Tag Archives: A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

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
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 948254.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:07:23 (68.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:27 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:28 (108.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221017-REL


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


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


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)
    Homeowner and member of Sun Lakes HOA
  • Ralph Howlen (witness / homeowner)
    Spelled Howland in some transcript passages.
  • Felicia Kuba (potential witness / homeowner)
    Potential witness regarding court injury/conditions.
  • Ed Campy (former tennis club president)
    Notified Horn of the November meeting.
  • Robert Miller (homeowner)
    Former tennis club member who asked a question at the July 6 meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko and Battock, PLLC
  • Chris Johnston (HOA representative / Account Manager)
    USI Insurance Services LLC
    Senior Account Manager; listed as point of contact for Respondent
  • Kelly Haynes (general manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Janice Cornoyer (HOA president / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Jimmy Burns (facilities maintenance manager / witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
  • Emily Jones (HOA employee)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Employee who works with computers in the HOA office.
  • Steve Howell (board member)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Read in the motion at the July 6 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • c. serrano (Transmitting Agent)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as email recipient/attn.

Other Participants

  • Dennis Anderson (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.
  • Mark Gotman (observer)
    Joined hearing via Google Meet.

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_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)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:27 (95.0 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fines
  • Authority

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence
  • Procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Prevailing Party

Question

Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?

Short Answer

Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.

Alj Quote

Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Architectural Review
  • Lighting

Question

What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?

Short Answer

The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.

Detailed Answer

The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.

Alj Quote

At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • CC&Rs
  • Documentation

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Legal Definitions
  • Standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda C Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mackenzie Hill (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Brod (community manager)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of order transmission

Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-08
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy Padalino Counsel —
Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A Counsel Kelsey Dressen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed after finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by the Respondent of the cited sections of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs, and did not establish that Respondent was obligated to provide her with an individual access code separate from the one already provided to the Lot.

Key Issues & Findings

The dispute between Petitioner and Respondent arises from Community Document Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions Article 1 Section 26, Article 4 Section 4.6, and Article 2, Section 2.4.

Petitioner filed an HOA Dispute Process Petition alleging a violation of community documents because the HOA refused to grant her a personal access gate code. Petitioner argued that as an owner and member, she was entitled to her own personal and individual access code. Respondent disputed the violation, asserting the lot already had multiple modes of access, and was not obligated to provide an additional individual code.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 1 Section 26
  • CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.6
  • CC&Rs Article 2, Section 2.4
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Gate Access, Access Code Policy
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 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. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221003-REL Decision – 930504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:28 (109.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that 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

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based 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

Question

If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?

Short Answer

The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.

Alj Quote

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Governing Documents
  • Rules vs CC&Rs

Question

Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Access Rights
  • Gate Codes
  • Security

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?

Short Answer

No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.

Detailed Answer

If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Co-owner Disputes
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.

Detailed Answer

Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.

Alj Quote

The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Rules

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden is not on the HOA to prove they are innocent. Instead, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that 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

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard means that the evidence must show that the claim is more likely true than not true. It is based 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

Question

If Association Rules conflict with the CC&Rs (Declaration), which document controls?

Short Answer

The Declaration (CC&Rs) prevails.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents usually establish a hierarchy. If the Board adopts rules that are inconsistent with the recorded Declaration, the Declaration is the superior document.

Alj Quote

In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Declaration and the Association Rules, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Governing Documents
  • Rules vs CC&Rs

Question

Is an HOA obligated to provide a unique gate access code to every individual owner?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, if access is provided to the Lot.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA provides valid methods of access for a Lot (such as a shared code, key fob, or remote), they may not be legally obligated to provide a specific 'personal' code for each individual owner of that Lot.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not establish that Respondent is obligated to provide her with a “personal” or “individual” access code.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Access Rights
  • Gate Codes
  • Security

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge resolve disputes between co-owners regarding access to the property?

Short Answer

No, disputes between co-owners are personal matters.

Detailed Answer

If one co-owner restricts another co-owner from using a shared access code, the Department of Real Estate views this as a private issue between the owners, not a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mr. Gribble, as co-owner, has placed restrictions upon Petitioner’s use of the code for the Lot. That is an issue for Petitioner to take up with Mr. Gribble, not the Department.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law 4

Topic Tags

  • Co-owner Disputes
  • Jurisdiction

Question

Are Association Rules as enforceable as the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, generally rules are enforceable to the same extent as the Declaration.

Detailed Answer

Once validly adopted, Association Rules regarding the management and operation of the community can be enforced just like the recorded covenants.

Alj Quote

The Association Rules shall be enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 4 Section 4.3

Topic Tags

  • Enforcement
  • Rules

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221003-REL
Case Title
Kathy Padalino v. Legend Trail Parcel A
Decision Date
2021-12-08
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy Padalino (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Kelsey Dressen (attorney)
    LAW OFFICES OF CHOATE & WOOD
    Represented Respondent Legend Trail Parcel A

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Vance Gribble (co-owner)
    Co-owns home with Petitioner

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse

Posted on by

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.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article VI of the CC&Rs
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Maintenance, CC&R Interpretation, Common Area Maintenance, Filing Fee Refund, Prevailing Party
Additional Citations:

  • 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)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927714.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (95.3 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL Decision – 927747.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:04 (37.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221009-REL


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.

