct result of his formal dispute. He framed this as an unfair “catch 22.”
• Key Quote: In his closing argument, Horn stated: “The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. Uh you in other words, I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.”
Ancillary Issues Ruled Out of Scope
Throughout the proceedings, Horn attempted to introduce several related grievances, which the ALJ consistently ruled were outside the narrow scope of his single-issue petition. These included:
• Allegations of discrimination, claiming pickleball members were included in vendor discussions while tennis club members were excluded.
• Concerns about the HOA’s method of communication, arguing that “eblasts” are inappropriate for a senior community and that mail or hand delivery should be used.
• Disagreement with the soundness of the board’s decision itself.
Respondent’s Position and Defense (Sun Lakes HOA)
Defense of the July 6 Meeting
The HOA, through its counsel Emily Mann and witness Kelly Haynes, argued that the notice for the July 6 meeting was fully compliant with the statute. The term “upgrade and repair” was deemed sufficient to encompass the conversion. They presented the petitioner’s own attendance at the meeting as prime evidence that the notice was effective in informing members that tennis courts would be a topic of discussion.
Affirmative Defense of “Cure”
The HOA’s primary defense was that, even assuming a procedural flaw in the first meeting’s notice, the error was “unequivocally cured” by the November 9, 2021, meeting. The notice for that meeting was explicit: Motion #3 – Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts. The petitioner attended, members were given the opportunity to speak, and the board voted again, removing any ambiguity.
Characterization of Petitioner’s Motive
Respondent’s counsel portrayed the petition as being driven by dissatisfaction with the board’s decision rather than a genuine concern for procedural integrity. It was noted that the association had spent thousands of dollars defending the petition and had twice offered to pay Horn $500—the maximum penalty available—to resolve the matter, both of which he rejected.
• Key Quote: In her opening statement, counsel stated: “This hearing today is about Mr. Horn seeking revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion. He couldn’t stop the conversion from taking place. So punishing the association by filing a meritless petition was the next best thing.”
Final Decision and Rationale
In the final decision dated August 22, 2022, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition. The ruling was based on a two-part conclusion that fully supported the respondent’s position.
1. The July 6 Notice Was Sufficient: The ALJ concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed the notice provided the “information that was reasonably necessary.” The decision explicitly states: “Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.”
2. The Violation, If Any, Was Cured: The decision further established that, even if the first notice had been deficient, the HOA rectified the situation. “Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.”
Based on these findings, the order was issued: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn’s petition against Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., is dismissed.”
Study Guide – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Petitioner Anthony T. Horn and Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based solely on the provided source documents.
1. What was the specific statute and section that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn alleged the Sun Lakes HOA violated?
2. Describe the central disagreement over the agenda for the July 6, 2021, board meeting.
3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal defense, arguing that even if a violation occurred, it was later corrected?
4. Why was Mr. Horn’s initial petition dismissed in February 2022, leading to a request for a rehearing?
5. What ruling did the Administrative Law Judge make during the pre-hearing conference regarding Mr. Horn’s desire to introduce evidence of discrimination?
6. According to testimony, what methods did the Sun Lakes HOA use to provide notice of its board meetings to the membership?
7. What key difference existed between the agenda for the July 6, 2021 meeting and the agenda for the November 9, 2021 meeting?
8. During the August 1, 2022 rehearing, what was the fate of subpoenas that had been issued for the original, vacated hearing?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion in the August 22, 2022 decision regarding the alleged violation?
10. What did the Respondent’s counsel, Emily Mann, suggest was Mr. Horn’s true motivation for pursuing the petition?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, alleged that the Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F). This statute pertains to the policy of open meetings and the requirement that notices and agendas contain information reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed.
2. The central disagreement was whether the agenda item “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” provided sufficient notice that the board would be discussing and voting on the conversion of a tennis court into four pickleball courts. Mr. Horn argued this description was misleading and withheld critical information, while the HOA contended it was adequate.
3. The Respondent’s primary defense was that any potential procedural error or lack of clarity in the July 6, 2021 meeting notice was “unequivocally cured.” They argued this cure was accomplished through a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which had a more explicit agenda item about the court conversion.
4. The initial petition was dismissed because the Petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, did not file a response to the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Summary Disposition. The Administrative Law Judge granted these motions, leading Mr. Horn to file for a rehearing.
5. The judge ruled that the issue of alleged discrimination was a separate legal matter from the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). To include the discrimination claim, Mr. Horn would have to file a separate petition and pay an additional $500 filing fee.
6. General Manager Kelly Haynes testified that the HOA provided notice via e-blasts to members who signed up for them, posting on monitors in the clubhouse, inclusion in the monthly newsletter (“The Laker”), and posting on the association’s website.
7. The agenda for the July 6 meeting listed “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair.” In contrast, the agenda for the November 9 meeting provided a much more specific item: “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.”
8. The Administrative Law Judge informed Mr. Horn that the subpoenas issued for the original hearing would not apply to the new rehearing. To compel witness testimony, Mr. Horn was required to request and serve new subpoenas, which would be a significant additional expense.
9. The ALJ concluded that the Sun Lakes HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. The decision further stated that even if a violation had occurred, it was cured by the proper notice and subsequent vote at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.
10. The Respondent’s counsel stated that Mr. Horn’s petition was not about seeking justice or ensuring compliance with statutes, but was an act of “revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion.” She argued that since he could not stop the conversion, he filed a “meritless petition” to punish the association.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate your answers based on a comprehensive review of the case details and legal arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). Discuss how each party applied the statute’s requirement for “information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members” to the facts of the case.
2. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing in 2021 to the final decision in August 2022. Identify at least three key procedural moments or rulings and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
3. Discuss the legal concept of a “cure” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Evaluate the strength of the Respondent’s argument that the November 9, 2021 meeting cured any potential defects from the July 6, 2021 meeting, and explain how the Petitioner attempted to rebut this defense.
4. The scope of the hearing was a contentious issue. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge limited the scope of the case and excluded certain topics, such as alleged discrimination and the soundness of the board’s business decision. Why are such limitations important in legal proceedings?
5. Based on the testimony and arguments presented in the August 1, 2022 rehearing, compare and contrast the remedies sought by the Petitioner with the relief available in the administrative hearing venue. What does this reveal about the limitations of this specific legal process for a homeowner’s grievances?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions in disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Judge Velva Moses-Thompson from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statute at issue was A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities.
A legal concept where a party corrects a prior procedural error or violation. In this case, the Respondent argued that any deficiency in the July 6 meeting notice was corrected, or “cured,” by holding the November 9 meeting with a more explicit agenda.
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request made by a party to a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed this motion, which was initially granted.
Motion for Summary Judgment
A request made by a party for a decision on the merits of a case before a full hearing, arguing that there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Motion for Summary Disposition
A request, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the tribunal to rule in a party’s favor without a full hearing.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Anthony T. Horn was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that their contention is more probably true than not.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted after an initial decision has been made. Mr. Horn was granted a rehearing after his petition was initially dismissed.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. was the Respondent.
Sua Sponte Order
An order made by a judge on their own initiative, without a request from either party. The order to continue the rehearing to August 1, 2022, was a sua sponte order due to the judge’s jury duty.
Subpoena
A legal order compelling a person to attend a hearing to give testimony. The Petitioner had to request new subpoenas for the rehearing as the original ones were no longer valid.
Blog Post – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Your HOA Did What? 4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Over a Tennis Court
Introduction: The Notice on the Bulletin Board
Anyone who lives in a planned community is familiar with the official notices from their Homeowners Association (HOA). Often tacked onto a bulletin board or sent in a mass email, these communications can be models of bureaucratic brevity, full of formal language that is both vague and oddly specific. It’s easy to glance at an agenda item and assume you know what it means. But what happens when you’re wrong?
This was the situation faced by Anthony T. Horn, a homeowner in Sun Lakes, Arizona. In 2021, he filed a formal dispute against his HOA over a meeting notice he believed was deceptive, kicking off a year-long legal battle. His story provides a rare look “under the hood” of HOA procedures and power dynamics. Here are four surprising and impactful takeaways from his fight that every homeowner should understand.
1. A Notice for “Repairs” Can Mean a Total Transformation
The dispute began simply enough. The HOA posted a notice for a July 6, 2021 board meeting with a specific agenda item: “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund.”
Mr. Horn, an active tennis player, attended the meeting expecting a discussion about much-needed repairs to the community’s dangerous and unplayable courts. Instead, he testified that he was “shocked” when the board announced that the “upgrade” included permanently converting one tennis court into four pickleball courts.