Case Numbers

22F-H2221009-REL (Initial Hearing)
22F-H2221009-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Key Dates

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.

The First Hearing and Decision (November 2021)

Summary of Arguments

• Petitioners (Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl):

◦ 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


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


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 Chastine (developer/witness)
    Original developer who provided an affidavit supporting petitioners
  • Lisa Chastine (witness)
    Signed father's affidavit as a witness

Respondent Side

  • Blake R. Johnson (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Appeared for rehearing; also referred to as Nathan Henderson in transcript
  • Charles Taylor Ostermeyer (board member)
    Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
    Secretary of Board; testified at original hearing
  • John Polasi (board member)
    Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
    Chairman of the Landscaping Committee; testified at rehearing
  • Leon (contractor)
    Leon's Tree Service
    Tree trimmer hired by HOA; provided a signed statement/testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitted order
  • Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
    Transmitted order

Other Participants

  • Barbara Barski (property manager)
    Former manager of the association

Vance Gribble v. Legend Trail Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-04
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Vance Gribble Counsel —
Respondent Legend Trail Community Association Counsel Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808(E); Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration; Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(E), A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), or the cited Declaration Articles.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1808(E), A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), or Article 3 § 5/Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA rule adoption/enforcement regarding motorized vehicle use (ATVs/scooters)

Petitioner alleged the Association improperly prohibited the use of ATVs and motorized scooters on Association streets via e-mails (March 31, 2021, and June 21, 2021). The Association contended these were not rules and no formal enforcement action was taken.

Orders: Petitioner Vance Gribble’s petition against Respondent Legend Trail Community Association is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)
  • Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration
  • Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Recreational Activity, Motorized Vehicles, ATVs, Scooters, Rule Adoption, Declaration, Common Area
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1808(F)
  • Article 1 § 18 of the Declaration
  • Article 3 § 5 of the Declaration
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-3101 to 33-11702
  • A.R.S. § 10-3140
  • 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)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • Powell v. Washburn
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221004-REL Decision – 922828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:42 (100.5 KB)





Study Guide – 22F-H2221004-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221004-REL”, “case_title”: “Vance Gribble vs. Legend Trail Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-04”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners filing a petition bear the responsibility of proving that the HOA violated the law or the CC&Rs. The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioners bear 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) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA prohibit children from playing or riding scooters on residential streets?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prevents HOAs from banning children’s recreational activities on residential roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit resident children from engaging in recreational activity on residential roadways under the association’s jurisdiction where the speed limit is 25 mph or less.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit children who reside in the planned community from engaging in recreational activity on residential roadways that are under the jurisdiction of the association and on which the posted speed limit is twenty-five miles per hour or less.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) (cited as § 1803(F) in decision footnote)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “children”, “recreation” ] }, { “question”: “Does an email sent by the HOA automatically count as an official rule?”, “short_answer”: “No, an email does not constitute a formal rule if it was not adopted through an official act of the board.”, “detailed_answer”: “To be an official act, the board must usually vote at a meeting or provide written consent in accordance with statutes. In this case, emails sent in error or for clarification were not considered adopted rules or formal enforcement actions.”, “alj_quote”: “There was no evidence that the Association adopted a rule or took enforcement action against the residents… There was no evidence presented that the Association took formal action pursuant to A.R.S. §10-3140.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3140”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “HOA communications”, “rulemaking” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA enforce traffic or safety violations on public streets?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, unless the restriction is specifically in the CC&Rs (like parking).”, “detailed_answer”: “On public streets, the HOA’s authority is limited to enforcing restrictions explicitly contained in the CC&Rs. They do not have general authority to police moving violations or safety concerns; those are matters for local law enforcement.”, “alj_quote”: “Legend Trail Community Association may only enforce public street restrictions that are contained in the CC&R Declaration… the Association does not have the authority to address any moving violations or safety concerns on the public streets.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Declaration”, “topic_tags”: [ “public streets”, “enforcement”, “jurisdiction” ] }, { “question”: “What defines a ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is proof that convinces the judge that a claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard does not require removing all doubt. It requires evidence that has superior weight and is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue 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”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are CC&Rs and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are interpreted as a whole to give effect to the underlying purpose and the intent of the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced based on the intent. The document is viewed in its entirety rather than isolating specific clauses.”, “alj_quote”: “Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.”, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “legal interpretation” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 22F-H2221004-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221004-REL”, “case_title”: “Vance Gribble vs. Legend Trail Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-04”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners filing a petition bear the responsibility of proving that the HOA violated the law or the CC&Rs. The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioners bear 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) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA prohibit children from playing or riding scooters on residential streets?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prevents HOAs from banning children’s recreational activities on residential roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit resident children from engaging in recreational activity on residential roadways under the association’s jurisdiction where the speed limit is 25 mph or less.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit children who reside in the planned community from engaging in recreational activity on residential roadways that are under the jurisdiction of the association and on which the posted speed limit is twenty-five miles per hour or less.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1808(F) (cited as § 1803(F) in decision footnote)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “children”, “recreation” ] }, { “question”: “Does an email sent by the HOA automatically count as an official rule?”, “short_answer”: “No, an email does not constitute a formal rule if it was not adopted through an official act of the board.”, “detailed_answer”: “To be an official act, the board must usually vote at a meeting or provide written consent in accordance with statutes. In this case, emails sent in error or for clarification were not considered adopted rules or formal enforcement actions.”, “alj_quote”: “There was no evidence that the Association adopted a rule or took enforcement action against the residents… There was no evidence presented that the Association took formal action pursuant to A.R.S. §10-3140.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3140”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “HOA communications”, “rulemaking” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA enforce traffic or safety violations on public streets?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, unless the restriction is specifically in the CC&Rs (like parking).”, “detailed_answer”: “On public streets, the HOA’s authority is limited to enforcing restrictions explicitly contained in the CC&Rs. They do not have general authority to police moving violations or safety concerns; those are matters for local law enforcement.”, “alj_quote”: “Legend Trail Community Association may only enforce public street restrictions that are contained in the CC&R Declaration… the Association does not have the authority to address any moving violations or safety concerns on the public streets.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Declaration”, “topic_tags”: [ “public streets”, “enforcement”, “jurisdiction” ] }, { “question”: “What defines a ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is proof that convinces the judge that a claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard does not require removing all doubt. It requires evidence that has superior weight and is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue 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”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are CC&Rs and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are interpreted as a whole to give effect to the underlying purpose and the intent of the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced based on the intent. The document is viewed in its entirety rather than isolating specific clauses.”, “alj_quote”: “Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.”, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “legal interpretation” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Vance Gribble (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself

Respondent Side

  • Josh Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
  • Terri Klein (witness)
    Association's Board of Directors
    President of the Association's Board of Directors

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Brian D Sopatyk v. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121065-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk Counsel Jacob A. Kubert, Esq.
Respondent Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc. Counsel Penny L. Koepke, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 1 and 3, while Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 2 because he failed to prove the Respondent's no-pet policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that screen doors are not permitted in Xanadu under CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2), and CC&R Article 7 (Architectural Committee authority) does not override this explicit prohibition.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 7

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)

Petitioner alleged violation concerning the 'no-pet' policy. The ALJ concluded that Respondent is not required to allow pets, but may allow them with Board approval, and the Petitioner did not establish that the policy was arbitrarily or unreasonably applied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Alleged violation of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

The ALJ concluded that the marquee is common area, and the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for its use. Furthermore, there was no evidence the $50 assessment complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5 (special assessment requirements).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of CC&R Article 6 § 2(a) going forward.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • A.R.S. § 12-548

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Condominium, CC&R Violation, Assessment Dispute, Architectural Control, Pet Policy, Statute of Limitations Defense
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 12-548
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2)
  • CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)
  • CC&R Article 6 § 5
  • CC&R Article 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913797.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:10 (41.8 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 913859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:13 (5.9 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:16 (100.1 KB)

21F-H2121065-REL Decision – 921823.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:19 (112.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board or Architectural Committee authorize an improvement (like a screen door) if the CC&Rs explicitly ban it?

Short Answer

No. The Board cannot use its general approval powers to override specific prohibitions in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if an Architectural Committee has the authority to approve improvements, they cannot authorize items that are specifically prohibited by other sections of the CC&Rs. Doing so would render the specific prohibition meaningless.

Alj Quote

If Respondent were permitted to authorize the installation of screen doors through the approval of the Architectural Committee, the bar in CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) would have no meaning.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Control
  • Board Authority
  • CC&R Interpretation

Question

If the CC&Rs say pets are allowed 'with Board permission,' does the Board have to let me have a pet?

Short Answer

No. The Board has discretion to deny permission.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that animals are not allowed without express permission, the Board is not required to grant that permission. As long as the Board has consistently prohibited pets and not acted arbitrarily, they can enforce a no-pet policy.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent is not required, but may allow pets with the Board’s approval… Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has arbitrarily or unreasonably applied CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1).

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Pets
  • Rules Enforcement

Question

Can the HOA charge a 'rental fee' or separate assessment to specific owners for the use or repair of a common area structure?

Short Answer

Not usually. Common area maintenance should be paid from general reserve funds or regular assessments.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot arbitrarily charge a 'rental fee' or specific assessment for a common area amenity (like a marquee sign) if the CC&Rs require common area improvements to be funded by the reserve fund or regular assessments.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the marquee is a part of the common area of Xanadu and therefore, the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a), to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for the use of the marquee.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Common Areas
  • Financials

Question

Is there a statute of limitations for filing a petition against my HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No.

Detailed Answer

The statute of limitations that applies to debts (A.R.S. § 12-548) does not apply to ADRE petitions because they are not actions for debt. The Department itself does not have statute of limitations provisions.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 12-548 is inapplicable to the petition filed in this matter because the statute applies to actions for debt evidenced by a contract in writing. The petition does not relate to a debt and furthermore, the Department does not have any statute of limitations provisions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 12-548 (distinguished)

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Statute of Limitations

Question

Can the HOA levy a special assessment for repairs without a vote of the members?

Short Answer

No, not if the CC&Rs require a member vote.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs stipulate that special assessments for capital improvements require the assent of a certain percentage of voters (e.g., 2/3), the HOA cannot impose the cost without holding that vote.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at hearing that the $50 assessment was imposed that complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 5

Topic Tags

  • Special Assessments
  • Voting

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the prevailing party for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

How are conflicts or ambiguities in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are construed as a whole to determine the underlying purpose.