His core legal argument was that this notice failed to provide information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” of the true matter being decided, a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). The final ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, however, was counter-intuitive.
Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.
This decision reveals a critical gap between a homeowner’s plain-language understanding and the law’s procedural interpretation. The ruling effectively places the burden on homeowners to be deeply skeptical of vague agenda items and to anticipate the broadest possible definition of terms like “upgrade.” As this case demonstrates, the law may not protect a resident’s more intuitive and narrow reading of a notice.
2. An HOA Can Get a “Mulligan” on Procedural Errors
After Mr. Horn filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the HOA board pursued a powerful defense strategy: a do-over. The board scheduled a second meeting for November 9, 2021.
The notice for this second meeting was far more specific. Its purpose was explicitly stated as a “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.” At this meeting, the board held the vote again, and it passed again.
Legally, this is known as “curing” a potential violation. The HOA argued that even if their first notice was flawed (which they did not concede), this second, properly-noticed meeting made the original issue moot. The judge agreed.
Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.
This reveals that “curing” is not just a simple correction; it is a powerful strategic tool for an HOA board. It creates a nearly risk-free path to test the limits of procedural compliance. A board can issue a vague notice, and only if a homeowner is willing to invest the time and money to file a formal complaint does the board need to “cure” the potential error with a more specific follow-up. This dynamic shifts the entire risk and cost of ensuring compliance onto the individual homeowner.
3. Fighting on Multiple Fronts Can Be Cost-Prohibitive
During the legal process, Mr. Horn wanted to introduce other arguments. He alleged discrimination against tennis players and claimed the board had ignored other viable locations for new pickleball courts.
The judge, however, repeatedly shut down these lines of argument. The hearing was strictly limited to the single issue identified in the original petition: the alleged violation of the open meeting notice statute. The reason for this limitation was procedural and financial. In the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s dispute system, each separate allegation requires its own petition and, crucially, a separate $500 filing fee.
This creates a significant financial barrier for the homeowner, as Mr. Horn explained during the hearing.
And I probably have five, six or seven of them inaccuracies and misstatements and what so would be $500 each.
This rule exposes a stark asymmetry of resources. The individual homeowner must pay out-of-pocket for each separate alleged violation, forcing them to pick only their single strongest—or most affordable—argument. The HOA, by contrast, defends itself using a legal fund paid for by the entire community, including the very homeowner who is filing the dispute.
4. You Can Win the Argument, Lose the Case, and Still Pay for It
The ultimate outcome presented a paradox, which Mr. Horn articulated in his closing argument. He laid out a sequence of events that created a frustrating “Catch-22” for the homeowner:
1. He identified what he believed was a clear procedural violation at the July 6th meeting.
2. He paid a $500 filing fee to formally dispute it.
3. His dispute directly caused the HOA to hold the second, more specific, and legally “cured” meeting on November 9th.
4. The HOA then used that very “cured” meeting as the legal basis to have his petition dismissed.
He saw it as a no-win situation where his own action to seek accountability provided the HOA with the tool to defeat his claim.
The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. …I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.
This outcome reveals the ultimate procedural paradox. It is a system where a homeowner’s successful action—forcing the HOA to correct its error—becomes the very instrument of their legal defeat. The legal system, in this context, prioritized the correction of a procedural flaw over the merits of the original grievance or the fairness of the outcome for the individual who forced the correction.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Power
The story of one homeowner’s fight over a tennis court reveals that the nuances of HOA law are complex and can often favor the established procedures of the board. From the broad interpretation of “reasonable notice” to the board’s ability to “cure” its own mistakes, the system contains mechanisms that can be challenging for an individual resident to overcome.
This case is not about taking sides on the issue of tennis versus pickleball. It is a valuable case study in the realities of community governance. It underscores the importance for homeowners to understand not just the rules, but the procedures that enforce them. This leads to a final, critical question for every member of an HOA to consider:
Given the systems in place, how can an individual homeowner ensure their voice is truly heard when the stakes feel this high?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony T. Horn(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself
Ralph Howland(witness) Sun Lakes Homeowner Testified for Petitioner; name spelled 'Howlen' in some findings
Ed Campy(tennis club president) Informed Petitioner Horn of the November meeting
Robert Miller(homeowner) Asked a question at the July 6th board meeting
Felicia Kuba(witness) Homeowner proposed as witness by Petitioner
Respondent Side
Emily H. Mann(HOA attorney) Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1
Kelly Haynes(general manager) Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Testified as a witness for Respondent
Janice Cornoyer(board president) Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Called as a witness by Petitioner
Jimmy Burns(facilities manager) Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Called as a witness by Petitioner
Chris Johnston(Senior Account Manager) USI Insurance Services LLC Listed as c/o for Respondent HOA
Steve Howell(board member) Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Read in motion at board meeting
Emily Jones(HOA employee) Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Employee of General Manager Kelly Haynes
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner ADRE) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH/ADRE Transmitted copies of orders
c. serrano(transmitting agent) OAH/ADRE Transmitted copies of orders
Mark Gotman(observer) Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
Dennis Anderson(observer) Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors
Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222049-REL
Select all sources
986676.aac
988629.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222049-REL
2 sources
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Zumph(petitioner) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Board Secretary; witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary)
Other Participants
Thomas Campanella(property manager) Sanalina Homeowners Association Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez(management representative) Sanalina Homeowners Association Handled minutes for March meeting
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
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
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Gregory Ehle(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself.
Respondent Side
Emily H. Mann(HOA attorney) Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy(witness) CCMC Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Handled document transmission.
c. serrano(staff) OAH Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
Other Participants
Natasha Bell(community manager) CCMC Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2022-04-25
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl
Counsel
—
Respondent
Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
Counsel
Nathan Tennyson
Alleged Violations
Article VI of the CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge deemed Petitioners the prevailing party. Respondent HOA violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain and remove rubbish from the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines, as the Board's determination not to maintain the area lacked proper authority without a CC&R amendment. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and refund the Petitioners' filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA maintenance obligations for common area up to exterior building lines
Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures, specifically a natural desert area within the Common Area. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked the authority to refuse maintenance of the natural desert area without amending the CC&Rs.
Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward and must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.
Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Dispute Over Common Area Maintenance
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal decisions in the administrative case of Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl versus the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. The central conflict revolves around the Association’s legal obligation, as defined by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), to maintain a common area behind the Petitioners’ property.
The Petitioners alleged that the Association violated Article 6 of its CC&Rs by failing to maintain this area for over two decades, resulting in the accumulation of rubbish and the creation of a habitat for pests. The Association countered that the area in question was designated “natural desert” to serve as a buffer, and that maintaining it was not required and would be cost-prohibitive.
An initial hearing in November 2021 resulted in a decision in favor of the Petitioners. The Association was granted a rehearing, which took place in April 2022. Despite new arguments from the Association regarding budget constraints, historical precedent, and alleged interference by the Petitioners, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the original decision.
The final ruling on April 25, 2022, found that the language of CC&R Article 6 is unambiguous and requires the Association to maintain “all property up to the exterior building lines.” The ALJ concluded that the Board of Directors does not have the authority to unilaterally designate a common area as “unmaintained” without formally amending the CC&Rs. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with Article 6 and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fee.
Case Overview
Case Name
Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, Petitioners, vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, Respondent.
Petition Filed: August 6, 2021 Initial Hearing: November 8, 2021 Initial Decision: November 29, 2021 Rehearing: April 4, 2022 Final Decision: April 25, 2022
The Central Allegation: Violation of CC&R Article 6
The dispute is founded on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s CC&Rs concerning “Common Maintenance.”
Key Provisions of Article 6:
• Maintenance Obligation: “The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping… roofs, common elements, decorative walls, drainage… and be responsible for the rubbish removal of all areas within the common properties.”
• Standard of Care: “The Board of Directors of the Association shall use a reasonably high standard of care in providing for the repair, management and maintenance of said property, so that said townhouse project will reflect high pride of ownership.”
Petitioners’ Core Claim: Filed on August 6, 2021, the petition alleged that the Association violated Article 6 by failing to maintain the property behind their townhome unit. They asserted this neglect had persisted for the approximately 24 years they had lived there, leading to overgrowth and pest infestations.
◦ Alleged observing only 12 hours of landscaping work in their immediate back area over 24 years.
◦ Claimed the accumulated rubbish and overgrowth served as a habitat for pests, specifically mentioning “a pack rat for rattlesnakes.”
◦ Submitted a photograph of a rattlesnake skin found in their backyard as evidence.