Detailed Answer

Restrictive covenants are interpreted by looking at the document as a whole to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Common Law Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title
Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board or Architectural Committee authorize an improvement (like a screen door) if the CC&Rs explicitly ban it?

Short Answer

No. The Board cannot use its general approval powers to override specific prohibitions in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if an Architectural Committee has the authority to approve improvements, they cannot authorize items that are specifically prohibited by other sections of the CC&Rs. Doing so would render the specific prohibition meaningless.

Alj Quote

If Respondent were permitted to authorize the installation of screen doors through the approval of the Architectural Committee, the bar in CC&R Article 2 § 3(a)(2) would have no meaning.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Control
  • Board Authority
  • CC&R Interpretation

Question

If the CC&Rs say pets are allowed 'with Board permission,' does the Board have to let me have a pet?

Short Answer

No. The Board has discretion to deny permission.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that animals are not allowed without express permission, the Board is not required to grant that permission. As long as the Board has consistently prohibited pets and not acted arbitrarily, they can enforce a no-pet policy.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent is not required, but may allow pets with the Board’s approval… Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent has arbitrarily or unreasonably applied CC&R Article 3 § 3(d)(1).

Legal Basis

Board Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Pets
  • Rules Enforcement

Question

Can the HOA charge a 'rental fee' or separate assessment to specific owners for the use or repair of a common area structure?

Short Answer

Not usually. Common area maintenance should be paid from general reserve funds or regular assessments.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot arbitrarily charge a 'rental fee' or specific assessment for a common area amenity (like a marquee sign) if the CC&Rs require common area improvements to be funded by the reserve fund or regular assessments.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the marquee is a part of the common area of Xanadu and therefore, the Association was not authorized under CC&R Article 6 § 2(a), to charge a separate assessment or rental fee for the use of the marquee.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 2(a)

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Common Areas
  • Financials

Question

Is there a statute of limitations for filing a petition against my HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

Short Answer

No.

Detailed Answer

The statute of limitations that applies to debts (A.R.S. § 12-548) does not apply to ADRE petitions because they are not actions for debt. The Department itself does not have statute of limitations provisions.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 12-548 is inapplicable to the petition filed in this matter because the statute applies to actions for debt evidenced by a contract in writing. The petition does not relate to a debt and furthermore, the Department does not have any statute of limitations provisions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 12-548 (distinguished)

Topic Tags

  • Procedure
  • Statute of Limitations

Question

Can the HOA levy a special assessment for repairs without a vote of the members?

Short Answer

No, not if the CC&Rs require a member vote.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs stipulate that special assessments for capital improvements require the assent of a certain percentage of voters (e.g., 2/3), the HOA cannot impose the cost without holding that vote.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at hearing that the $50 assessment was imposed that complied with CC&R Article 6 § 5.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 6 § 5

Topic Tags

  • Special Assessments
  • Voting

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the prevailing party for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

How are conflicts or ambiguities in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are construed as a whole to determine the underlying purpose.

Detailed Answer

Restrictive covenants are interpreted by looking at the document as a whole to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Common Law Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • CC&R Interpretation

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121065-REL
Case Title
Brian D. Sopatyk vs. Xanadu Lake Resort Condominium, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian D. Sopatyk (petitioner)
    Unit Owner
  • Jacob A. Kubert (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Penny L. Koepke (respondent attorney)
    Maxwell Morgan PC

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (clerk/staff)
    Transmitting agent mentioned in distribution list

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Posted on by

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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 915454.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:07:00 (133.6 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:29 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:29 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:30 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:30 (66.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121058-REL


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


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


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
    Vice President of the Board
  • Mexal (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as President in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Sarah Linkey (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Treasurer in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Hallett (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Director in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on subsequent transmissions
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    OAH/ADRE
    Issued order regarding Petitioner's filing
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda A. (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents

Other Participants

  • Petra Paul (managing agent/witness)
    Planned Development Services (PDS)
    Testified regarding PDS's role with Respondent's election
  • Lori Rutledge (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list
  • Brandee Abraham (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list

Lee & Kim Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lee & Kim Edwards Counsel Terry Foster, Esq.
Respondent Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1255, ruling that the statute was inapplicable due to the specific provisions in the Declaration regarding the 1/26 assessment calculation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the ALJ determined A.R.S. § 33-1255 was superseded by the Declaration, which mandated assessments based on the undivided 1/26 interest in the common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment calculation based on undivided interest in common areas

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to change assessments from a historical square footage basis to a 1/26 interest calculation, arguing that this method violates A.R.S. § 33-1255 by charging for limited common elements (patios/parking).

Orders: The petition of Lee & Kim Edwards is dismissed; Respondent is deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • Declaration Article I, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 5
  • Declaration Article II, Section 7
  • Declaration Article IV, Section 4
  • Declaration Article VI, Section 9

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, assessment, cc&r, statutory interpretation, common elements, limited common elements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1255
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – 899379.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:25 (123.6 KB)

21F-H2120028-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120028-REL/856603.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:31 (98.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


Assessment Methodology Dispute: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowners Lee & Kim Edwards (Petitioners) and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association (Respondent) concerning a change in the methodology for calculating homeowner assessments. The core of the conflict was the Association’s decision to shift from a historical practice of assessments based on unit square footage to a uniform rate where each of the 26 units pays an equal 1/26 share of the common expenses.