• Respondent (Sabino Vista Townhouse Association):
◦ Testimony was provided by Charles Taylor Ostermeyer, secretary of the Board of Directors.
◦ Argued the area in question is a “natural desert area and underbrush” that begins 30 to 40 feet behind the homes.
◦ Initially claimed the Board had adopted a rule limiting maintenance to just 4 feet behind residences, citing Board meeting minutes. However, when pressed by the ALJ, Ostermeyer conceded that believing a formal rule was adopted “would be conjecture on my part.”
◦ Asserted it would be too costly to clear the entire region.
◦ Contended that the decision not to maintain the open desert area was a valid exercise of the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations.
November 29, 2021 Decision
The ALJ, Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Petitioners.
• Finding: The preponderance of the evidence showed the Respondent failed to maintain the property as required by the unambiguous language of Article 6.
• Reasoning: The Respondent provided “no evidence of an Amendment to Article VI” and “no evidence of a rule properly adopted by the Board that would limit the common area to be maintained.”
• Order: The Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to reimburse their $500 filing fee and comply with Article 6 going forward.
The Rehearing and Final Decision (April 2022)
The Association’s request for a rehearing was granted, with the new hearing held on April 4, 2022. The Association was represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., and presented testimony from John Polasi, a Board member and Chairman of the Landscape Committee.
Rehearing Testimony and Arguments
Petitioner Arguments (Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl)
Respondent Arguments (John Polasi, HOA Board)
Core Issue is Deflection: Argued the Association’s narrative was a “deflection from the main issue.” Stated the HOA focused on irrelevant topics to circumvent the court’s correct original ruling.
Area is a “Natural Buffer”: The unmaintained area has existed since 1974 and serves as a natural buffer from Tanque Verde Creek, keeping wildlife out and preventing hikers/bikers from wandering into the neighborhood.
Tree Trimming Incident: Claimed the HOA falsely accused him of “singlehandedly” stopping all tree trimming. Clarified a December 2021 interaction with a contractor (Leon’s Tree Service) lasted only 30 seconds, where he refused permission to cut three shade branches in his private front courtyard.
Petitioner Hindrance: Alleged the Petitioners actively hindered tree trimming in December 2021 by refusing the contractor entry into their courtyard and blocking their driveway with an SUV to prevent the trimming of a low-hanging branch.
Pest Infestations: Maintained that pests are a significant problem, citing a recent rattlesnake sighting on his birthday (March 21) and his personal removal of “252 packrats in the last three years.”
Pest Control is Managed: Stated the HOA contracts “Mr. Packrat” to inspect the entire property quarterly. Polasi testified he had been chairman for a year and had “never heard of a single pack rider or rattlesnake anywhere.”
Misuse of Common Area: Dismissed accusations of misusing the common area as “pure deflection.” He stated his use (grilling, sitting outdoors) was adjudicated in court 18 years prior and found to be in compliance with CC&Rs.
Petitioner Misuse of Common Area: Accused the Petitioners of violating CC&Rs by placing personal items (barbecue, smoker, tables, chairs) in the common area and cutting a hole in their patio wall for water and electric lines.
Developer’s Intent: Cited a statement from Dale Chastine, the original developer, asserting the CC&Rs were written to “strictly forbid any unfettered wild growth” and require all common areas to be maintained in the same manner.
Board Authority and Historical Precedent: Cited 2020 Board Minutes that formally designated the area “35 ft to the south of southern homeowner rear wall” as “unmaintained natural desert landscape.” Referenced 1999 minutes indicating a 4-foot maintenance rule was previously in place.
New Issues: Attempted to introduce new evidence regarding a “complete drainage channel that… is now buried under debris and soil,” but the ALJ did not admit it as it was a new allegation not in the original petition.
Budgetary Constraints: Argued that maintaining the entire two-to-four-acre area would be excessively expensive. He noted the HOA had recently spent $15,000 on front-area tree trimming and $10,000 on tree repairs, and had other costs like a new pool pump.
April 25, 2022 Final Decision
The ALJ again ruled in favor of the Petitioners, affirming the initial decision.
• Core Conclusion: “Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines.”
• Legal Reasoning: The CC&Rs are unambiguous and require the Association to maintain and remove rubbish from all property within its boundaries, including the area designated as “natural desert.”
• Path Forward for HOA: The ALJ explicitly stated, “If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.”
• Final Order: The order from the November 29, 2021 decision was reiterated: Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, the Respondent was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee, and the Respondent was directed to comply with Article VI of the CC&Rs.
Study Guide – 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Case Study Guide
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowners Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl and the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with a corresponding answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.
1. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioners in their August 6, 2021, petition?
2. According to Article 6 of the CC&Rs, what is the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s responsibility regarding property maintenance?
3. In the first hearing on November 8, 2021, what was the Respondent’s primary argument for not maintaining the area behind the Petitioners’ home?
4. What was the outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on November 29, 2021?
5. Who testified for the Respondent at the April 4, 2022, rehearing, and what were his roles within the Association?
6. What two historical documents did the Respondent present at the rehearing to support its maintenance policy for the area in question?
7. Describe the Respondent’s accusation against the Petitioners regarding the tree trimming service in December 2021.
8. What strategic reasons did the Respondent’s witness, John Polasi, give for leaving the desert area unmaintained?
9. In the final decision of April 25, 2022, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Association despite its evidence of a board-approved maintenance plan?
10. What specific orders were issued to the Respondent in the final court decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners alleged that the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association violated Article 6 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, they claimed the Association failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior lines and patio enclosures, focusing on the unkempt two-acre area behind their townhome.
2. Article 6 requires the Association to “maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures.” This includes landscaping, common elements, and rubbish removal, and mandates that the Board of Directors use a “reasonably high standard of care” so the project reflects a high pride of ownership.
3. In the first hearing, the Respondent argued that it had applied the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations. The Association contended it would be too costly to clear out the entire region, which it described as an open desert area with many trees and weeds.
4. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioners to be the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the Respondent to comply with Article 6 of the CC&Rs going forward and to pay the Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00.
5. John Polasi testified for the Respondent at the rehearing. He was identified as a member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Landscaping Committee.
6. The Respondent presented minutes from a Board Meeting in February 1999, which stated that only 4 feet behind residences were maintained, with the remainder left natural. They also presented minutes from a 2020 Board Meeting that revised this policy, designating an area 35 feet from the southern homeowner walls as the maintenance boundary.
7. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioners interfered with and prevented a tree trimming project conducted by Leon’s Tree Service. The witness claimed the Petitioners refused entry into their front patio to trim overhanging limbs and moved a vehicle into their driveway to block the work.
8. John Polasi testified that the unmaintained desert area serves as a “natural buffer.” He stated it keeps animals from the adjacent Tanque Verde Creek area from coming onto homeowner property and also prevents bikers and hikers from wandering into the neighborhood.
9. The ALJ ruled that although the Board had determined it would not maintain the natural desert area, the Board does not have the authority under its CC&Rs to refuse maintenance. The judge concluded that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain all property up to the exterior lines and that if the Association wishes to change this, it must formally amend its CC&Rs.
10. The final order deemed the Petitioners the prevailing party and directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioners’ $500.00 filing fee within thirty days. It further ordered the Respondent to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-length responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge in both the initial and final decisions. Why was Article 6 of the CC&Rs consistently interpreted as unambiguous, and how did this interpretation override the Respondent’s “business judgment” defense and subsequent board resolutions?
2. Compare and contrast the evidence and arguments presented by the Respondent in the first hearing versus the rehearing. How did the Association’s defense strategy evolve, and what new evidence did it introduce in the second hearing?
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Using specific examples from the testimony and exhibits, explain how the Petitioners met this burden of proof and why the Respondent’s affirmative defenses failed to meet the same standard in both hearings.
4. Examine the tension between a homeowners’ association’s governing documents (like CC&Rs) and the operational decisions made by its Board of Directors. How does this case illustrate the limits of a Board’s authority to interpret or modify its responsibilities without formally amending the core documents?
5. Evaluate the various pieces of evidence introduced during the rehearing, such as the Board Minutes from 1999 and 2020, the letter from Leon’s Tree Service, and the attempted introduction of the developer’s affidavit. What role did each piece of evidence play in shaping the arguments, and why was some evidence given more weight or deemed inadmissible by the judge?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
Affidavit
A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. An affidavit from the original developer, Dale Chastain, was presented but not admitted into evidence.
Affirmative Defense
A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence that, if found to be credible, will negate liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.
Arizona Dept. of Real Estate
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Business Judgment Rule
A legal principle that grants directors of a corporation (or non-profit association) immunity from liability for losses incurred in corporate transactions if the directors acted in good faith. This was used as a defense by the Respondent in the first hearing.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The interpretation of Article 6 of the CC&Rs was the central issue of the case.
Common Area
Property in a planned community that is owned by the homeowners’ association and intended for the use and enjoyment of all members. The dispute centered on the maintenance of a common area behind the Petitioners’ home.
Conjecture
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. A witness for the Respondent admitted his belief about a maintenance rule was “conjecture.”
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where parties present evidence and testimony before a judge to resolve a disputed issue.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.
Petitioners
The party that files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioners had the burden of proving their case by this standard.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted upon request, to reconsider the original decision. The April 4, 2022, hearing was a rehearing, treated as a “complete and new hearing.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of real property. The court noted that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Riparian Area
An area of land adjacent to a river or stream. The Respondent’s witness described the community as being in a riparian area next to Tanque Verde Creek.
Blog Post – 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
He Sued His HOA Over Landscaping and Won. They Demanded a Do-Over. He Won Again. Here Are the Lessons.
Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Tale of a Homeowner and His HOA
For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like a constant struggle. Disputes over rules, maintenance, and responsibilities are common frustrations. But what happens when a homeowner believes their HOA is fundamentally failing to uphold its end of the bargain?
This is the story of Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, a homeowner who took his HOA to court over its failure to maintain a common area behind his home. The outcome was surprising enough: he won. But when the HOA was granted a complete “do-over” hearing to re-argue the case from scratch, he won a second time.
This case, Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, offers a powerful case study in the hierarchy of governing documents and the legal principle of plain language in contract law. Here are the surprising and powerful lessons from the repeated legal victory that every homeowner should know.
1. An HOA Board Vote Can’t Override Its Own Founding Documents
The HOA’s core defense was that its Board of Directors had made a decision to leave the area behind the homes as an “unmaintained natural desert.” This argument, however, proved legally insufficient across two separate hearings.
In the first hearing, board secretary Charles Taylor Ostermeyer testified that the board had decided to limit maintenance. However, when pressed by the judge, he admitted that claiming this decision was a formal “rule” would be “conjecture on my part.” For the rehearing, the association presented board member John Polaski, who formalized the argument, claiming the unmaintained area served as a “natural buffer.” To support this, they presented minutes from a 2020 board meeting, arguing that the board’s decision recorded in those minutes effectively created a new policy for that common area.
In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge delivered a decisive counter-ruling. The judge found that the association’s primary governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—were the superior legal authority. A simple board vote recorded in meeting minutes could not nullify the binding requirements of the CC&Rs. The judge’s final order from the rehearing was unequivocal:
Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines. … If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.
This is a critical lesson for every homeowner. The CC&Rs function as a legally binding contract between the association and its members. A simple board resolution, a new rule, or a long-standing “tradition” cannot legally contradict the foundational covenants.
2. When the Contract is Clear, “All” Simply Means All
The entire case ultimately hinged on a single sentence in Article VI of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association CC&Rs. This piece of text was so clear and powerful that the judge cited it as the deciding factor in both the original hearing and the rehearing. The language stated:
“The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping…”
The HOA attempted to argue around this plain language. Its representatives claimed that maintaining the entire area was too costly, that it had been unmaintained since the community was built in 1974, and that it was a “riparian area” (land adjacent to a river or stream) that should be left wild.
In both hearings, the judge rejected these arguments. The word “all” was not open to interpretation. The language of the CC&Rs was unambiguous and therefore had to be enforced as it was written. This illustrates a fundamental legal principle: when contract language is clear, arguments about convenience, cost, or past practice often fail when pitted against the plain text of a governing legal document.
3. Facts are Stubborn, Even in a “Complete New Hearing”
In a highly unusual procedural twist, after losing the first hearing in November 2021, the HOA was granted a “re-hearing” in April 2022. This was not an appeal, which reviews an original decision for errors, but a complete strategic reset. The judge explained its legal significance:
“And this is a re-hearing. So it is a complete and new hearing. … as if the first hearing didn’t happen.”
The HOA used this second chance to launch a new strategy. While the first hearing’s defense centered on cost and a vague, unwritten policy, the second hearing featured a new witness and a new, two-pronged approach: formalizing the “natural buffer” argument and adding an ad hominem strategy that attempted to portray Mr. Stangl as an uncooperative resident who had personally interfered with tree trimming.
But while the HOA’s tactics shifted, the central fact of the case could not be changed. The text of the CC&Rs was the same in April 2022 as it was in November 2021. The final outcome was identical to the first. The judge once again ruled in favor of the homeowner, ordering the HOA to comply with its own CC&Rs and to reimburse Mr. Stangl’s $500 filing fee.
This demonstrates a key legal reality: while procedural tactics can create new opportunities for argument, they cannot alter the foundational text of a contract. The HOA’s strategy shifted, but the CC&Rs—the central fact of the case—remained immutable.
Conclusion: A Final Takeaway for Every Homeowner
The case of Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association offers three profound takeaways for homeowners: the CC&Rs are supreme over board decisions, the plain language of those documents is incredibly powerful, and a fact-based argument is resilient. It serves as a potent reminder that an association’s governing documents are not just suggestions—they are enforceable contracts.
The next time you question an HOA policy, will you stop at their latest newsletter, or will you go back to the source?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Sam O' Shaughnessy Stangl(petitioner)
Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl(petitioner)
Dale Chastain(witness) Original developer, provided affidavit/statement
Lisa Chastain(witness) Witness who signed affidavit
Respondent Side
Blake R. Johnson(HOA attorney) The Brown Law Group, PLLC Appeared at initial hearing
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) The Brown Law Group, PLLC Appeared at rehearing
Charles Taylor Ostermeyer(board member) Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Secretary; witness at initial hearing
John Polasi(board member) Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Chairman of Landscaping Committee; witness at rehearing
Leon(contractor/witness) Leon's Tree Service Hired by Respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE
DGardner(ADRE staff) ADRE
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE
c. serrano(admin staff) Transmitted order
Miranda Alvarez(admin staff) Transmitted order
Other Participants
Barbara Barski(property manager) Former manager, referenced in testimony
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Daniel B Belt
Counsel
—
Respondent
Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Counsel
Ellen B. Davis, Esq.
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Petition alleging violation
Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.
The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.
A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.
I. Case Overview and Procedural History
The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots
On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.
The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”
Key Parties
Name/Entity
Representation/Affiliation
Petitioner
Daniel B. Belt
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent
Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.
Witness (Initial Hearing)
Petra Paul
Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)
Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)
William Campbell
Member, BVIA Board of Directors
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director
Greg Hanchett
Office of Administrative Hearings
Procedural Timeline
• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.
• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.
• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.
• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.
• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.
• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.
• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.
• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.
II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision
Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:
• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”
• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”
• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.
• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.
• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.
• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.
Key Witness Testimony
Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.
Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:
• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.
• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.
• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”
• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”
• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.
William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.
ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)
ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:
1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.
2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.
III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition
Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings
Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:
“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“
He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”
Director’s Response
On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.
The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)
The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”
As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?
3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?
4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.
5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?
6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.
7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?
8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?
9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?
10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”
2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.
3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.
4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.
5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.
6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.
7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.
8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.
9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.
10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.
1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.
2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?
3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?
4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?
5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)
An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.
Bylaws
The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.
Injunction Against Workplace Harassment
A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.
Planned Development Services (PDS)
An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.
Quorum
The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.
Redacted
Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.
Secret Ballot
A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.
Blog Post – 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict
Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear
Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.
——————————————————————————–
1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction
The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).
He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.
This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.
Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.
——————————————————————————–
2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot
The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.
In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”
The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.
Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”
——————————————————————————–
3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage
This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.
Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.
This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.
——————————————————————————–
4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight
In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.
Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”
True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy
The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel B. Belt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Ellen B. Davis(HOA attorney) HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
William Campbell(board member, witness) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Member of Respondent's Board of Directors; testified for Respondent
President Mexal(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association President of Respondent's Board
Director Hallett(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Director of Respondent's Board
Sarah Linkey(board member) Beaver Valley Improvement Association Treasurer of Respondent's Board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Greg Hanchett(Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Issued an order regarding Petitioner’s pleading
c. serrano(admin staff) Signed transmittals
Miranda A.(admin staff) Signed transmittal
Other Participants
Petra Paul(witness, property manager) Planned Development Services HOA Management & Accounting Company (PDS) Managing Agent for PDS; testified regarding services provided to Respondent
Lori Rutledge(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
Brandee Abraham(unknown) Recipient of official transmittal