The dispute was adjudicated by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in two separate hearings. In both instances, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petitions filed by the Edwards.

Key Takeaways:

• Change in Methodology: The Association’s Board, acting on legal advice received in January 2020, concluded that its 40-year practice of using a square-footage-based assessment violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Board subsequently implemented a 1/26 equal-share assessment method after a majority of homeowners selected this option.

• Initial Ruling on “Uniform Rate”: In the first hearing in February 2021, the Petitioners argued that the historical square footage method was a “uniform rate” and that the Association had waived its right to change the long-standing practice. The ALJ rejected this, finding that the new 1/26 rate complied with the CC&Rs’ requirement for a “uniform rate” (Article VI, Section 9) and aligned with each unit’s specified 1/26 undivided interest in the common elements (Article VI, Section 4(d)).

• Rehearing Ruling on State Statute: The Petitioners were granted a rehearing in July 2021, where they argued that the 1/26 method violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1255 by improperly charging all owners for “limited common elements” like patios and parking spaces. The ALJ again ruled against the Petitioners, concluding that the state statute did not apply. The ruling was based on a key provision in the statute: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” The judge found that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise by defining patios and parking as general common elements and explicitly mandating that costs be shared based on each unit’s 1/26 interest.

• Final Outcome: The petition was definitively dismissed after the rehearing, making the ALJ’s order binding. The Association’s adoption of the 1/26 assessment rate was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Background of the Dispute

The legal conflict originated from a single-issue petition filed on November 20, 2020, by Lee and Kim Edwards, owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development. The petition, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleged that the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically Article VI, Section 9, and Article IV, Section 1.

The central issue was the Association Board’s decision to change the long-standing method of calculating homeowner assessments. For over 40 years, assessments had been based on the square footage of each unit. In 2020, the Board implemented a new system where the Association’s annual budget was divided equally among the 26 units, with each owner paying a 1/26 share. The Petitioners sought to enforce the historical calculation method unless and until the CC&Rs were properly amended.

Chronology of the Assessment Change

• Historical Practice: For more than four decades, the Association calculated and charged member assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit.

• Legal Consultation (January 2020): Two members of the Association’s Board consulted with an attorney regarding the legality of the historical assessment method.

• Attorney Recommendation (January 24, 2020): The attorney advised the Association that, to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs, it should calculate assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas. The attorney’s letter stated:

• Homeowner Consultation: Following the legal advice, the Board informed homeowners that the prior square-footage method violated the CC&Rs. The Board sought input on three potential assessment methods: the 1/26 rate, a variable blended rate, or continuing with the square footage rate. A majority of homeowners selected the 1/26 rate. The Board noted that any method other than the 1/26 rate would require a formal amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Implementation (September 26, 2020): The Board officially notified homeowners that it would begin charging assessments based on the 1/26 rate and that an amendment to the CC&Rs was not necessary to implement this change.

Initial Hearing and Decision (February 2021)

An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (Edwards)

1. The historical square footage rate qualified as a “uniform rate” and was compliant with the CC&Rs.
2. By using the square footage rate for over 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different method like the 1/26 rate.

Respondent (Association)

1. The plain language of the CC&Rs requires that each homeowner pay an assessment based on the 1/26 rate.
2. It is not legally possible to waive a mandatory CC&R requirement through past practice.

On February 19, 2021, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition. The judge’s conclusions of law were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs:

• Uniform Rate Compliance: The ALJ determined that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed that the Association’s 1/26 rate was a uniform rate that complied with Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove that the Association had violated its governing documents.

• Outcome: The Association was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing and Final Decision (July 2021)

The Petitioners filed a request for a rehearing on March 30, 2021, which was granted. The rehearing was held on July 8, 2021. The Respondent did not appear at this hearing, as its counsel had withdrawn from representation without formally notifying the tribunal.

In the rehearing, the Petitioners introduced a new argument, alleging that the 1/26 assessment method violated Arizona state law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1255.

• The core of this argument was that the 1/26 rate improperly included charges for “limited common elements,” such as patios and assigned parking spaces.

• The Petitioners contended that this forced all homeowners to pay for the maintenance of elements that were assigned to and benefited fewer than all units, in direct violation of the statute.

On July 28, 2021, the ALJ issued a final decision, once again dismissing the petition. The ruling hinged on the precise wording of both the state statute and the Association’s Declaration.

• Applicability of A.R.S. § 33-1255: The judge found that the statute did not apply to this matter. The relevant section of the law, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), begins with the critical phrase: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

• Supremacy of the Declaration: The ALJ concluded that the Association’s Declaration did provide otherwise. The CC&Rs explicitly:

◦ Define “Common Elements” broadly to include patios and parking areas (Article I, Section 3).

◦ Establish that each unit has an “undivided interest in the general common areas” of 1/26 (Article I, Section 5).

◦ Mandate that each unit’s share of costs for repair and maintenance of common areas is the “same as its undivided interest in the common elements” (Article IV, Section 4(d)).

• Final Outcome: Because the Declaration’s specific provisions overrode the general terms of the state statute, the Association was found to be in compliance. The petition was dismissed, and the order was deemed binding on the parties.

Key Legal Principles and Definitions

Concept

Definition / Application in Case

Burden of Proof

The Petitioners were required to establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Preponderance of the Evidence

Defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The ALJ found the Petitioners failed to meet this standard in both hearings.

Restrictive Covenants

Arizona law requires that unambiguous restrictive covenants be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent and be interpreted as a whole. The ALJ’s decisions were based on a direct interpretation of the CC&Rs’ language.

Common Elements (per CC&Rs)

A broad definition including multifamily structures, land, roofs, ceilings, foundations, storage spaces, patios, parking areas, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and conduits.

Unit (per CC&Rs)

A freehold estate consisting of the interior space of an apartment. The definition explicitly states that common elements are not part of the unit.

Undivided Interest (per CC&Rs)

Article I, Section 5 clearly establishes that “The undivided interest in the general common areas… which shall be conveyed with each respective units shall be 1/26.” This provision was central to the final ruling.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Edwards v. Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Lee & Kim Edwards and the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association, based on the provided legal decisions. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a detailed glossary of key terms.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central conflict between the Petitioners (Lee & Kim Edwards) and the Respondent (Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association)?

2. For over 40 years, how did the Association historically calculate assessments for homeowners?

3. What specific event in January 2020 prompted the Association’s Board to change the assessment method?

4. In the first hearing on February 9, 2021, what were the two main arguments presented by Mr. Edwards?

5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the “uniform rate” requirement from CC&Rs Article VI, Section 9 in the initial decision?

6. Upon what new legal grounds did the Petitioners base their March 30, 2021, request for a re-hearing?

7. According to the CC&Rs, what is the defined undivided interest in the general common areas for each unit?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately conclude that Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255 did not apply in this case?

9. What legal standard of proof did the Petitioners need to meet to successfully prove their case?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the re-hearing held on July 8, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The central conflict concerned the method for calculating homeowner assessments. The Petitioners argued for the historical method based on unit square footage, while the Respondent implemented a new method where each of the 26 units paid an equal share (1/26 rate) of the Association’s costs.

2. For over 40 years, the Association historically calculated assessments based on the square footage of each condominium unit. This practice was changed by the Board in 2020.

3. In January 2020, two Board members met with an attorney who advised that to comply with the CC&Rs, the Association should charge assessments based on each homeowner’s 1/26 interest in the common areas, not on square footage.

4. Mr. Edwards argued that the historical square footage rate was a “uniform rate” that complied with the CC&Rs. He also contended that by using this method for 40 years, the Association had waived its right to enforce a different assessment method like the 1/26 rate.

5. The Judge concluded that the Respondent’s assessment method, based on a uniform rate of 1/26 of the Association’s costs for each unit, did comply with Article VI, Section 9. Therefore, the Petitioners failed to prove the Association had violated the CC&Rs.

6. The Petitioners based their request for a re-hearing on the new allegation that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1255. They argued the 1/26 rate improperly required members to pay for limited common elements, such as patios and parking spaces, not assigned to them.

7. According to Article I, Section 5 of the Declaration (CC&Rs), the undivided interest in the general common areas established and conveyed with each respective unit is 1/26.

8. The Judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1255 did not apply because the statute itself contains an exception: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” In this case, the Association’s Declaration explicitly required that each member be charged an assessment equivalent to their 1/26 interest in the total costs, which included patios and parking areas.

9. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

10. Following the re-hearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ordered that the petition of Lee & Kim Edwards be dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party, and the order was declared binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Answers are not provided.

1. Trace the evolution of the Petitioners’ legal strategy from the initial petition filed on November 20, 2020, to the arguments made during the re-hearing on July 8, 2021. How did their core arguments change, and what new evidence or legal statutes were introduced?

2. Analyze the concept of a “uniform rate” as required by Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs. Discuss how both the Petitioners and the Respondent interpreted this phrase to support their respective assessment methods (square footage vs. 1/26 rate).

3. Explain in detail the role of A.R.S. § 33-1255 in the re-hearing. Why did the Petitioners believe it supported their case, and what specific language in both the statute and the Association’s Declaration led the Administrative Law Judge to rule that it did not apply?

4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Association’s Board of Directors in 2020. Consider their consultation with an attorney, their communication with homeowners, and their final decision to implement the 1/26 rate. Discuss whether these actions were consistent with the powers and obligations outlined in the CC&Rs.

5. Discuss the legal argument of “waiver” raised by Mr. Edwards in the first hearing. Explain what he meant by this and why the Association’s 40-year history of using a square-footage-based assessment was central to this claim. Why did this argument ultimately fail?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

1/26 Rate

The assessment method where the Association’s annual budget is divided 26 ways, with each unit responsible for paying an equal portion. This is based on each unit’s 1/26 undivided interest in the common areas as specified in the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The independent judicial officer who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits a condominium unit owner to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the Condominium Act.

A.R.S. § 33-1255

The Arizona Revised Statute concerning common expenses. It states that unless the declaration provides otherwise, expenses for a limited common element shall be assessed against the units to which it is assigned, and expenses benefitting fewer than all units shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of condominium associations in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to establish its claims by a required standard of evidence. In this case, the Petitioners bore the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. Also referred to as the “Declaration” in the provided documents.

Common Area / Common Elements

As defined in Article I, Section 3 of the CC&Rs, this includes the multifamily structure (except for the units), land, air space, bearing walls, roofs, storage spaces, patios, recreational facilities, lawns, pipes, and other premises designed for common use.

Declaration

Another term for the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Lee & Kim Edwards

The Petitioners in the case and owners of unit 6937 in the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium development.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for evidentiary hearings.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Lee & Kim Edwards.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to be met by the Petitioners. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association.

Restricted Common Area

As defined in Article I, Section 3(b) of the CC&Rs, this refers to a separately designed and exclusive parking area for each unit as assigned by the Board of Directors.

Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development.

Square Footage Rate

The historical method of calculating assessments for over 40 years, where each unit’s assessment was based on its square footage.

Uniform Rate

A requirement from Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs that states both regular and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units. The interpretation of this term was central to the dispute.

As defined in Article I, Section 4 of the CC&Rs, a separately designated freehold estate consisting of the space bounded by the interior surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and floors of each apartment. It does not include common elements.

Waiver

A legal argument made by the Petitioners that because the Association had charged assessments based on square footage for 40 years, it had relinquished or “waived” its right to enforce a different method.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120028-REL-RHG


4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit That Could Upend How You See Your Fees

Introduction: The 40-Year Mistake

If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA), you likely operate under a simple assumption: the way things have always been done is the correct and legal way. Monthly fees, maintenance schedules, and community rules that have been in place for decades feel permanent and unassailable. But what if they aren’t?

This was the central question in the case of Lee & Kim Edwards versus the Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association. For over 40 years, the Association calculated homeowner fees based on the square footage of each unit—a practice that seemed fair and logical, and one that was never questioned by residents.

Then came the twist. In January 2020, after consulting with an attorney, the HOA board announced a shocking revelation: their 40-year-old assessment method was a direct violation of the community’s own governing documents. The board presented the legal findings to the community and sought their input on how to proceed. After being given the choice between the old method, a blended rate, or a new flat-rate fee that complied with the rules, most homeowners voted for the compliant flat-rate system for every single unit, regardless of its size.

Homeowners sued to keep the old method, sparking a legal battle that went all the way to an administrative court. The resulting decisions offer surprising and crucial lessons for every homeowner paying HOA dues. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from the case that could change how you view your own community’s rules.

1. “Past Practice” Means Nothing if It Violates the Rules

The primary argument made by the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, was that the Association had “waived its right” to change the assessment method. After all, by using the square-footage calculation for four decades, hadn’t they established an unbreakable precedent? It seemed like a common-sense argument rooted in history and consistency.

The court, however, completely rejected this line of reasoning. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was not based on historical practice but on the clear, written rules found in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association argued that it’s “not possible to waive the CC&R requirement,” and the court agreed.

The Lesson: This case powerfully demonstrates that tradition or “how things have always been done” cannot override the explicit language of an HOA’s governing documents. The CC&Rs are a contract. The lesson is clear: if your HOA’s practice contradicts its documents, the practice is invalid. The board has a fiduciary duty to follow the written rules, not a 40-year-old mistake.

2. Your CC&Rs Are a Binding Contract—Read Them

Throughout the legal proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently referred back to the specific text of the CC&Rs to make a final decision. The entire case ultimately hinged on the interpretation of a few key sentences written decades ago.

The most critical passage, which decided the outcome, was from Article VI, Section 4(d) of the community’s governing documents:

“Each unit’s share shall be the same as its undivided interest in the common elements of the total amount determined under the subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.” —Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association CC&Rs, Article VI, Section 4(d)

This single sentence was the linchpin. It explicitly linked each unit’s assessment share to its “undivided interest in the common elements.” Another section of the document, Article I, Section 5, had already established that interest as an equal 1/26 for all 26 units.

The Lesson: This is a classic example of legal cross-referencing in a contract. Section 4(d) provided the instruction (base fees on “undivided interest”), while Article I, Section 5 provided the specific value (1/26). With both parts present and unambiguous, the court had no choice but to enforce them exactly as written, leaving no room for interpretations based on fairness or history. The contract was the contract.

3. A “Uniform Rate” Might Not Mean What You Think

One of the central points of contention was the term “uniform rate.” Article VI, Section 9 of the CC&Rs required that all assessments “must be fixed at a uniform rate for all units.”

The homeowners argued that the square footage rate was, in fact, a “uniform rate”—a consistent price per square foot applied to every unit. It’s an interpretation many of us might find reasonable.

However, the HOA Board and the court had a different interpretation. The judge found that the flat 1/26 rate was the correct interpretation of a “uniform rate” because it was uniformly applied to every unit’s established 1/26 interest in the common areas. In the court’s view, the “rate” being applied uniformly was the 1/26 fraction of the total budget. The fact that this resulted in different dollar amounts for square-footage fees was irrelevant; the legal share was what had to be uniform.

The Lesson: Common-sense terms like “uniform” can have very specific legal meanings within the context of your governing documents. The true definition is found not in a dictionary, but in how the term is defined and applied by the rest of the document’s provisions.

4. Your HOA’s Rules Can Sometimes Override State Law

In a final attempt to overturn the decision, the petitioners filed for a re-hearing. This time, they cited a specific Arizona state law, A.R.S. 33-1255. This statute says that expenses for “limited common elements”—things like assigned patios or parking spaces that only benefit specific units—should be assessed only against those units that benefit from them. The homeowners argued that the new 1/26 flat fee unfairly forced them to pay for their neighbors’ patios and parking spots, a direct violation of state law.

Surprisingly, this argument also failed. The reason is found in the crucial introductory clause of the state law itself: “Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration…”

Because the Scottsdale Embassy’s Declaration did provide otherwise—by explicitly rolling all general and restricted common area costs into the total budget before calculating each unit’s 1/26 share—the community’s own rules legally superseded the default state statute. The judge concluded that the state law “does not apply to this matter because the Declaration requires” a different method.

The Lesson: This is perhaps the most counter-intuitive lesson of all. This demonstrates a key principle of contract law and planned community governance: state statutes often provide a “default” rule for situations a community’s documents don’t address. However, they also grant communities the power to create their own specific rules, which, if legally permissible, will take precedence. Homeowners cannot assume that a state law automatically protects them if their community’s own governing documents have a more specific rule in place.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What You Agreed To?

The central message from the Scottsdale Embassy case is undeniable: in an HOA, the written word is law. The CC&Rs and other governing documents are a binding contract that dictates the rules, regardless of 40 years of history, common-sense assumptions, or even some default state laws. What you believe is fair or standard practice is irrelevant if the document you agreed to upon purchase says otherwise.

This case was decided by a few sentences written decades ago. When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents from cover to cover?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lee Edwards (petitioner, witness)
  • Kim Edwards (petitioner)
  • Teresa H. Foster (petitioner attorney)
    Ellis & Baker, P.C.
    Also referred to as Terri Foster and Terry Foster

Respondent Side

  • Lauren Vie (respondent attorney)
    Appeared for initial hearing; withdrew prior to rehearing
  • Caleb Koch (board member, witness)
    Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
    Board President
  • Mary Edinburgh (board member, witness)
    Scottsdale Embassy Condominium Association
  • Beth Mulcahy (respondent attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Withdrew prior to rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Listed in transmission records for Petitioner's counsel

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Bridge Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • 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. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 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

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 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

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Smith (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Christa Smith (witness)
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Amber Martin (community manager)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Also testified as a witness
  • Jim Rayment (ARC Chair)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
  • Mr. Riggs (HOA President)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Petitioner's backyard neighbor

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission

Carla J Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-07
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carla J. Snyder Counsel —
Respondent Las Hadas Villas Association Counsel David Potts

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 14.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated CC&R 14.2. The evidence demonstrated that the damages occurred in an exclusive use area that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining, and that the HOA had adequately maintained the roof.

Why this result: The damage was located on a patio/pergola which under CC&R 14.1 is an exclusive use area for which the homeowner holds maintenance responsibility, not the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Association's Responsibility

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R 14.2 by failing to repair and take responsibility for $11,476.00 in damages resulting from an improperly constructed roof without flashing.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

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)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

21F-H2121032-REL Decision – 870534.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:48 (121.6 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the requested legal hearing:

**Case Title**: *Carla J. Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association* (No. 21F-H2121032-REL)

**Key Facts & Main Issue**
Petitioner Carla J. Snyder filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Las Hadas Villas Association (Respondent), alleging a violation of Section 14.2 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on $11,476 in water damage and mold remediation costs incurred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that the damage was caused by a construction flaw—specifically, a lack of flashing on the roof—and asserted that the roof was the Homeowners Association's (HOA) responsibility to maintain and repair.

**Hearing Proceedings & Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Arguments:** The Petitioner presented testimony from a general contractor who stated that the absence of roof flashing allowed water to permeate the garage and patio, classifying it as a design flaw. The Petitioner explicitly sought a "finding of negligence" against the HOA regarding the roof's construction to aid in a future civil lawsuit.
* **Respondent’s Arguments:** The HOA argued that a finding of negligence was outside the statutory purview of the administrative hearing. Relying on Section 14.1 of the CC&Rs, the Respondent noted that while the HOA is responsible for the roof, the homeowner is strictly responsible for "exclusive use" areas, which include patios and pergolas. The HOA provided maintenance logs showing the roof was repaired and fitted with proper flashing in 2015, as well as an independent 2019 inspection confirming the roof underlayment was in good condition and that the leak was an "old issue". Furthermore, the Respondent presented evidence that the unit's previous owner had experienced pergola damage but refused to replace the rotted wood, instead hiring a contractor to simply cover the rot with stucco.

**Most Important Legal Points**
* **Burden of Proof:** Under Arizona law, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged CC&R violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
* **Interpretation of CC&Rs:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) utilized a plain reading of the CC&Rs, confirming that the patio and pergola are subject to the homeowner

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carla J. Snyder (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Ray Odom (witness)
    General contractor who performed mold remediation and drywall repairs
  • Dr. John Gilderbloom (witness)
    University of Louisville
    Professor and Petitioner's fiancé

Respondent Side

  • David Potts (HOA attorney)
    Las Hadas Villas Association
  • Tonia Reynolds (property manager)
    Las Hadas Villas Association
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tom Reynolds (witness)
    99 Home Improvements
    Lead for 99 Home Improvements; provided an affidavit
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate