Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Travis Prall
Counsel
—
Respondent
Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association
Counsel
Lydia Pierce Linsmeier
Alleged Violations
Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.
Key Issues & Findings
Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
This briefing synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Travis Prall (Petitioner) and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping—specifically a large tree—in his backyard, which he contended was a “Public Yard” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The dispute culminated in two separate rulings by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), one in September 2018 and another following a rehearing in January 2019. In both instances, the petition was dismissed.
The central issue did not turn on the ambiguous definition of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in the CC&Rs, a point of significant debate between the parties. Instead, the case was decided on a critical qualifying phrase in the governing documents: the HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 is limited to landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant” (the original developer).
The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the tree in question was installed by the developer. In the initial hearing, this conclusion was based on inference. In the rehearing, the HOA presented credible witness testimony from a board member involved in the community’s initial sales, who stated that all homes were sold with no landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.” The ALJ found this to be the only credible evidence on the matter, leading to the final dismissal of the case.
Case Overview
Case Name
Travis Prall (Petitioner) vs. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA (Respondent)
Case Number
18F-H1818053-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.”
Factual Background and Timeline
The dispute is centered within the Villas at Tierra Buena, a gated community comprising 43 homes on the outer perimeter with tall block fences and 19 interior homes with four-foot-tall walls (two feet of block with a two-foot aluminum fence on top). The Petitioner owns one of these interior homes.
• 2010: Travis Prall purchases his home. He believes, based on his reading of the CC&Rs, that the HOA is responsible for maintaining both his front and back yards. A large tree is present in the backyard at the time of purchase.
• 2010–2013: Prall testifies that the HOA provided landscaping maintenance to his front and back yards during this period. The HOA denies ever providing maintenance to any backyards in the community.
• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over the tree in Prall’s backyard. Prall pays for its removal but asserts at the time that it was the HOA’s responsibility.
• Post-2014: The tree regrows from the remaining stump.
• 2018: The HOA observes that the “pony wall” near the regrown tree is buckling. A repair company, Sun King Fencing & Gates, confirms “the reason the pony wall buckled was the tree roots in the area” and recommends the tree’s removal.
• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to Prall, stating, “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”
• June 4, 2018: Prall files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 4, 2018: The initial administrative hearing is held.
• September 24, 2018: The ALJ issues a decision dismissing the petition.
• Post-September 2018: Prall’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• January 11, 2019: The rehearing is conducted.
• January 31, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
Central Point of Contention: Interpretation of CC&Rs
The primary disagreement focused on whether the Petitioner’s enclosed but visible backyard constituted a “Public Yard” or a “Private Yard” under the CC&Rs. The HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 applies only to Public Yards.
Relevant CC&R Sections
Section
Language
Respondent must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…” (Emphasis added)
“‘Private Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. ‘Public Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
“‘Visible from Neighboring Property’ means, with respect to any given object, that such object is or would be visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…”
Competing Interpretations
• Petitioner’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” only if it is both enclosed/shielded AND not generally visible. Because his backyard is enclosed but visible through the four-foot wall/fence, he argued it qualifies as a “Public Yard” that the HOA must maintain.
• Respondent’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” if it is either enclosed or shielded from view. Because the Petitioner’s backyard is enclosed, it is a Private Yard, and the HOA has no maintenance responsibility.
While the ALJ acknowledged that “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards,” she explicitly stated that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.” The case was decided on other grounds.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)
• Argued that the HOA performed backyard maintenance from 2010 to 2013, establishing a precedent.
• Posited that the large size of the tree when he bought the home in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer.
• Suggested that the presence of just two types of irrigation systems across the community, accessible from the front, implied a uniform developer installation for both front and back yards.
• Noted that his backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together by the developer.
Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)
• Denied ever providing landscaping maintenance to any backyards, stating it only controls front yard irrigation and sprinkler systems.
• Raised liability concerns about maintenance workers entering residents’ enclosed backyards where pets could escape.
• Presented critical testimony from Board President Maureen Karpinski during the rehearing. Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent who was involved with the community’s development and sales from 2002, stated that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The ALJ’s rulings in both hearings hinged on the specific requirement in Section 7.1.4 that the landscaping must have been “originally installed by Declarant.”
Initial Hearing Decision (September 24, 2018)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The Petitioner failed to present evidence that the tree was installed by the developer. The ALJ noted that the tree had regrown to a significant height in approximately five years after being cut down in 2014. From this, she concluded that “it cannot be concluded that the tree in the photograph from 2010 was planted as part of the original landscape plan around 2000.”
Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The ALJ found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “suppositions and inferences.” In contrast, she deemed the testimony of Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.” Ms. Karpinski’s statement that backyards were sold as “just dirt” directly refuted the claim that any landscaping was “originally installed by Declarant.”
• The final conclusion stated: “As there was no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant, there is no reason to conclude Respondent would be required to replace and maintain Petitioner’s back yard under the terms of Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs.”
Final Disposition
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed. The order resulting from the rehearing was final and binding on the parties. Any further appeal would require seeking judicial review in the superior court within 35 days of the order.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Travis Prall and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association, based on the legal decisions from September 2018 and January 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the dispute, arguments, and legal reasoning involved.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.
1. What specific violation of the community’s CC&Rs did the Petitioner, Travis Prall, allege in his petition?
2. What was the key physical difference between the backyards of the “interior homes” and the “exterior homes” in the Villas at Tierra Buena community?
3. What was the central point of disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the definition of a “Private Yard” versus a “Public Yard”?
4. According to Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs, what specific condition must be met for the HOA to be responsible for maintaining landscaping in a Public Yard?
5. What was the “Courtesy Letter” issued by the Respondent on May 3, 2018, and what did it request of the Petitioner?
6. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the tree in his backyard must have been installed by the original developer?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what does it mean?
8. In the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the tree was not part of the original landscape plan?
9. During the rehearing, what “credible evidence” was presented by the Respondent that refuted the Petitioner’s claims about original backyard landscaping?
10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that it was not necessary to rule on the interpretation of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in either decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner Travis Prall alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). The specific allegation was that the HOA neglected its duty for yard maintenance in visible public yards.
2. The exterior homes have six to seven-foot-tall block wall fences enclosing the backyards. The interior homes, like the Petitioner’s, have a shorter back wall, consisting of a two-foot-tall block wall topped with a two-foot-tall aluminum fence, making the backyards more visible.
3. The Petitioner argued that a yard must be both enclosed and not generally visible to be private, meaning his visible, enclosed yard was public. The Respondent argued that a yard was private if it was enclosed or shielded from view, meaning the Petitioner’s enclosed yard was private regardless of visibility.
4. According to Section 7.1.4, the HOA is required to “replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots.” This means the landscaping in question must have been part of the original developer’s installation.
5. The “Courtesy Letter” was a notice from the HOA to the Petitioner concerning the tree in his backyard. It requested that he “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall,” which had buckled due to the tree’s roots.
6. The Petitioner posited that the tree must have been installed by the developer due to its large size when he bought the home in 2010. He also noted that the backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together during original construction.
7. The Petitioner was required to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not; it is the greater weight of evidence.
8. The judge noted that after the original tree was removed in 2014, the present tree grew to a similar height in approximately five years from the remaining stump. Therefore, the judge concluded that the tree’s size in 2010 did not prove it was planted as part of the original landscape plan around the year 2000.
9. The Respondent presented the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, the Board President and a real estate agent who sold homes in the community during its development. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards and that they were “just dirt.”
10. The judge did not need to rule on the yard definition because the Petitioner first had to prove the tree was “originally installed by the Declarant” per Section 7.1.4. Since the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence for this foundational claim in both hearings, the question of whether the yard was public or private became irrelevant to the outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
These questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” and analyze how the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was the determining factor in the dismissal of his petition in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Provide a detailed analysis of the competing interpretations of “Private Yard” and “Public Yard” as defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs. Discuss the arguments made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent and explain why, despite this being a central point of contention, the final ruling did not hinge on this issue.
3. Compare the evidence presented by Travis Prall with the evidence presented by the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. How did the nature and credibility of the evidence, particularly witness testimony versus suppositions, influence the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, starting from the initial event that triggered the HOA’s notice through the final decision after the rehearing. What were the key decision points and legal options available to the parties at each stage?
5. Discuss the significance of Maureen Karpinski’s testimony in the rehearing. How did her personal and professional experience with the community’s development directly address the central weakness of the Petitioner’s case from the first hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
The judicial officer who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions, in this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,Restrictions and Easements, the legal documents that govern a planned community or HOA.
Common Area
Land within the community for the common use and enjoyment of the owners; the HOA is responsible for maintaining landscaping in these areas.
Courtesy Letter
A formal notice issued by the HOA to a resident. In this case, it was a letter dated May 3, 2018, requesting that the Petitioner trim or remove a tree causing damage to a wall.
Declarant
The original developer who installed the initial landscaping and improvements in the community.
An abbreviation for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, which was the Respondent.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Travis Prall.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Private Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property.” The interpretation of this definition was a key dispute in the case.
Public Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA.
Visible from Neighboring Property
A term defined in Section 1.37 of the CC&Rs. An object is considered visible if it can be seen by a six-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property, with a specific exception for objects visible only through a wrought iron fence.
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is “the portion of the Lot devoted to Improvements other than the Residential Dwelling.”
Blog Post – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over a Single Tree—And Lost Because of a Clause Everyone Missed
For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association is a delicate balance of rules, fees, and occasional frustrations. It’s a familiar story: a dispute arises over a seemingly minor issue, and suddenly you’re deep in the weeds of your community’s governing documents, convinced you’re in the right.
This was exactly the position of homeowner Travis Prall. He believed the rules for his community, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, clearly stated they were responsible for maintaining a troublesome tree in his backyard. Confident in his interpretation of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), he took his case to an administrative law judge.
But the outcome of his legal battle hinged not on the clause he was arguing, but on details everyone had overlooked. The way he lost—first in an initial hearing, and then decisively in a rehearing he himself requested—reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner hidden within the dense language of community documents.
The Definition You Debate Isn’t Always the One That Matters
The core of Mr. Prall’s argument was a battle of definitions. According to the CC&Rs, the HOA was responsible for maintaining “Public Yards.” The rules defined a “Public Yard” as any part of a yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property.” Even though his backyard was enclosed by a four-foot wall, it was visible to his neighbors, so he argued it qualified.
The HOA countered with its own interpretation. They pointed to the definition of a “Private Yard,” which included any yard that is “enclosed.” Since his yard was enclosed, they claimed, it was his responsibility, regardless of visibility.
The two sides were locked in a debate over these competing definitions. But in the first hearing, the judge delivered a surprising twist: the entire debate was irrelevant. The judge acknowledged that Prall’s reading of the rules might even be plausible but declared that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue.” Why? Because Prall had failed to clear an even more fundamental hurdle first. The judge found that Prall had “failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant,” a fatal flaw that sidestepped his primary argument entirely.
“While the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes even if that is contrary to the intention of the drafters of the CC&Rs, the tribunal is not required to reach that issue in this matter.”
Prall had lost the first round not because his interpretation was wrong, but because he hadn’t proven his case on a different, more critical point.
It All Comes Down to “As Originally Installed”
Unsatisfied with the outcome, Prall requested and was granted a rehearing—a second chance to make his case. But this second chance also gave the HOA an opportunity to sharpen its defense, and it zeroed in on the exact clause that had decided the first hearing.
The case was ultimately decided by Section 7.1.4. This clause stated the HOA was only responsible for landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant”—a legal term for the original developer of the community.
This single phrase shifted the entire focus of the dispute. The question was no longer about “Public vs. Private” yards, but about the historical fact of what the developer had installed when the homes were first built around the year 2000.
At the rehearing, the HOA introduced the knockout blow: the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, an early resident and real estate agent who had sold homes in the community during its construction. She testified that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping in the backyards. Her exact description was that the yards were “just dirt.”
The judge found this to be the “only credible evidence offered.” It completely undermined Prall’s case. If the developer never installed any landscaping in the backyards, there was no “original” landscaping for the HOA to maintain. Their responsibility under the governing documents was zero.
“Suppositions and Inferences” Aren’t Enough
In any formal dispute, the person making a claim has the “burden of proof.” Mr. Prall needed to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” a legal standard meaning it was more likely true than not.
He tried to meet this burden with logical arguments. He “posited that, given the size of the tree” in a 2010 photograph, it must have been planted when the home was built. He added that the “sprinkler system in his back yard wrapped around the tree as further evidence” that they were installed together by the developer.
But these deductions failed to convince the judge. In the final decision after the rehearing, these arguments were dismissed as the petitioner’s “suppositions and inferences.”
This stands in stark contrast to the HOA’s evidence. While Prall offered logical conclusions, the HOA offered direct testimony from someone who was there at the beginning. This case underscores a fundamental legal truth: personal belief and common-sense deductions are no substitute for verifiable facts and credible, first-hand testimony.
The Final Word is in the Fine Print
This homeowner’s fight over a single tree serves as a powerful cautionary tale. He built a logical case based on his interpretation of a key definition, only to lose because of a clause and a historical fact he hadn’t sufficiently proven.
The lessons are clear. Winning a dispute requires understanding every relevant clause in the governing documents, not just the one that seems most obvious. It requires acknowledging that the history of the community can be more powerful than a present-day interpretation of the rules. And most importantly, it requires presenting concrete proof, not just strong beliefs.
For any homeowner in an HOA, this story poses a crucial question: When was the last time you read your HOA’s documents from start to finish, and what hidden details might be waiting for you?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Travis Prall(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Maureen Karpinski(board member) President of the Board; witness
Frank Peake(property manager) Pride Community Management Witness; Owner of Pride Community Management
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Travis Prall
Counsel
—
Respondent
Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
Counsel
Lydia Pierce Linsmeier
Alleged Violations
CC&R Section 7.1.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition following a rehearing, finding the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated the CC&Rs (Section 7.1.4) by neglecting yard maintenance, specifically because the homeowner did not provide credible evidence that the landscaping at issue was 'originally installed by Declarant'.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that the landscaping/tree in question was 'originally installed by Declarant', which was necessary to trigger the Respondent's maintenance obligation under CC&R Section 7.1.4.
Key Issues & Findings
The Petitioner alleges that the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowner’s Association (Respondent) violated the Association’s CC&R’s Article 7.1 by neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.
Petitioner asserted the HOA was responsible for the maintenance and replacement of landscaping, specifically a tree, in his back yard under CC&R Section 7.1.4, claiming it was a Public Yard and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant. The HOA denied responsibility.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA maintenance responsibility, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, originally installed by declarant, public yard vs private yard, rehearing
This briefing synthesizes the findings from two administrative law hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Travis Prall (Petitioner) and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s allegation that the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping—specifically a large tree—in his backyard, which he contended was a “Public Yard” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The dispute culminated in two separate rulings by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), one in September 2018 and another following a rehearing in January 2019. In both instances, the petition was dismissed.
The central issue did not turn on the ambiguous definition of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in the CC&Rs, a point of significant debate between the parties. Instead, the case was decided on a critical qualifying phrase in the governing documents: the HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 is limited to landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant” (the original developer).
The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the tree in question was installed by the developer. In the initial hearing, this conclusion was based on inference. In the rehearing, the HOA presented credible witness testimony from a board member involved in the community’s initial sales, who stated that all homes were sold with no landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.” The ALJ found this to be the only credible evidence on the matter, leading to the final dismissal of the case.
Case Overview
Case Name
Travis Prall (Petitioner) vs. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA (Respondent)
Case Number
18F-H1818053-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.”
Factual Background and Timeline
The dispute is centered within the Villas at Tierra Buena, a gated community comprising 43 homes on the outer perimeter with tall block fences and 19 interior homes with four-foot-tall walls (two feet of block with a two-foot aluminum fence on top). The Petitioner owns one of these interior homes.
• 2010: Travis Prall purchases his home. He believes, based on his reading of the CC&Rs, that the HOA is responsible for maintaining both his front and back yards. A large tree is present in the backyard at the time of purchase.
• 2010–2013: Prall testifies that the HOA provided landscaping maintenance to his front and back yards during this period. The HOA denies ever providing maintenance to any backyards in the community.
• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over the tree in Prall’s backyard. Prall pays for its removal but asserts at the time that it was the HOA’s responsibility.
• Post-2014: The tree regrows from the remaining stump.
• 2018: The HOA observes that the “pony wall” near the regrown tree is buckling. A repair company, Sun King Fencing & Gates, confirms “the reason the pony wall buckled was the tree roots in the area” and recommends the tree’s removal.
• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to Prall, stating, “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”
• June 4, 2018: Prall files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• September 4, 2018: The initial administrative hearing is held.
• September 24, 2018: The ALJ issues a decision dismissing the petition.
• Post-September 2018: Prall’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• January 11, 2019: The rehearing is conducted.
• January 31, 2019: The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing the petition.
Central Point of Contention: Interpretation of CC&Rs
The primary disagreement focused on whether the Petitioner’s enclosed but visible backyard constituted a “Public Yard” or a “Private Yard” under the CC&Rs. The HOA’s maintenance obligation under Section 7.1.4 applies only to Public Yards.
Relevant CC&R Sections
Section
Language
Respondent must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…” (Emphasis added)
“‘Private Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. ‘Public Yard’ means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
“‘Visible from Neighboring Property’ means, with respect to any given object, that such object is or would be visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…”
Competing Interpretations
• Petitioner’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” only if it is both enclosed/shielded AND not generally visible. Because his backyard is enclosed but visible through the four-foot wall/fence, he argued it qualifies as a “Public Yard” that the HOA must maintain.
• Respondent’s Interpretation: A yard is “Private” if it is either enclosed or shielded from view. Because the Petitioner’s backyard is enclosed, it is a Private Yard, and the HOA has no maintenance responsibility.
While the ALJ acknowledged that “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards,” she explicitly stated that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.” The case was decided on other grounds.
Analysis of Arguments and Evidence
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)
• Argued that the HOA performed backyard maintenance from 2010 to 2013, establishing a precedent.
• Posited that the large size of the tree when he bought the home in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer.
• Suggested that the presence of just two types of irrigation systems across the community, accessible from the front, implied a uniform developer installation for both front and back yards.
• Noted that his backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together by the developer.
Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)
• Denied ever providing landscaping maintenance to any backyards, stating it only controls front yard irrigation and sprinkler systems.
• Raised liability concerns about maintenance workers entering residents’ enclosed backyards where pets could escape.
• Presented critical testimony from Board President Maureen Karpinski during the rehearing. Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent who was involved with the community’s development and sales from 2002, stated that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards, which were “just dirt.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale
The ALJ’s rulings in both hearings hinged on the specific requirement in Section 7.1.4 that the landscaping must have been “originally installed by Declarant.”
Initial Hearing Decision (September 24, 2018)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The Petitioner failed to present evidence that the tree was installed by the developer. The ALJ noted that the tree had regrown to a significant height in approximately five years after being cut down in 2014. From this, she concluded that “it cannot be concluded that the tree in the photograph from 2010 was planted as part of the original landscape plan around 2000.”
Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)
• Ruling: The Petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The ALJ found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “suppositions and inferences.” In contrast, she deemed the testimony of Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.” Ms. Karpinski’s statement that backyards were sold as “just dirt” directly refuted the claim that any landscaping was “originally installed by Declarant.”
• The final conclusion stated: “As there was no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant, there is no reason to conclude Respondent would be required to replace and maintain Petitioner’s back yard under the terms of Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs.”
Final Disposition
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed. The order resulting from the rehearing was final and binding on the parties. Any further appeal would require seeking judicial review in the superior court within 35 days of the order.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Travis Prall and the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association, based on the legal decisions from September 2018 and January 2019. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the dispute, arguments, and legal reasoning involved.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.
1. What specific violation of the community’s CC&Rs did the Petitioner, Travis Prall, allege in his petition?
2. What was the key physical difference between the backyards of the “interior homes” and the “exterior homes” in the Villas at Tierra Buena community?
3. What was the central point of disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the definition of a “Private Yard” versus a “Public Yard”?
4. According to Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs, what specific condition must be met for the HOA to be responsible for maintaining landscaping in a Public Yard?
5. What was the “Courtesy Letter” issued by the Respondent on May 3, 2018, and what did it request of the Petitioner?
6. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the tree in his backyard must have been installed by the original developer?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what does it mean?
8. In the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the tree was not part of the original landscape plan?
9. During the rehearing, what “credible evidence” was presented by the Respondent that refuted the Petitioner’s claims about original backyard landscaping?
10. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that it was not necessary to rule on the interpretation of “Public Yard” vs. “Private Yard” in either decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner Travis Prall alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). The specific allegation was that the HOA neglected its duty for yard maintenance in visible public yards.
2. The exterior homes have six to seven-foot-tall block wall fences enclosing the backyards. The interior homes, like the Petitioner’s, have a shorter back wall, consisting of a two-foot-tall block wall topped with a two-foot-tall aluminum fence, making the backyards more visible.
3. The Petitioner argued that a yard must be both enclosed and not generally visible to be private, meaning his visible, enclosed yard was public. The Respondent argued that a yard was private if it was enclosed or shielded from view, meaning the Petitioner’s enclosed yard was private regardless of visibility.
4. According to Section 7.1.4, the HOA is required to “replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots.” This means the landscaping in question must have been part of the original developer’s installation.
5. The “Courtesy Letter” was a notice from the HOA to the Petitioner concerning the tree in his backyard. It requested that he “Please trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall,” which had buckled due to the tree’s roots.
6. The Petitioner posited that the tree must have been installed by the developer due to its large size when he bought the home in 2010. He also noted that the backyard sprinkler system wrapped around the tree, suggesting they were installed together during original construction.
7. The Petitioner was required to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not; it is the greater weight of evidence.
8. The judge noted that after the original tree was removed in 2014, the present tree grew to a similar height in approximately five years from the remaining stump. Therefore, the judge concluded that the tree’s size in 2010 did not prove it was planted as part of the original landscape plan around the year 2000.
9. The Respondent presented the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, the Board President and a real estate agent who sold homes in the community during its development. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards and that they were “just dirt.”
10. The judge did not need to rule on the yard definition because the Petitioner first had to prove the tree was “originally installed by the Declarant” per Section 7.1.4. Since the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence for this foundational claim in both hearings, the question of whether the yard was public or private became irrelevant to the outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
These questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” and analyze how the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was the determining factor in the dismissal of his petition in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Provide a detailed analysis of the competing interpretations of “Private Yard” and “Public Yard” as defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs. Discuss the arguments made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent and explain why, despite this being a central point of contention, the final ruling did not hinge on this issue.
3. Compare the evidence presented by Travis Prall with the evidence presented by the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. How did the nature and credibility of the evidence, particularly witness testimony versus suppositions, influence the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, starting from the initial event that triggered the HOA’s notice through the final decision after the rehearing. What were the key decision points and legal options available to the parties at each stage?
5. Discuss the significance of Maureen Karpinski’s testimony in the rehearing. How did her personal and professional experience with the community’s development directly address the central weakness of the Petitioner’s case from the first hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
The judicial officer who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions, in this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,Restrictions and Easements, the legal documents that govern a planned community or HOA.
Common Area
Land within the community for the common use and enjoyment of the owners; the HOA is responsible for maintaining landscaping in these areas.
Courtesy Letter
A formal notice issued by the HOA to a resident. In this case, it was a letter dated May 3, 2018, requesting that the Petitioner trim or remove a tree causing damage to a wall.
Declarant
The original developer who installed the initial landscaping and improvements in the community.
An abbreviation for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, which was the Respondent.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Travis Prall.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Private Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is enclosed or shielded from view by walls, fences, hedges or the like so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property.” The interpretation of this definition was a key dispute in the case.
Public Yard
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is the portion of a Yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property, whether or not it is located in front of, beside, or behind the Residential Dwelling.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA.
Visible from Neighboring Property
A term defined in Section 1.37 of the CC&Rs. An object is considered visible if it can be seen by a six-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property, with a specific exception for objects visible only through a wrought iron fence.
As defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs, it is “the portion of the Lot devoted to Improvements other than the Residential Dwelling.”
Blog Post – 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over a Single Tree—And Lost Because of a Clause Everyone Missed
For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association is a delicate balance of rules, fees, and occasional frustrations. It’s a familiar story: a dispute arises over a seemingly minor issue, and suddenly you’re deep in the weeds of your community’s governing documents, convinced you’re in the right.
This was exactly the position of homeowner Travis Prall. He believed the rules for his community, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, clearly stated they were responsible for maintaining a troublesome tree in his backyard. Confident in his interpretation of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), he took his case to an administrative law judge.
But the outcome of his legal battle hinged not on the clause he was arguing, but on details everyone had overlooked. The way he lost—first in an initial hearing, and then decisively in a rehearing he himself requested—reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner hidden within the dense language of community documents.
The Definition You Debate Isn’t Always the One That Matters
The core of Mr. Prall’s argument was a battle of definitions. According to the CC&Rs, the HOA was responsible for maintaining “Public Yards.” The rules defined a “Public Yard” as any part of a yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property.” Even though his backyard was enclosed by a four-foot wall, it was visible to his neighbors, so he argued it qualified.
The HOA countered with its own interpretation. They pointed to the definition of a “Private Yard,” which included any yard that is “enclosed.” Since his yard was enclosed, they claimed, it was his responsibility, regardless of visibility.
The two sides were locked in a debate over these competing definitions. But in the first hearing, the judge delivered a surprising twist: the entire debate was irrelevant. The judge acknowledged that Prall’s reading of the rules might even be plausible but declared that the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue.” Why? Because Prall had failed to clear an even more fundamental hurdle first. The judge found that Prall had “failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant,” a fatal flaw that sidestepped his primary argument entirely.
“While the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes even if that is contrary to the intention of the drafters of the CC&Rs, the tribunal is not required to reach that issue in this matter.”
Prall had lost the first round not because his interpretation was wrong, but because he hadn’t proven his case on a different, more critical point.
It All Comes Down to “As Originally Installed”
Unsatisfied with the outcome, Prall requested and was granted a rehearing—a second chance to make his case. But this second chance also gave the HOA an opportunity to sharpen its defense, and it zeroed in on the exact clause that had decided the first hearing.
The case was ultimately decided by Section 7.1.4. This clause stated the HOA was only responsible for landscaping “as originally installed by Declarant”—a legal term for the original developer of the community.
This single phrase shifted the entire focus of the dispute. The question was no longer about “Public vs. Private” yards, but about the historical fact of what the developer had installed when the homes were first built around the year 2000.
At the rehearing, the HOA introduced the knockout blow: the testimony of Maureen Karpinski, an early resident and real estate agent who had sold homes in the community during its construction. She testified that to her knowledge, none of the homes were sold with any landscaping in the backyards. Her exact description was that the yards were “just dirt.”
The judge found this to be the “only credible evidence offered.” It completely undermined Prall’s case. If the developer never installed any landscaping in the backyards, there was no “original” landscaping for the HOA to maintain. Their responsibility under the governing documents was zero.
“Suppositions and Inferences” Aren’t Enough
In any formal dispute, the person making a claim has the “burden of proof.” Mr. Prall needed to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” a legal standard meaning it was more likely true than not.
He tried to meet this burden with logical arguments. He “posited that, given the size of the tree” in a 2010 photograph, it must have been planted when the home was built. He added that the “sprinkler system in his back yard wrapped around the tree as further evidence” that they were installed together by the developer.
But these deductions failed to convince the judge. In the final decision after the rehearing, these arguments were dismissed as the petitioner’s “suppositions and inferences.”
This stands in stark contrast to the HOA’s evidence. While Prall offered logical conclusions, the HOA offered direct testimony from someone who was there at the beginning. This case underscores a fundamental legal truth: personal belief and common-sense deductions are no substitute for verifiable facts and credible, first-hand testimony.
The Final Word is in the Fine Print
This homeowner’s fight over a single tree serves as a powerful cautionary tale. He built a logical case based on his interpretation of a key definition, only to lose because of a clause and a historical fact he hadn’t sufficiently proven.
The lessons are clear. Winning a dispute requires understanding every relevant clause in the governing documents, not just the one that seems most obvious. It requires acknowledging that the history of the community can be more powerful than a present-day interpretation of the rules. And most importantly, it requires presenting concrete proof, not just strong beliefs.
For any homeowner in an HOA, this story poses a crucial question: When was the last time you read your HOA’s documents from start to finish, and what hidden details might be waiting for you?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Travis Prall(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Maureen Karpinski(board member) President of the Board; witness
Frank Peake(property manager) Pride Community Management Witness; Owner of Pride Community Management
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7. The Board, having assumed the developer's rights, was authorized to remove and appoint ARC members.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding ARC dissolution and architectural approval authority.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7 by dissolving the ARC and then acting as the ARC to approve a modification (detached garage) for a homeowner.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to establish that CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7 prohibited the Respondent HOA from replacing non-Board ARC members, appointing its own members to act as the ARC, or approving the detached garage application.
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Dwight vs. Whisper Mountain HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 19F-H1918027-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (“Petitioner”) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving a homeowner’s construction application.
The ALJ denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the HOA Board acted within its authority. The decision established that upon the departure of the original developer (the “Declarant”), the Board inherited the Declarant’s full rights and responsibilities, including the power to both appoint and remove members of the ARC. The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s argument that ARC members held lifetime appointments, deeming such an interpretation contrary to the democratic principles of HOA governance. Consequently, the Board’s decision to remove the non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to serve as the ARC was ruled a valid exercise of its powers, and its subsequent approval of the construction application was not a violation of the CC&Rs.
Case Overview
Entity
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Homeowner and former ARC member)
Respondent
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (HOA)
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Case Number
19F-H1918027-REL
Hearing Date
January 14, 2019
Decision Date
January 29, 2019
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated two sections of the CC&Rs:
1. § 7.7 (Improvements and Alterations): By approving a homeowner’s application to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018, without the approval of a properly constituted ARC.
2. § 3.2 (Appeal): By creating a situation where the body making an architectural decision (the Board acting as the ARC) is the same body that would hear an appeal of that decision, rendering the appeal process meaningless.
This was based on the Petitioner’s central claim that the Board’s action on August 6, 2018, to “dissolve” or “suspend” the ARC was a violation of the governing documents.
Key Factual Background & Timeline
• Prior to 2015: The developer, VIP Homes (“Declarant”), establishes the ARC as required by the CC&Rs.
• 2015: The Declarant turns over control of the HOA to the resident-elected Board of Directors.
• March 15, 2016: The Board adopts an ARC Charter, which explicitly states: “The right to appoint and remove all appointed [ARC] members at any time is hereby vested solely in the Board.” The Petitioner is appointed as one of three non-Board members to the ARC.
• 2017 or 2018: A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs to formally replace references to “Declarant” with “Board” or “Association” is not adopted by the general membership.
• July 17, 2018: The ARC meets to consider a detached garage application from homeowners Mark and Connie Wells. The meeting is contentious, with the Petitioner expressing doubts about the ARC’s authority to grant a variance from city setback requirements. The meeting adjourns abruptly after the applicant allegedly “verbally threatened the committee.”
• August 6, 2018: The HOA Board meets and passes a motion “to suspend the ARC committee for 60 days until guidelines/expectations are clarified.” The motion states that in the interim, the Board will review and approve all ARC submissions.
• August 24, 2018: The Board sends a letter to the non-Board ARC members, including the Petitioner, informing them of the 60-day suspension.
• September 17, 2018: The Board meets and approves a revised application from the Wells, which now aligns with City of Mesa code.
• September 19, 2018: The Board, formally acting as the ARC, reviews and approves the Wells’ revised application.
• October 22, 2018: The Petitioner files his complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• November 19, 2018: The Board adopts a “Resolution Regarding the ARC” to clarify its position. The resolution states the Board had “(i) temporarily removed the current members of the [ARC] (via a suspension) and (ii) chose to act and serve as the current [ARC].” It also formally ratifies the approval of the Wells’ garage.
Central Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Position (N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.)
• Limited Board Authority: The CC&Rs (§ 3.4) grant the Declarant the “sole right to appoint and remove” ARC members. After the Declarant’s departure, this section states that members “shall be appointed by the Board.” The Petitioner argued this only conferred the power to appoint, not to remove.
• Failed Amendment: The failure of the membership to amend the CC&Rs to explicitly grant the Board the Declarant’s powers proves that the Board does not possess the power of removal.
• Lifetime Appointments: The Petitioner argued that once appointed, ARC members could only be removed for specific cause (e.g., moving out of the community, incapacitation) and were otherwise entitled to serve for life.
• Improper ARC Suspension: The Board’s action to suspend the committee was a violation of the CC&Rs, as the Board lacked the authority to do so.
• Invalid Approval: Because the ARC was improperly suspended, the Board’s subsequent approval of the Wells’ application violated § 7.7, which requires ARC approval for all alterations.
• Meaningless Appeals: If the Board can act as the ARC, the appeal process outlined in § 3.2, which allows a homeowner to appeal an ARC decision to the Board, becomes an “exercise in futility.”
Respondent’s Position (Whisper Mountain HOA)
• Inherited Powers: Upon the Declarant’s departure, the Board assumed all of its rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs, including the power to both appoint and remove ARC members.
• Authority from ARC Charter: The ARC Charter, adopted in 2016, explicitly grants the Board the sole right to remove ARC members at any time.
• Intent of the Board: The Board’s intent was not to abolish the ARC, but to address concerns about the committee’s conduct, including its “way of questioning applicants” and a need for more civility, fairness, and consistency.
• Clarification of “Suspension”: The use of the word “suspend” in communications by the management company (Mariposa Group) was “unfortunate and inaccurate.” The Board’s true action, clarified in its November 19 resolution, was to remove the non-Board members and appoint its own members to serve as the ARC.
• Valid Approval: The Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application; therefore, § 7.7 was not violated.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusions
Interpretation of Governing Documents
The ALJ concluded that restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties. The Judge found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs to be unpersuasive and ultimately harmful to the community.
• The Judge stated that the Petitioner’s interpretation “elevates non-elected members of ARC above elected Board members, abrogates any community control over ARC, and does not serve the underlying purposes of the CC&Rs.”
• This “unelected lifetime appointment” concept was found to be contrary to the “democratic principles underlying HOA law in Arizona.”
On the Board’s Authority
The ALJ affirmed the HOA’s authority to manage the ARC as it did.
• Assumption of Powers: The decision concludes that “When Declarant turned Respondent HOA over to its Board, the Board assumed all of Declarant’s rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs and related documents.” This included the power to remove ARC members.
• ARC Charter: The Judge noted that the ARC Charter also “expressly provided that the Board had the power to remove as well as to appoint members of the ARC.”
• Legitimacy of Actions: The Board was found to have acted within its authority in August 2018 when it “removed the three non-Board members of the ARC and appointed itself to perform the functions of the ARC.”
On the Alleged Violations
Based on the finding that the Board acted within its authority, the ALJ concluded that no violations occurred.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 7.7 (ARC Approval): The petition failed on this point because the Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application in September 2018.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 3.2 (Appeals): The petition failed on this point because the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC. While acknowledging that appealing a decision to the same body “may be an exercise in futility,” the Judge noted that under the CC&Rs, the Board is not required to hear appeals in any event.
Final Order and Implications
Order: The petition filed by N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. was denied. The Judge found he had not established that the HOA violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7.
Implications: This decision establishes a strong precedent for interpreting HOA governing documents in a manner that favors functional, democratic governance over literal interpretations that could lead to impractical or absurd outcomes. It affirms that an HOA Board generally inherits the full operational powers of the original developer unless explicitly restricted, and that a Board can act to reform or reconstitute committees to ensure they serve the community’s best interests.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918027-REL
Study Guide: Dwight v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918027-REL). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source document.
1. What were the two specific allegations made by the Petitioner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., in his petition filed on October 22, 2018?
2. Identify the key parties in this case and describe their respective roles or relationships to the dispute.
3. What was the purpose and outcome of the ARC meeting held on July 17, 2018, regarding the Wells’ property?
4. Explain the actions taken by the Respondent’s Board of Directors during its meeting on August 6, 2018, regarding the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
5. What was the Petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R § 3.4 regarding the removal of ARC members, and what was the potential consequence of this interpretation as noted by the Administrative Law Judge?
6. According to the Respondent’s Board president, Greg Robert Wingert, what were the primary reasons for removing the non-Board members of the ARC?
7. Describe the role of the Mariposa Group LLC in this case and explain how its communications created confusion.
8. How did the Board clarify its actions and ratify its decisions in the November 19, 2018 Resolution?
9. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?
10. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core reasoning behind the decision regarding CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) §§ 3.2 and 7.7. The specific violations cited were the dissolution or suspension of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on August 6, 2018, and the subsequent approval of an application from two members to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018.
2. The key parties are N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (the “Petitioner”), a property owner and former ARC member, and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The case also involves Greg Robert Wingert, the President of the Respondent’s Board, and Mark and Connie Wells, the homeowners who applied to build a detached garage. The dispute centers on the Respondent’s authority over the ARC, of which the Petitioner was a member.
3. The purpose of the July 17, 2018, meeting was for the ARC, including the Petitioner, to consider Mark and Connie Wells’ application for a detached garage. The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the applicant allegedly threatened the committee, and no formal vote was conducted at that time. However, a letter dated July 30, 2018, later informed the Wells that the ARC had approved their request.
4. At the August 6, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors discussed the need for more consistency and guidelines for the ARC. Citing these reasons and safety concerns from a prior meeting, the Board passed a motion to “suspend the ARC committee for 60 days” and announced that in the interim, the Board itself would review and approve all ARC submissions.
5. The Petitioner argued that CC&R § 3.4 only allowed the Board to appoint, not remove, ARC members. He contended that once appointed, members could only be removed for cause and were otherwise entitled to serve for life. The Judge noted this interpretation would elevate unelected ARC members above the elected Board and abrogate community control.
6. Greg Robert Wingert testified that the Board removed the non-Board ARC members due to concerns about the “manner in which questioning was done in a public forum.” The Board’s intent was not to eliminate the ARC, but to continue the review process while making it more civil, fair, consistent, and transparent.
7. The Mariposa Group LLC was the Respondent’s management company. Its employees, such as Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like minutes and letters. These communications used inaccurate words like “suspend” and “dissolve” to describe the Board’s actions regarding the ARC, which Mr. Wingert testified was an “unfortunate and inaccurate” choice of words that did not reflect the Board’s true intent.
8. The November 19, 2018, Resolution clarified that the Board had removed the existing ARC members and appointed itself to act and serve as the ARC, as was its right under CC&R § 3.4. The resolution explicitly stated that the Board members were the current members of the ARC and ratified all prior architectural decisions made by the Board while serving in this capacity, including the approval of the garage on Lot 18.
9. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it removed the non-Board ARC members and appointed itself to perform ARC functions, meaning it did not violate CC&R § 7.7 by approving the Wells’ application. The Judge also found no violation of CC&R § 3.2, noting that the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the CC&Rs, particularly § 3.4. How does this interpretation address the transfer of power from the “Declarant” to the Board, and how does it counter the Petitioner’s argument for lifetime appointments?
2. Discuss the concept of an “appeal” as outlined in CC&R § 3.2. Evaluate the potential conflict of interest and the issue of futility raised when the Board of Directors also serves as the Architectural Review Committee.
3. Trace the timeline of events surrounding the Wells’ application for a detached garage. How did this specific application serve as the catalyst for the broader conflict between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s Board?
4. Examine the role of communication and language in this dispute. How did the specific wording used by the management company in official documents (e.g., “suspend”) differ from the Board’s stated intent, and how did this discrepancy fuel the conflict?
5. Based on the evidence presented, evaluate the argument that the Board’s actions were a necessary measure to ensure a “civil, fair, consistent, and transparent” architectural review process versus the argument that the Board overstepped its authority as defined by the CC&Rs.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judicial officer (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings tasked with conducting an evidentiary hearing and rendering a decision on the petition.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established to review and approve or deny any improvements, alterations, or other work that alters the exterior appearance of a property. Per the CC&Rs, its decisions are final unless appealed to the Board.
ARC Charter
A document adopted by the Respondent’s Board on March 15, 2016, which provided that the ARC would consist of up to four members appointed by the Board and that the Board vested itself with the sole right to appoint and remove all appointed ARC members at any time.
Board of Directors (Board)
The elected body that conducts the affairs of the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. The document presumes they are elected by members to specific terms.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Whisper Mountain planned community, recorded on September 7, 2016. They outline the rules for property use, the structure of the HOA, and the functions of bodies like the ARC.
Declarant
The original developer who built the planned community, identified as VIP Homes. The Declarant initially held the sole right to appoint and remove ARC members, a right that transferred to the Board after the developer was no longer involved.
Mariposa Group LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA. Its employees, such as Douglas Egan and Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like meeting minutes and approval letters.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate referred the petition for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., a property owner in the Whisper Mountain development and a former member of the ARC. He filed the petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“HOA”), the governing body for the development. The Respondent was represented by its Board and legal counsel.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918027-REL
Select all sources
685758.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918027-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between a homeowner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Petitioner), and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by dissolving or suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving an application for a detached garage. The decision details the background, evidence presented at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the ALJ denied the petition, finding that the Board acted within its authority under the governing documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to fulfill the ARC’s functions. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the specified CC&Rs.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member; testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Troy B. Stratman(attorney) Stratman Law Firm, PLC Represented Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Greg Robert Wingert(board member/witness) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Board President; Chairman of the ARC; testified for Respondent
Pam Cohen(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Seconded motions; identified as 'Pam' in meeting minutes
Ronna(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Made motion to suspend ARC
Gary(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Douglas Egan(property manager) Mariposa Group LLC Sent approval letter for garage application
Ed Ericksen(property manager) Mariposa Community Manager; sent approval/clarification letters regarding Wells' request
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(staff) Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Mark Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Connie Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Phil Hoyt(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 16)
Andy Horn(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 1)
Jason Komorowski(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 51)
Connie Harrison(neighbor) Whisper Mountain development Mentioned regarding Lot 18 variance condition
Don Berry(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 45)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the HOA Board had the authority under the CC&Rs and related documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to perform the functions of the ARC, thus validating its approval of the homeowner's detached garage application.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7. The Board, having assumed the developer's rights, was authorized to remove and appoint ARC members.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs regarding ARC dissolution and architectural approval authority.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7 by dissolving the ARC and then acting as the ARC to approve a modification (detached garage) for a homeowner.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to establish that CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7 prohibited the Respondent HOA from replacing non-Board ARC members, appointing its own members to act as the ARC, or approving the detached garage application.
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Dwight vs. Whisper Mountain HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 19F-H1918027-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (“Petitioner”) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving a homeowner’s construction application.
The ALJ denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the HOA Board acted within its authority. The decision established that upon the departure of the original developer (the “Declarant”), the Board inherited the Declarant’s full rights and responsibilities, including the power to both appoint and remove members of the ARC. The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s argument that ARC members held lifetime appointments, deeming such an interpretation contrary to the democratic principles of HOA governance. Consequently, the Board’s decision to remove the non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to serve as the ARC was ruled a valid exercise of its powers, and its subsequent approval of the construction application was not a violation of the CC&Rs.
Case Overview
Entity
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Homeowner and former ARC member)
Respondent
Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (HOA)
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Case Number
19F-H1918027-REL
Hearing Date
January 14, 2019
Decision Date
January 29, 2019
Core Allegation
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated two sections of the CC&Rs:
1. § 7.7 (Improvements and Alterations): By approving a homeowner’s application to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018, without the approval of a properly constituted ARC.
2. § 3.2 (Appeal): By creating a situation where the body making an architectural decision (the Board acting as the ARC) is the same body that would hear an appeal of that decision, rendering the appeal process meaningless.
This was based on the Petitioner’s central claim that the Board’s action on August 6, 2018, to “dissolve” or “suspend” the ARC was a violation of the governing documents.
Key Factual Background & Timeline
• Prior to 2015: The developer, VIP Homes (“Declarant”), establishes the ARC as required by the CC&Rs.
• 2015: The Declarant turns over control of the HOA to the resident-elected Board of Directors.
• March 15, 2016: The Board adopts an ARC Charter, which explicitly states: “The right to appoint and remove all appointed [ARC] members at any time is hereby vested solely in the Board.” The Petitioner is appointed as one of three non-Board members to the ARC.
• 2017 or 2018: A proposed amendment to the CC&Rs to formally replace references to “Declarant” with “Board” or “Association” is not adopted by the general membership.
• July 17, 2018: The ARC meets to consider a detached garage application from homeowners Mark and Connie Wells. The meeting is contentious, with the Petitioner expressing doubts about the ARC’s authority to grant a variance from city setback requirements. The meeting adjourns abruptly after the applicant allegedly “verbally threatened the committee.”
• August 6, 2018: The HOA Board meets and passes a motion “to suspend the ARC committee for 60 days until guidelines/expectations are clarified.” The motion states that in the interim, the Board will review and approve all ARC submissions.
• August 24, 2018: The Board sends a letter to the non-Board ARC members, including the Petitioner, informing them of the 60-day suspension.
• September 17, 2018: The Board meets and approves a revised application from the Wells, which now aligns with City of Mesa code.
• September 19, 2018: The Board, formally acting as the ARC, reviews and approves the Wells’ revised application.
• October 22, 2018: The Petitioner files his complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• November 19, 2018: The Board adopts a “Resolution Regarding the ARC” to clarify its position. The resolution states the Board had “(i) temporarily removed the current members of the [ARC] (via a suspension) and (ii) chose to act and serve as the current [ARC].” It also formally ratifies the approval of the Wells’ garage.
Central Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Position (N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.)
• Limited Board Authority: The CC&Rs (§ 3.4) grant the Declarant the “sole right to appoint and remove” ARC members. After the Declarant’s departure, this section states that members “shall be appointed by the Board.” The Petitioner argued this only conferred the power to appoint, not to remove.
• Failed Amendment: The failure of the membership to amend the CC&Rs to explicitly grant the Board the Declarant’s powers proves that the Board does not possess the power of removal.
• Lifetime Appointments: The Petitioner argued that once appointed, ARC members could only be removed for specific cause (e.g., moving out of the community, incapacitation) and were otherwise entitled to serve for life.
• Improper ARC Suspension: The Board’s action to suspend the committee was a violation of the CC&Rs, as the Board lacked the authority to do so.
• Invalid Approval: Because the ARC was improperly suspended, the Board’s subsequent approval of the Wells’ application violated § 7.7, which requires ARC approval for all alterations.
• Meaningless Appeals: If the Board can act as the ARC, the appeal process outlined in § 3.2, which allows a homeowner to appeal an ARC decision to the Board, becomes an “exercise in futility.”
Respondent’s Position (Whisper Mountain HOA)
• Inherited Powers: Upon the Declarant’s departure, the Board assumed all of its rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs, including the power to both appoint and remove ARC members.
• Authority from ARC Charter: The ARC Charter, adopted in 2016, explicitly grants the Board the sole right to remove ARC members at any time.
• Intent of the Board: The Board’s intent was not to abolish the ARC, but to address concerns about the committee’s conduct, including its “way of questioning applicants” and a need for more civility, fairness, and consistency.
• Clarification of “Suspension”: The use of the word “suspend” in communications by the management company (Mariposa Group) was “unfortunate and inaccurate.” The Board’s true action, clarified in its November 19 resolution, was to remove the non-Board members and appoint its own members to serve as the ARC.
• Valid Approval: The Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application; therefore, § 7.7 was not violated.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusions
Interpretation of Governing Documents
The ALJ concluded that restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties. The Judge found the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs to be unpersuasive and ultimately harmful to the community.
• The Judge stated that the Petitioner’s interpretation “elevates non-elected members of ARC above elected Board members, abrogates any community control over ARC, and does not serve the underlying purposes of the CC&Rs.”
• This “unelected lifetime appointment” concept was found to be contrary to the “democratic principles underlying HOA law in Arizona.”
On the Board’s Authority
The ALJ affirmed the HOA’s authority to manage the ARC as it did.
• Assumption of Powers: The decision concludes that “When Declarant turned Respondent HOA over to its Board, the Board assumed all of Declarant’s rights and responsibilities under the CC&Rs and related documents.” This included the power to remove ARC members.
• ARC Charter: The Judge noted that the ARC Charter also “expressly provided that the Board had the power to remove as well as to appoint members of the ARC.”
• Legitimacy of Actions: The Board was found to have acted within its authority in August 2018 when it “removed the three non-Board members of the ARC and appointed itself to perform the functions of the ARC.”
On the Alleged Violations
Based on the finding that the Board acted within its authority, the ALJ concluded that no violations occurred.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 7.7 (ARC Approval): The petition failed on this point because the Board was legitimately acting as the ARC when it approved the Wells’ application in September 2018.
• Conclusion on CC&R § 3.2 (Appeals): The petition failed on this point because the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC. While acknowledging that appealing a decision to the same body “may be an exercise in futility,” the Judge noted that under the CC&Rs, the Board is not required to hear appeals in any event.
Final Order and Implications
Order: The petition filed by N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. was denied. The Judge found he had not established that the HOA violated CC&Rs §§ 3.2 or 7.7.
Implications: This decision establishes a strong precedent for interpreting HOA governing documents in a manner that favors functional, democratic governance over literal interpretations that could lead to impractical or absurd outcomes. It affirms that an HOA Board generally inherits the full operational powers of the original developer unless explicitly restricted, and that a Board can act to reform or reconstitute committees to ensure they serve the community’s best interests.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918027-REL
Study Guide: Dwight v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. vs. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918027-REL). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the legal document.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source document.
1. What were the two specific allegations made by the Petitioner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., in his petition filed on October 22, 2018?
2. Identify the key parties in this case and describe their respective roles or relationships to the dispute.
3. What was the purpose and outcome of the ARC meeting held on July 17, 2018, regarding the Wells’ property?
4. Explain the actions taken by the Respondent’s Board of Directors during its meeting on August 6, 2018, regarding the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
5. What was the Petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R § 3.4 regarding the removal of ARC members, and what was the potential consequence of this interpretation as noted by the Administrative Law Judge?
6. According to the Respondent’s Board president, Greg Robert Wingert, what were the primary reasons for removing the non-Board members of the ARC?
7. Describe the role of the Mariposa Group LLC in this case and explain how its communications created confusion.
8. How did the Board clarify its actions and ratify its decisions in the November 19, 2018 Resolution?
9. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?
10. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core reasoning behind the decision regarding CC&Rs §§ 3.2 and 7.7?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) §§ 3.2 and 7.7. The specific violations cited were the dissolution or suspension of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on August 6, 2018, and the subsequent approval of an application from two members to build a detached garage on September 19, 2018.
2. The key parties are N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (the “Petitioner”), a property owner and former ARC member, and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The case also involves Greg Robert Wingert, the President of the Respondent’s Board, and Mark and Connie Wells, the homeowners who applied to build a detached garage. The dispute centers on the Respondent’s authority over the ARC, of which the Petitioner was a member.
3. The purpose of the July 17, 2018, meeting was for the ARC, including the Petitioner, to consider Mark and Connie Wells’ application for a detached garage. The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the applicant allegedly threatened the committee, and no formal vote was conducted at that time. However, a letter dated July 30, 2018, later informed the Wells that the ARC had approved their request.
4. At the August 6, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors discussed the need for more consistency and guidelines for the ARC. Citing these reasons and safety concerns from a prior meeting, the Board passed a motion to “suspend the ARC committee for 60 days” and announced that in the interim, the Board itself would review and approve all ARC submissions.
5. The Petitioner argued that CC&R § 3.4 only allowed the Board to appoint, not remove, ARC members. He contended that once appointed, members could only be removed for cause and were otherwise entitled to serve for life. The Judge noted this interpretation would elevate unelected ARC members above the elected Board and abrogate community control.
6. Greg Robert Wingert testified that the Board removed the non-Board ARC members due to concerns about the “manner in which questioning was done in a public forum.” The Board’s intent was not to eliminate the ARC, but to continue the review process while making it more civil, fair, consistent, and transparent.
7. The Mariposa Group LLC was the Respondent’s management company. Its employees, such as Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like minutes and letters. These communications used inaccurate words like “suspend” and “dissolve” to describe the Board’s actions regarding the ARC, which Mr. Wingert testified was an “unfortunate and inaccurate” choice of words that did not reflect the Board’s true intent.
8. The November 19, 2018, Resolution clarified that the Board had removed the existing ARC members and appointed itself to act and serve as the ARC, as was its right under CC&R § 3.4. The resolution explicitly stated that the Board members were the current members of the ARC and ratified all prior architectural decisions made by the Board while serving in this capacity, including the approval of the garage on Lot 18.
9. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it removed the non-Board ARC members and appointed itself to perform ARC functions, meaning it did not violate CC&R § 7.7 by approving the Wells’ application. The Judge also found no violation of CC&R § 3.2, noting that the CC&Rs do not prohibit Board members from acting as the ARC.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the CC&Rs, particularly § 3.4. How does this interpretation address the transfer of power from the “Declarant” to the Board, and how does it counter the Petitioner’s argument for lifetime appointments?
2. Discuss the concept of an “appeal” as outlined in CC&R § 3.2. Evaluate the potential conflict of interest and the issue of futility raised when the Board of Directors also serves as the Architectural Review Committee.
3. Trace the timeline of events surrounding the Wells’ application for a detached garage. How did this specific application serve as the catalyst for the broader conflict between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s Board?
4. Examine the role of communication and language in this dispute. How did the specific wording used by the management company in official documents (e.g., “suspend”) differ from the Board’s stated intent, and how did this discrepancy fuel the conflict?
5. Based on the evidence presented, evaluate the argument that the Board’s actions were a necessary measure to ensure a “civil, fair, consistent, and transparent” architectural review process versus the argument that the Board overstepped its authority as defined by the CC&Rs.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judicial officer (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings tasked with conducting an evidentiary hearing and rendering a decision on the petition.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established to review and approve or deny any improvements, alterations, or other work that alters the exterior appearance of a property. Per the CC&Rs, its decisions are final unless appealed to the Board.
ARC Charter
A document adopted by the Respondent’s Board on March 15, 2016, which provided that the ARC would consist of up to four members appointed by the Board and that the Board vested itself with the sole right to appoint and remove all appointed ARC members at any time.
Board of Directors (Board)
The elected body that conducts the affairs of the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. The document presumes they are elected by members to specific terms.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Whisper Mountain planned community, recorded on September 7, 2016. They outline the rules for property use, the structure of the HOA, and the functions of bodies like the ARC.
Declarant
The original developer who built the planned community, identified as VIP Homes. The Declarant initially held the sole right to appoint and remove ARC members, a right that transferred to the Board after the developer was no longer involved.
Mariposa Group LLC
The management company employed by the Respondent HOA. Its employees, such as Douglas Egan and Ed Ericksen, were responsible for drafting official communications like meeting minutes and approval letters.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate referred the petition for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr., a property owner in the Whisper Mountain development and a former member of the ARC. He filed the petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (“HOA”), the governing body for the development. The Respondent was represented by its Board and legal counsel.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918027-REL
Select all sources
685758.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918027-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between a homeowner, N. Wayne Dwight, Jr. (Petitioner), and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by dissolving or suspending the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and subsequently approving an application for a detached garage. The decision details the background, evidence presented at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the ALJ denied the petition, finding that the Board acted within its authority under the governing documents to remove non-Board ARC members and appoint itself to fulfill the ARC’s functions. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the specified CC&Rs.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
N. Wayne Dwight, Jr.(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; former ARC member; testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Troy B. Stratman(attorney) Stratman Law Firm, PLC Represented Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Greg Robert Wingert(board member/witness) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Board President; Chairman of the ARC; testified for Respondent
Pam Cohen(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Seconded motions; identified as 'Pam' in meeting minutes
Ronna(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Made motion to suspend ARC
Gary(board member) Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Douglas Egan(property manager) Mariposa Group LLC Sent approval letter for garage application
Ed Ericksen(property manager) Mariposa Community Manager; sent approval/clarification letters regarding Wells' request
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(staff) Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Mark Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Connie Wells(owner/applicant) Whisper Mountain development Submitted application for detached garage (Lot 18)
Phil Hoyt(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 16)
Andy Horn(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 1)
Jason Komorowski(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 51)
Connie Harrison(neighbor) Whisper Mountain development Mentioned regarding Lot 18 variance condition
Don Berry(owner/member) Whisper Mountain development (Lot 45)
Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition upon rehearing, holding that the email chain discussing an incident involving the Petitioner's husband was an informal communication among Board members, not an official record of the association under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), since the Board never took any formal action on the matter. Therefore, the HOA was not required to produce an un-redacted copy.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the email string constituted 'financial and other records of the association' which Respondent was required to provide.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to produce association records (un-redacted email string) upon member request
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce an un-redacted copy of an email chain among Board members concerning an incident where Petitioner's husband allegedly harassed potential buyers, arguing the email constituted an official association record.
Orders: Petition denied and dismissed. The HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) as the email string was determined not to be an official record of the association.
Legal Dispute Briefing: Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Patricia Wiercinski and the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on the HOA’s alleged failure to produce official records in violation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805. The dispute originated from a June 19, 2017 incident where Wiercinski’s husband, Wayne Coates, allegedly confronted and verbally abused potential buyers of a neighboring property, causing them to withdraw their interest.
The core of the legal challenge involved an email exchange among HOA board members discussing the incident. Wiercinski’s petition, filed on October 18, 2018, demanded access to what she believed were official HOA documents related to this event. The case proceeded through an initial hearing on January 10, 2019, and a subsequent rehearing on April 22, 2019, both overseen by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
In both hearings, the Judge ruled decisively in favor of the HOA. The central finding was that the private email communications among board members did not constitute an “official record of the association.” Therefore, the HOA had no statutory obligation to produce them or provide an un-redacted version. The judge upheld the HOA’s decision to redact the names of the potential buyers and their agent, citing credible testimony regarding Mr. Coates’ history of “threatening and bullying neighbors” as a reasonable justification for protecting those individuals from potential harassment. Both of Wiercinski’s petitions were ultimately denied and dismissed.
Case Overview and Parties Involved
The dispute was formally adjudicated within the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary proceedings.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918028-REL
• Initial Hearing Date: January 10, 2019
• Rehearing Date: April 22, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Key Individuals and Entities
Name/Entity
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner; homeowner and member of the HOA.
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s husband; central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident.
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent; the Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”).
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Respondent’s Board of Directors.
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Respondent’s Board and a realtor.
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Respondent’s Board.
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager for the Respondent, employed by HOAMCO.
John Allen
HOA member and owner of the lot being sold.
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq. (Goodman Law Group)
Legal representative for the Respondent.
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Core Incident of June 19, 2017
The legal dispute stemmed from an encounter on June 19, 2017, involving Wayne Coates and a family considering the purchase of a vacant lot on Puntenney Rd., located across the street from the Wiercinski/Coates residence.
According to an email from the prospective buyers, Mr. Coates confronted them, their son, and their architect as they were viewing the property.
• Coates’ Alleged Actions: He “came out of his house and was belligerent and cursing at them,” claiming “nothing was for sale around here.” The potential buyer described him as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” making “rude remarks while cussing” and displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.”
• Impact on the Sale: The confrontation directly caused the potential buyers to withdraw their offer. In their correspondence, they stated:
• Broader Concerns: The incident was seen by some as detrimental to the entire community. Board Director Gregg Arthur noted, “Wayne thru his actions appears to have interfered with and destroyed a property sale. We need to meet and take action on this matter as it will have a broad and chilling effect amongst the realtor community (effecting us all) not to mention the property owners.”
The Initial Hearing and Decision (January 2019)
The initial hearing focused on whether the HOA had withheld official records of its deliberations or decisions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident.
Petitioner’s Position
Patricia Wiercinski argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents. Her key assertions were:
• Because an email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, the matter constituted official business.
• The Board was legally required to make a formal motion and arrive at a documented decision, even if that decision was to take no action.
• She had never received any such documentation, such as minutes from an executive session or an open meeting.
• She pointed to a Board resolution regarding the electronic storage of documents as evidence that such records must exist.
Respondent’s Position
The HOA, represented by Ashley N. Moscarello, denied any violation. Their defense included:
• The email chain was an informal communication among neighbors and Board members on their personal email servers, not an official HOA record.
• No member had ever requested the Board take official action on the matter.
• The email string was provided voluntarily to the Petitioner.
• The names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent were redacted specifically because “Mr. Coates had a history of bullying and intimidating people.”
• The Board never formally discussed the incident, held a meeting, voted, or took any official action.
• The Community Manager, Kathy Andrews, testified that no official records (agendas, resolutions, minutes, etc.) pertaining to the incident existed.
Outcome and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The key conclusions of law were:
• The burden of proof was on the Petitioner to show a violation occurred.
• The simple fact that a quorum of Board members discussed a topic in private emails “does not make it official Board business,” especially when no action is taken.
• Forcing volunteer board members to formally document every informal discussion would be an “unnecessary and burdensome requirement.”
• Because the Petitioner did not establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed, the petition was dismissed.
The Rehearing and Final Decision (May 2019)
Wiercinski requested and was granted a rehearing, alleging “misconduct by the judge.” In this second hearing, she significantly altered her legal argument.
Petitioner’s Evolved Position
Wiercinski abandoned her claim that the Board was required to create a formal record of inaction. Instead, her new theory was:
• The email string itself, having been voluntarily produced by the HOA, must be considered an “official record of the association.”
• As an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 required the HOA to produce a complete, un-redacted copy.
• She argued that she and Mr. Coates had a right to know the identities of those who had accused him of belligerence.
Respondent’s Defense
The HOA’s defense remained consistent:
• The redaction of names was a necessary and reasonable measure to protect the individuals from potential harassment by Mr. Coates.
• The incident was a personal dispute between neighbors and did not violate any of the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs, bylaws), placing it outside the Board’s enforcement authority.
• Kathy Andrews again testified that the email was not part of the association’s archived business records, as the Board took no official action.
Final Outcome and Rationale
The Judge once again dismissed the petition. The final ruling reinforced the initial decision and provided further clarity:
• The email string was definitively not a “record of the association.”
• Because it was not an official record, A.R.S. § 33-1805 did not compel the HOA to provide an un-redacted version.
• The Judge explicitly validated the HOA’s motive for the redactions, stating that the Board President’s fear that “Mr. Coates would harass the real estate agent and potential purchaser… does not appear unreasonable.”
Key Evidence and Testimony
The email communications provided the primary evidentiary basis for the case.
Incriminating Email Content
Several emails from June 20, 2017, highlighted the severity of the incident and concerns about Wayne Coates:
• From Real Estate Agent to Potential Buyer: “He [John Allen] knows this person, Wayne Coates, and said he has been an issue in the neighborhood before. He has contacted Hoamco and is seeking legal [counsel] to stop this menace.”
• From Director Joe Zielinski to the Board: “The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment… given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. … I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.”
• From Director Gregg Arthur to the Board: “I was hoping that this would not be a situation we would have to encounter with Wayne Coates and Patricia however here it is on our door step.”
Definition of “Official Records”
Testimony from Community Manager Kathy Andrews was crucial in establishing the distinction between official and unofficial communications. She defined official records as including:
• Governing documents and architectural guidelines.
• Board and general meeting minutes.
• Expenditures, receipts, contracts, and financials.
• Anything submitted to the Board for official action.
She confirmed that because the Board took no action on the June 19, 2017 incident, the related emails were not included in Respondent’s archived records.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918028-REL
Wiercinski v. Long Meadow Ranch East POA: A Case Study
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case of Patricia Wiercinski versus the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc. The case revolves around a homeowner’s request for association records and the legal definition of what constitutes an official document that a homeowners’ association is required to produce under Arizona law. The material is drawn from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions, dated January 22, 2019, and May 1, 2019.
Key Parties and Individuals
Role / Title
Affiliation
Patricia Wiercinski
Petitioner
Homeowner, Member of Respondent
Wayne Coates
Petitioner’s Husband
Homeowner
Long Meadow Ranch East POA, Inc.
Respondent
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Diane Mihalsky
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Legal Counsel for Respondent
Goodman Law Group
Michael “Mike” Olson
President of the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Gregg Arthur
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Kathy Andrews
Community Manager
HOAMCO (Respondent’s management company)
John Allen
Property Owner / HOA Member
Long Meadow Ranch East
Joe Zielinski
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Jim Robertson
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Tom Reid
Director on the Board
Respondent (HOA)
Boris Biloskirka
Former Board Member
Respondent (HOA)
Timeline of Key Events
June 19, 2017
An incident occurs where Wayne Coates allegedly acts belligerently toward potential buyers of John Allen’s property.
June 20, 2017
An email exchange regarding the incident occurs between John Allen, his realtor, and members of the HOA Board.
October 18, 2018
Patricia Wiercinski files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
January 10, 2019
The initial evidentiary hearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
January 22, 2019
The ALJ issues a decision denying Wiercinski’s petition.
Post-Jan 22, 2019
Wiercinski requests a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The request is granted.
April 22, 2019
The rehearing is held.
May 1, 2019
The ALJ issues a final decision, again dismissing Wiercinski’s petition.
The Core Dispute: The June 19, 2017 Incident
On June 19, 2017, potential buyers, along with their builder, architect, and son, were viewing a lot for sale owned by John Allen on Puntenney Rd. The lot was across the street from the home of Patricia Wiercinski and Wayne Coates. An elderly man, later identified as Wayne Coates, came out of the house and was allegedly “belligerent and cursing” at the group, telling them nothing was for sale and they should not be snooping around. The potential buyers described the individual as “verbally abusive and extremely confrontational,” displaying “extreme aggressive behavior.” As a result of this encounter, the potential buyers decided to remove the lot from their list of considerations, stating they were seeking a “quiet, peaceful, and neighborly place to retire. Not a place with hostility and confrontation.”
This incident prompted John Allen to contact his realtor and members of the HOA Board, seeking action to prevent such behavior from interfering with future property sales.
The Legal Proceedings
Petitioner’s Argument: Patricia Wiercinski alleged that the HOA (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to produce documents related to its deliberations, decisions, and actions regarding the June 19, 2017 incident. Her core arguments were:
• The email about the incident was sent to a quorum of the Board, making it official business.
• The Board was required to make a formal motion and decision, even if it decided to take no action against her husband.
• She never received documents showing the Board addressed the incident in an executive session or open meeting.
• She did not receive a map referenced in one of the emails or a letter mentioned by board member Joe Zielninski in a video.
• An HOA resolution to electronically store all association business documents meant the requested records must exist.
Respondent’s Argument: The HOA denied violating any statute. Its defense was based on the following points:
• The Board never took any official action against Wiercinski or Coates as a result of the incident.
• The email string was an informal communication among Board Directors on their personal servers and was not kept as an official record. It was provided to Wiercinski voluntarily.
• The names of the potential purchasers and real estate agent were redacted from the emails because Wayne Coates has a known history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.”
• No official discussion or vote on the incident ever occurred in an executive session or general meeting.
ALJ’s Decision (January 22, 2019): The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition. The decision concluded that Wiercinski did not meet her burden of proof to establish that any official documents regarding the incident existed that the Respondent failed to produce. The judge reasoned that the mere fact a quorum of Board members informally discusses a topic in private emails does not make it official Board business, especially when no action is taken.
Reason for Rehearing: Wiercinski requested a rehearing, alleging misconduct by the judge. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the request without noting any specific misconduct or stating why it should have changed the result.
Petitioner’s Changed Argument: At the rehearing, Wiercinski changed her theory of the case. She no longer argued that the Board failed to produce a record of a formal decision. Instead, she argued that:
• The email string itself was an official record of the association’s business.
• A.R.S. § 33-1805 therefore required the HOA to produce a fully un-redacted copy of the emails.
• She and Mr. Coates had a right to know the names of the individuals accusing Mr. Coates of belligerence.
Respondent’s Rebuttal: The HOA maintained its position:
• The email string was not an official record because the Board never took any action on the matter. The incident did not violate any of the HOA’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else it was empowered to enforce.
• Community Manager Kathy Andrews testified that official records include governing documents, minutes, and items submitted to the Board for action. Since the Board took no action, the email was not included in the association’s archived records.
• The names were redacted because of Mr. Coates’s history of intimidation, and the Board president feared he would harass the individuals involved.
ALJ’s Final Decision (May 1, 2019): The petition was dismissed again. The ALJ reaffirmed that the email string was not a “record of the association.” Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) did not require the Respondent to provide an un-redacted version to the Petitioner. The judge also noted that the fear of harassment by Mr. Coates, which prompted the redactions, “does not appear unreasonable.”
——————————————————————————–
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What specific event on June 19, 2017, initiated the legal dispute?
2. What Arizona statute did Patricia Wiercinski claim the HOA violated, and what does that statute generally require?
3. Why did the HOA state it redacted names from the email chain it provided to Wiercinski?
4. In the initial hearing, what did Wiercinski argue the HOA Board was required to do even if it decided to take no action on the incident?
5. How did Wiercinski’s primary legal argument change between the first hearing and the rehearing?
6. Who is Kathy Andrews, and what was her testimony regarding the HOA’s official records?
7. Did the HOA Board ever hold a formal meeting or take an official vote regarding the incident involving Wayne Coates?
8. According to the ALJ, does an informal email discussion among a quorum of board members automatically constitute “official Board business”?
9. What was the final ruling in the case after the rehearing?
10. What reason did HOA President Mike Olson give for the Board not taking official action on the June 19, 2017 incident?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The event was an alleged confrontation where Wayne Coates was belligerent and verbally abusive toward potential buyers who were viewing a property for sale across the street from his home. This encounter caused the buyers to lose interest in the property.
2. Wiercinski claimed the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
3. The HOA stated it redacted the names of the potential purchasers and their real estate agent due to Wayne Coates’s history of “threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” Board President Mike Olson testified he feared Mr. Coates would harass the individuals if their identities were revealed.
4. In the initial hearing, Wiercinski argued that the Board was required to make a formal motion and arrive at a formal, documented decision even if it decided it was not going to take any action against her husband.
5. In the rehearing, Wiercinski’s argument shifted from claiming the HOA failed to produce a record of a decision to arguing the email string itself was an official record. She then demanded that the HOA provide a fully un-redacted version of this email string.
6. Kathy Andrews is the community manager for the HOA, employed by the management company Hoamco. She testified that the association’s official records include items like governing documents, meeting minutes, and anything submitted to the Board for action, and that the email was not an official record because the Board took no action.
7. No. Testimony from multiple witnesses, including Mike Olson and Gregg Arthur, confirmed that the Board never discussed the incident at an executive meeting or general membership meeting and never voted or took any official action as a result of the incident.
8. No. The ALJ’s decision states that the mere fact a quorum of Board members discusses a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not take any action to make it so.
9. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the email string was not an official record of the association, so the HOA was not required by law to provide an un-redacted version.
10. Mike Olson testified that the Board never voted to take any action because the alleged incident did not violate the Respondent’s CC&Rs, bylaws, or anything else that the HOA was authorized or empowered to enforce.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between informal discussions among board members and “official Board business.” How did this distinction shape the outcome of both hearings?
2. Discuss the evolution of Patricia Wiercinski’s legal strategy from the initial hearing to the rehearing. Was the change in argument effective, and why or why not?
3. Examine the roles of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and A.R.S. § 33-1804 in this case. Explain how the Petitioner and Respondent interpreted these statutes differently and how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately applied them.
4. Based on the testimony of Mike Olson and Kathy Andrews, describe the HOA’s official position on record-keeping and its justification for not treating the email string as an official document.
5. Evaluate the Respondent’s decision to redact the names of non-members from the email string. What reasons were given for this action, and how did the Administrative Law Judge view this justification in the final ruling?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): The impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.
• A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that “all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member.”
• A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(4): An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case which provides that any quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business must comply with open meeting and notice provisions.
• 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 Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
• Petitioner: The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Patricia Wiercinski.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with the “most convincing force.”
• Quorum: The minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (such as a board of directors) necessary to conduct the business of that group. The petitioner argued that because a quorum of the board was included on the emails, the discussion constituted official business.
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Long Meadow Ranch East Property Owners Association, Inc.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918028-REL
4 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit About a “Nightmare Neighbor”
Introduction: Behind the Closed Doors of the HOA Board
Many people live in communities governed by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA), navigating the rules and paying the dues as part of modern suburban life. But what happens when a serious dispute between neighbors erupts? What if one resident’s behavior is so aggressive that it costs another the sale of their property? A real-life administrative law case from Prescott, Arizona, provides a rare and fascinating look into the messy reality of HOA governance. The lawsuit, filed by a homeowner against her HOA for allegedly withholding records, reveals surprising truths about what constitutes “official business” and the real-world limits of an HOA’s power.
——————————————————————————–
1. Not All HOA Talk is “Official Business”—Even When the Whole Board Is In on It.
The case centered on a dramatic incident. A homeowner’s husband, Wayne Coates, was accused of being “belligerent and cursing” at potential buyers viewing a lot across the street, causing them to back out of the sale. The distressed property seller, John Allen, emailed an HOA board member, Gregg Arthur, who then forwarded the complaint to the entire board. The petitioner, Mr. Coates’ wife, argued that this email chain was an official HOA record.
Her argument rested on a profound misunderstanding of board governance that many residents likely share: she claimed the board was legally required to make a motion and arrive at a formal decision even if it decided to do nothing. The administrative law judge firmly rejected this idea. The emails were deemed informal, private communications, not official records.
The judge clarified that “official business” is triggered when a board moves toward a formal decision or action that would bind the association, such as spending funds, issuing a violation, or changing a rule. These emails were purely informational and investigatory, never reaching that threshold. This distinction is a cornerstone of volunteer board governance, as it protects boards from being paralyzed by procedure. The judge’s decision powerfully refutes the notion that boards must formally document every issue they choose not to pursue:
the mere fact that a quorum of Board members may discuss a topic does not make it official Board business, especially if they do not end up taking any action to make a matter board business. Any other result would impose an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on volunteers who are not compensated for their time who are may be neighbors and who may also be friends, in addition to being Board members.
2. A Neighbor’s Behavior Can Kill a Property Sale, and Your HOA Might Be Powerless.
The impact of Mr. Coates’ alleged actions was immediate and severe. The potential buyers, seeking a peaceful retirement, were so shaken by the confrontation that they explicitly withdrew their interest in the property.
An email from the potential buyer, submitted as evidence, vividly illustrates the direct financial consequence of the neighbor’s behavior:
In closing when we returned one thing that stands out is would we want to live next to this type of behavior of [a] neighbor? The answer is no, this lot was one that we had in our top 2 Lots as a consideration for purchase but due to the volatile potential of this man, we have decided at this point to remove it from our list.
Despite the clear harm to a member, the HOA concluded it could not intervene. According to testimony, Community Manager Kathy Andrews explained that the HOA had “no authority to become involved in a personal dispute between neighbors.” Further, Board President Mike Olson testified that the incident did not violate any specific CC&Rs or bylaws the board was empowered to enforce. This highlights a counter-intuitive reality for many homeowners: not all bad neighbor behavior falls under an HOA’s jurisdiction, even when it negatively affects property sales. However, while the HOA was powerless, the situation was not a dead end for the seller, who court records show did eventually sell his lot to someone else.
3. Transparency Has Limits, Especially When a Resident Is Seen as a Threat.
The petitioner demanded an un-redacted copy of the emails, wanting to know exactly who was accusing her husband. The HOA refused, redacting the names of the potential buyers and their real estate agent.
The reason, according to sworn testimony from HOA President Mike Olson, was that Mr. Coates had a “history of threatening and bullying neighbors and others.” This case highlights the inherent tension between a member’s right to information and the board’s fiduciary duty to protect individuals from harm. While members have a right to access official records, that right is not absolute.
The judge validated the board’s exercise of its duty of care, finding its rationale for the redactions to be sound. In a moment of legal irony, the judge noted that the board’s fear was reasonable, “especially given Mr. Coates’ role in causing Petitioner to prosecute this petition at the original hearing and rehearing.” In effect, the petitioner’s own aggressive pursuit of the case in court helped to legally justify the board’s initial decision to protect identities from her husband.
4. Suing Your HOA Can Put Your Own Dirty Laundry on Display.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the lawsuit is what it ultimately accomplished. In her quest to obtain what she believed were improperly withheld documents, the petitioner’s legal action placed deeply unflattering information about her husband directly into the public record for anyone to see.
Emails submitted as evidence contained damaging statements, including an email from board member Joe Zielinski that is now a permanent part of the court file. It contained severe allegations that went far beyond the initial incident.
The YCSO [Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office] may file charges against Wayne for disorderly conduct/harassment, based on what happened to Mr. Allan and the others in attendance, given Wayne’s arrest record and prison term and criminal history. . . . I don’t believe Wayne (and Patricia’s) aggressive and disruptive behavior will stop.
This serves as a powerful “be careful what you wish for” lesson in HOA litigation. The lawsuit, intended to hold the HOA accountable, permanently enshrined the allegations about her husband’s “arrest record and prison term” in the public court record—the very opposite of the privacy and vindication the petitioner was likely seeking.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Fine Line Between Community and Controversy
This case peels back the curtain on the complex world of volunteer-run HOAs. It demonstrates that the line between an informal discussion among neighbors and official, actionable HOA business is finer and more consequential than most residents assume. It shows that an HOA’s power has clear limits and that a board’s duty to protect individuals can sometimes override demands for total transparency. It makes you wonder: when you see a problem in your neighborhood, is it truly the HOA’s business to solve, or is it a personal dispute between neighbors?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Wiercinski(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Wayne Coates(petitioner's husband) Central figure in the June 19, 2017 incident
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Represented Respondent
Michael Olson(board president, witness) President of Respondent's board; testified at hearing and rehearing
Gregg Arthur(board director, witness) Director on Respondent's board; testified at hearing
Kathy Andrews(property manager, witness) HOAMCO Respondent's community manager; employed by HOAMCO; testified at hearing and rehearing
John Allen(member/complainant) Owner trying to sell property across the street from Petitioner; member of Respondent
Jim Robertson(board director) Director on Respondent's board
Joe Zielinski(board director, witness) Director on Respondent's board; mentioned conversation with YCSO deputy
Tom Reid(board director) Director on Respondent's board
Boris Biloskirka(former board member) Recipient of emails; identified as a former Board member
Josh(compliance officer) Referenced in emails regarding compliance inspections
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Shelia Polk(head prosecutor) Head of the office Joe Zielinski sought to contact regarding Wayne Coates
YCSO’s deputy(deputy) Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Conversed with Joe Zielinski regarding the incident
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
The ALJ denied the petition after rehearing, concluding the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its CC&Rs, controlling Rules and Regulations (revised July 2018), or relevant statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809) by banning parking on association streets and implementing a booting/towing contract.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations of community documents or A.R.S. statutes by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of community documents and statutes regarding parking ban and vehicle booting/towing
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its CC&Rs amendments 1, 2, and 3, and Rules and Regulations, by banning all parking on association streets and contracting for vehicle booting/towing. Petitioner also contested the validity of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations due to improper notice and alleged violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Executive Summary
This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG, where Petitioner William P. Lee’s complaint against the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (Greenlaw) was denied. Mr. Lee, a homeowner, alleged that Greenlaw’s complete ban on street parking and its contract with a towing company to enforce the ban violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Lee failed to meet the required burden of proof. The central conclusion was that Greenlaw’s revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, are the controlling authority and explicitly permit a total ban on street parking. The ALJ determined that the specific parking prohibitions detailed in the CC&R amendments—concerning fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles—do not preclude the association from enacting a more comprehensive ban via its rules. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Greenlaw had actually taken the alleged enforcement actions (booting or towing) against any member’s vehicle.
Case Overview
Detail
Information
Case Name
William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Case Number
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Petitioner
William P. Lee (Homeowner)
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Homeowners Association)
Hearing Date
April 1, 2019 (Rehearing)
Decision Date
April 22, 2019
Final Order
Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Presiding ALJ
Velva Moses-Thompson
Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Arguments
William P. Lee’s petition, filed on September 12, 2018, centered on the claim that Greenlaw acted outside its authority by banning all street parking and contracting with a towing company for enforcement. His arguments were:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The total parking ban directly contradicted CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Lee contended these amendments established an exhaustive list of permissible parking restrictions, limited to:
◦ Designated fire lanes (Amendment #1).
◦ Periods of snow removal (Amendment #2).
◦ Vehicles in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours (Amendment #3).
• Invalidity of Revised Rules: Mr. Lee argued that the July 2018 revised Rules and Regulations, which contain the parking ban, were not valid or controlling due to improper notification.
◦ He contended that Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required that such notices be delivered personally or by postal mail.
◦ He received notice only via a July 6, 2018 email, which he claimed did not clearly indicate that the rules had been substantively changed.
• Improper Motive: Mr. Lee contended that “the only reason that the Association banned parking was to please Barbara, a board member who did not want anyone to park behind her property.”
Respondent’s Defense
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two asserted that its actions were proper and within the scope of its authority as an HOA. Its defense included the following points:
• Controlling Authority: Greenlaw maintained that its revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, were the controlling documents governing parking.
• Notice Protocol: The association contended that the Bylaw provision requiring personal or postal mail notice applies only to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs. Greenlaw argued there is no such requirement for providing notice of amendments to the Rules and Regulations.
• Sufficient Notice: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee received actual notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
Analysis of Key Governing Documents
The case revolved around the interpretation of and interplay between several of Greenlaw’s governing documents.
Document
Key Provision / Content
Relevance to Case
CC&R Amendments 1, 2, & 3
These amendments, added to Article II (Permitted Uses), establish specific, conditional parking prohibitions related to fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles.
The petitioner argued these amendments represented the only circumstances under which parking could be banned. The ALJ found they were not an exhaustive list.
Bylaws, Article V, Section 1
“Notices to directors and lot owners shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the directors or lot owners at their addresses appearing on the books of the corporation.”
The petitioner cited this to argue that the email notice for the revised rules was improper, thus invalidating the rules. The ALJ sided with the Respondent’s interpretation.
Rules and Regulations (July 2018), Section 8
“Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time… cars parked in violation may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company.” The rule specifies that the streets (Eva, Heidi, Jeffrey Loops) are private and owned by the HOA.
This document contains the explicit, total parking ban at the heart of the dispute. The ALJ found this rule to be the valid and controlling authority.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal standards, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.
Burden of Proof
The decision established that Mr. Lee bore the burden of proof “to establish that Greenlaw violated amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, and the Greenlaw Rules and Regulations by a preponderance of the evidence.” A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Validity of the 2018 Rules: The ALJ concluded that “the weight of the evidence presented at hearing shows that Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations were revised effective July 2018 and are the controlling Rules and Regulations of Greenlaw.” Mr. Lee failed to establish that any prior version remained in effect.
2. Scope of CC&R Amendments: The decision found that the CC&R amendments only “provide specific scenarios in which parking on the streets is banned.” They do not restrict the association from implementing a broader ban through its Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the total ban did not violate the CC&Rs.
3. No Violation of Rules: Because the July 2018 rules were found to be controlling, and they explicitly authorize a total parking ban, the ALJ concluded that Greenlaw’s decision did not violate its own Rules and Regulations.
4. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: A critical failure in the petitioner’s case was the lack of evidence.
◦ The decision notes, “Mr. Lee provided no evidence that Greenlaw booted or towed any of the vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members.”
◦ His testimony about observing a booted jeep was dismissed as insufficient, as he “did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.” The Greenlaw manager’s subsequent comment was not found to be an admission of responsibility.
◦ Mr. Lee did not allege that any of his own vehicles had been booted or towed.
5. No Statutory Violation: The judge found that Mr. Lee failed to establish any violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-1803 and 33-1809.
Final Order and Implications
Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final, binding order.
• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
• Appeal Process: As the order resulted from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal must seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918019-REL
Study Guide: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between William P. Lee and the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association. It covers the central conflict, the arguments presented by both parties, the key legal documents involved, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.
Case Overview
This case centers on a dispute between a homeowner, William P. Lee, and his Homeowners Association (HOA), Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two. Mr. Lee filed a petition alleging that the HOA’s decision to ban all parking on association streets and contract with a towing company violated the community’s governing documents. The matter was decided by an Administrative Law Judge following a rehearing on April 1, 2019.
Key Parties and Roles
Party/Role
Name / Entity
Description
Petitioner
William P. Lee
A homeowner in Greenlaw Unit Two and member of the HOA who filed the petition against the association.
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
The Homeowners Association (HOA) responsible for governing the community, against which the petition was filed.
Legal Counsel
Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.
Appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Greenlaw Townhouses.
Adjudicator
Velva Moses-Thompson
The Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over the rehearing and issued the decision.
Timeline of Key Events
June 16, 1986
Greenlaw Bylaws were recorded at the Coconino County Recorder.
July 2, 1999
Greenlaw Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) was recorded.
July 6, 2018
Greenlaw sent an email to members with an attachment containing the revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018.
September 12, 2018
William P. Lee filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
December 13, 2018
The original hearing on the petition was conducted.
February 11, 2019
The Department of Real Estate issued an order for a rehearing.
April 1, 2019
The rehearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
April 22, 2019
The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision, denying the petitioner’s petition.
The Central Conflict: Parking Regulations
The core of the dispute was Mr. Lee’s allegation that Greenlaw’s comprehensive ban on street parking, as stated in its revised 2018 Rules and Regulations, violated the more specific parking restrictions outlined in the community’s CC&Rs. The validity of the 2018 Rules and Regulations, and the method by which they were distributed to homeowners, was also a key point of contention.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The general ban on street parking violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, which only banned parking in specific situations (fire lanes, snow removal, abandoned vehicles).
• Improper Notice: Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice of the revised Rules and Regulations. Mr. Lee argued that the HOA’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, not by email.
• Unclear Communication: The email sent on July 6, 2018, did not clearly state that the rules had been recently changed.
• Invalidity of New Rules: Due to the improper notice, Mr. Lee contended that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid or controlling.
• Improper Motivation: Mr. Lee alleged the only reason for the ban was to appease a board member named Barbara who did not want anyone parking behind her property.
• Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep being booted in a driveway and that the Greenlaw manager’s response implied the HOA’s contracted towing company could boot vehicles in violation.
• Notice Was Sufficient: Greenlaw contended that the Bylaw’s requirement for mail or personal delivery only applied to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs.
• No Notice Requirement: The HOA argued that it was not required by law or the CC&Rs to provide homeowners with notice of an amendment to the Rules and Regulations.
• Notice Was Received: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee did, in fact, receive notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
• No Proof of Harm: Greenlaw pointed out that Mr. Lee provided no evidence that any vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members had been booted or towed by the association, nor did he allege that one of his own vehicles had been affected.
Governing Documents and Legal Principles
• Amendment #1: Bans parking in designated fire lanes.
• Amendment #2: Bans parking on subdivision roads during snow removal periods.
• Amendment #3: Allows for the towing of vehicles parked at the curb in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
• Article V, Section 1: States that notices to directors and lot owners “shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed.”
• Section 8: Explicitly states, “Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time.” It identifies the streets (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops) as “Private Fire Access Lanes” owned by the HOA and states that vehicles in violation may be booted and/or towed.
• The petitioner, Mr. Lee, bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The source defines preponderance of the evidence as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
The Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, denied Mr. Lee’s petition. The key conclusions of law were:
1. Controlling Document: The 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were found to be the valid and controlling rules for the Greenlaw HOA.
2. Authority to Ban Parking: The 2018 Rules and Regulations explicitly allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to enforce this rule by booting or towing vehicles.
3. No Violation of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that Mr. Lee failed to prove that the general parking ban violated the specific, situational bans outlined in CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. The amendments did not preclude the HOA from enacting a broader rule.
4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Mr. Lee did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Greenlaw’s actions violated either the CC&Rs or the Rules and Regulations.
5. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee failed to provide any evidence that Greenlaw was actually responsible for booting the jeep he observed. His testimony was not sufficient to prove the HOA had taken action against any member.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Test Your Understanding
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information in the study guide.
1. What was the central allegation in William P. Lee’s petition against the Greenlaw HOA?
2. What three specific scenarios for parking restrictions are outlined in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs?
3. On what grounds did Mr. Lee argue that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid?
4. How did Greenlaw defend its use of email to distribute the revised Rules and Regulations to homeowners?
5. According to Section 8 of the revised Rules and Regulations, what are the potential consequences for parking on an association street?
6. What was the judge’s conclusion regarding the validity and authority of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof to meet it in this case?
8. Why did the judge find Mr. Lee’s testimony about a booted jeep to be insufficient evidence?
9. Did the judge find that Greenlaw’s general parking ban violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs? Explain why or why not.
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Lee’s central allegation was that the Greenlaw HOA had violated its CC&Rs and Rules and Regulations. Specifically, he claimed the association’s decision to ban all parking on its streets and to contract with a company to boot vehicles was improper.
2. The CC&R amendments outline three specific parking restrictions. Amendment 1 bans parking in designated fire lanes, Amendment 2 bans parking on roads during snow removal, and Amendment 3 allows for the towing of abandoned vehicles in a state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
3. Mr. Lee argued the 2018 rules were invalid because he was not given proper notice. He contended that the HOA’s Bylaws required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, and that the email he received was not a valid method of distribution.
4. Greenlaw defended its use of email by arguing that the Bylaw’s requirement for personal or mail delivery only applied to notices that were required by statute or the CC&Rs. The HOA contended it was not required by law to provide notice for an amendment to its Rules and Regulations.
5. Section 8 states that cars parked in violation on an association street may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company. The rule identifies the streets as “Private Fire Access Lanes.”
6. The judge concluded that the Rules and Regulations revised in July 2018 were the controlling rules for Greenlaw. Furthermore, the judge found that these rules do allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to tow or boot cars in violation.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof that convinces a judge that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, William P. Lee, bore the burden of proving his claims by this standard.
8. The evidence was insufficient because Mr. Lee did not know who owned the jeep or who was responsible for booting it. There was no direct evidence provided that proved Greenlaw or its contractor was responsible for the action.
9. No, the judge did not find that the ban violated the CC&Rs. The judge reasoned that the amendments only provided specific scenarios where parking was banned and did not prevent the HOA from enacting a broader, more general parking ban in its Rules and Regulations.
10. The final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge was that the Petitioner’s (Mr. Lee’s) petition is denied.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis
The following questions are for further reflection. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) regarding notice and its 2018 distribution of revised Rules and Regulations. Discuss both parties’ arguments and explain how the judge’s ultimate decision implies a resolution to this conflict.
2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did William P. Lee’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard affect the outcome of his claims regarding both the parking ban and the alleged booting/towing incidents?
3. Compare and contrast the parking restrictions detailed in the CC&R Amendments with the broader ban instituted in Section 8 of the 2018 Rules and Regulations. Explain why the existence of the specific amendments did not prevent the HOA from enacting a more general rule.
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by Mr. Lee. What were the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments and testimony, particularly concerning the booted jeep and the motivation behind the parking ban?
5. Imagine you are legal counsel for the Greenlaw HOA. Based on the arguments and outcome of this case, what advice would you give the Board of Directors regarding future amendments to its Rules and Regulations to avoid similar disputes?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings at administrative agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Affirmative Defenses: Arguments made by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. The Respondent (Greenlaw) bears the burden to establish these defenses.
• Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Lee had the burden of proof to establish his claims.
• Bylaws: A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, for governing its internal operations. Greenlaw’s bylaws addressed the method for providing notices to members.
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A set of rules governing the use of land in a planned community or subdivision. Owners agree to be bound by the CC&Rs.
• Homeowners Association (HOA): An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the HOA in this case.
• Petitioner: The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. William P. Lee is the Petitioner.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in which the trier of fact is convinced that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as “the greater weight of the evidence.”
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the Respondent.
• Rules and Regulations: A set of rules established by the HOA, in addition to the CC&Rs and Bylaws, that govern the day-to-day life and conduct within the community. The 2018 revised parking ban was located in Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918019-REL
Select all sources
703187.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
1 source
This document presents an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between William P. Lee, a homeowner, and Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two, his Homeowners Association. The central issue revolved around the Greenlaw HOA’s implementation of a comprehensive ban on street parking and its contracting with a towing company to enforce the rule, which Mr. Lee contended violated the association’s governing documents, specifically amendments to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the proper notification procedures for revised rules. The findings of fact detail the history of the parking rules, the homeowner’s receipt of the electronic notification of the revised rules, and Mr. Lee’s arguments that the association failed to use the required postal mail or personal delivery methods for notice. The Conclusions of Law determined that the controlling rules were the revised July 2018 Rules and Regulations and that Mr. Lee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated either the CC&Rs or relevant Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
William P. Lee(petitioner) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association member Testified on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Timothy D. Butterfield(HOA attorney) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Barbara(board member) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association Contended by Lee to be the reason for the parking ban
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809; CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3; Greenlaw Rules and Regulations
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited governing documents (CC&Rs/Rules) or state statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809) by banning street parking and contracting for vehicle booting/towing.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding violations of CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. The ALJ found the July 2018 revised Rules, which banned parking, were controlling.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation regarding banning parking and use of towing/booting company.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly banned street parking and contracted with a towing/booting company, arguing this violated specific CC&R amendments, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. He also claimed the 2018 revised Rules were invalid due to improper electronic notice instead of personal delivery or mail.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Executive Summary
This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG, where Petitioner William P. Lee’s complaint against the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (Greenlaw) was denied. Mr. Lee, a homeowner, alleged that Greenlaw’s complete ban on street parking and its contract with a towing company to enforce the ban violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Lee failed to meet the required burden of proof. The central conclusion was that Greenlaw’s revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, are the controlling authority and explicitly permit a total ban on street parking. The ALJ determined that the specific parking prohibitions detailed in the CC&R amendments—concerning fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles—do not preclude the association from enacting a more comprehensive ban via its rules. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Greenlaw had actually taken the alleged enforcement actions (booting or towing) against any member’s vehicle.
Case Overview
Detail
Information
Case Name
William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Case Number
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Petitioner
William P. Lee (Homeowner)
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Homeowners Association)
Hearing Date
April 1, 2019 (Rehearing)
Decision Date
April 22, 2019
Final Order
Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Presiding ALJ
Velva Moses-Thompson
Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Arguments
William P. Lee’s petition, filed on September 12, 2018, centered on the claim that Greenlaw acted outside its authority by banning all street parking and contracting with a towing company for enforcement. His arguments were:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The total parking ban directly contradicted CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Lee contended these amendments established an exhaustive list of permissible parking restrictions, limited to:
◦ Designated fire lanes (Amendment #1).
◦ Periods of snow removal (Amendment #2).
◦ Vehicles in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours (Amendment #3).
• Invalidity of Revised Rules: Mr. Lee argued that the July 2018 revised Rules and Regulations, which contain the parking ban, were not valid or controlling due to improper notification.
◦ He contended that Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required that such notices be delivered personally or by postal mail.
◦ He received notice only via a July 6, 2018 email, which he claimed did not clearly indicate that the rules had been substantively changed.
• Improper Motive: Mr. Lee contended that “the only reason that the Association banned parking was to please Barbara, a board member who did not want anyone to park behind her property.”
Respondent’s Defense
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two asserted that its actions were proper and within the scope of its authority as an HOA. Its defense included the following points:
• Controlling Authority: Greenlaw maintained that its revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, were the controlling documents governing parking.
• Notice Protocol: The association contended that the Bylaw provision requiring personal or postal mail notice applies only to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs. Greenlaw argued there is no such requirement for providing notice of amendments to the Rules and Regulations.
• Sufficient Notice: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee received actual notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
Analysis of Key Governing Documents
The case revolved around the interpretation of and interplay between several of Greenlaw’s governing documents.
Document
Key Provision / Content
Relevance to Case
CC&R Amendments 1, 2, & 3
These amendments, added to Article II (Permitted Uses), establish specific, conditional parking prohibitions related to fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles.
The petitioner argued these amendments represented the only circumstances under which parking could be banned. The ALJ found they were not an exhaustive list.
Bylaws, Article V, Section 1
“Notices to directors and lot owners shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the directors or lot owners at their addresses appearing on the books of the corporation.”
The petitioner cited this to argue that the email notice for the revised rules was improper, thus invalidating the rules. The ALJ sided with the Respondent’s interpretation.
Rules and Regulations (July 2018), Section 8
“Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time… cars parked in violation may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company.” The rule specifies that the streets (Eva, Heidi, Jeffrey Loops) are private and owned by the HOA.
This document contains the explicit, total parking ban at the heart of the dispute. The ALJ found this rule to be the valid and controlling authority.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal standards, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.
Burden of Proof
The decision established that Mr. Lee bore the burden of proof “to establish that Greenlaw violated amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, and the Greenlaw Rules and Regulations by a preponderance of the evidence.” A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Validity of the 2018 Rules: The ALJ concluded that “the weight of the evidence presented at hearing shows that Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations were revised effective July 2018 and are the controlling Rules and Regulations of Greenlaw.” Mr. Lee failed to establish that any prior version remained in effect.
2. Scope of CC&R Amendments: The decision found that the CC&R amendments only “provide specific scenarios in which parking on the streets is banned.” They do not restrict the association from implementing a broader ban through its Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the total ban did not violate the CC&Rs.
3. No Violation of Rules: Because the July 2018 rules were found to be controlling, and they explicitly authorize a total parking ban, the ALJ concluded that Greenlaw’s decision did not violate its own Rules and Regulations.
4. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: A critical failure in the petitioner’s case was the lack of evidence.
◦ The decision notes, “Mr. Lee provided no evidence that Greenlaw booted or towed any of the vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members.”
◦ His testimony about observing a booted jeep was dismissed as insufficient, as he “did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.” The Greenlaw manager’s subsequent comment was not found to be an admission of responsibility.
◦ Mr. Lee did not allege that any of his own vehicles had been booted or towed.
5. No Statutory Violation: The judge found that Mr. Lee failed to establish any violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-1803 and 33-1809.
Final Order and Implications
Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final, binding order.
• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
• Appeal Process: As the order resulted from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal must seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918019-REL
Study Guide: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between William P. Lee and the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association. It covers the central conflict, the arguments presented by both parties, the key legal documents involved, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.
Case Overview
This case centers on a dispute between a homeowner, William P. Lee, and his Homeowners Association (HOA), Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two. Mr. Lee filed a petition alleging that the HOA’s decision to ban all parking on association streets and contract with a towing company violated the community’s governing documents. The matter was decided by an Administrative Law Judge following a rehearing on April 1, 2019.
Key Parties and Roles
Party/Role
Name / Entity
Description
Petitioner
William P. Lee
A homeowner in Greenlaw Unit Two and member of the HOA who filed the petition against the association.
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
The Homeowners Association (HOA) responsible for governing the community, against which the petition was filed.
Legal Counsel
Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.
Appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Greenlaw Townhouses.
Adjudicator
Velva Moses-Thompson
The Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over the rehearing and issued the decision.
Timeline of Key Events
June 16, 1986
Greenlaw Bylaws were recorded at the Coconino County Recorder.
July 2, 1999
Greenlaw Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) was recorded.
July 6, 2018
Greenlaw sent an email to members with an attachment containing the revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018.
September 12, 2018
William P. Lee filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
December 13, 2018
The original hearing on the petition was conducted.
February 11, 2019
The Department of Real Estate issued an order for a rehearing.
April 1, 2019
The rehearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
April 22, 2019
The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision, denying the petitioner’s petition.
The Central Conflict: Parking Regulations
The core of the dispute was Mr. Lee’s allegation that Greenlaw’s comprehensive ban on street parking, as stated in its revised 2018 Rules and Regulations, violated the more specific parking restrictions outlined in the community’s CC&Rs. The validity of the 2018 Rules and Regulations, and the method by which they were distributed to homeowners, was also a key point of contention.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The general ban on street parking violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, which only banned parking in specific situations (fire lanes, snow removal, abandoned vehicles).
• Improper Notice: Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice of the revised Rules and Regulations. Mr. Lee argued that the HOA’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, not by email.
• Unclear Communication: The email sent on July 6, 2018, did not clearly state that the rules had been recently changed.
• Invalidity of New Rules: Due to the improper notice, Mr. Lee contended that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid or controlling.
• Improper Motivation: Mr. Lee alleged the only reason for the ban was to appease a board member named Barbara who did not want anyone parking behind her property.
• Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep being booted in a driveway and that the Greenlaw manager’s response implied the HOA’s contracted towing company could boot vehicles in violation.
• Notice Was Sufficient: Greenlaw contended that the Bylaw’s requirement for mail or personal delivery only applied to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs.
• No Notice Requirement: The HOA argued that it was not required by law or the CC&Rs to provide homeowners with notice of an amendment to the Rules and Regulations.
• Notice Was Received: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee did, in fact, receive notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
• No Proof of Harm: Greenlaw pointed out that Mr. Lee provided no evidence that any vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members had been booted or towed by the association, nor did he allege that one of his own vehicles had been affected.
Governing Documents and Legal Principles
• Amendment #1: Bans parking in designated fire lanes.
• Amendment #2: Bans parking on subdivision roads during snow removal periods.
• Amendment #3: Allows for the towing of vehicles parked at the curb in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
• Article V, Section 1: States that notices to directors and lot owners “shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed.”
• Section 8: Explicitly states, “Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time.” It identifies the streets (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops) as “Private Fire Access Lanes” owned by the HOA and states that vehicles in violation may be booted and/or towed.
• The petitioner, Mr. Lee, bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The source defines preponderance of the evidence as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
The Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, denied Mr. Lee’s petition. The key conclusions of law were:
1. Controlling Document: The 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were found to be the valid and controlling rules for the Greenlaw HOA.
2. Authority to Ban Parking: The 2018 Rules and Regulations explicitly allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to enforce this rule by booting or towing vehicles.
3. No Violation of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that Mr. Lee failed to prove that the general parking ban violated the specific, situational bans outlined in CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. The amendments did not preclude the HOA from enacting a broader rule.
4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Mr. Lee did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Greenlaw’s actions violated either the CC&Rs or the Rules and Regulations.
5. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee failed to provide any evidence that Greenlaw was actually responsible for booting the jeep he observed. His testimony was not sufficient to prove the HOA had taken action against any member.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Test Your Understanding
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information in the study guide.
1. What was the central allegation in William P. Lee’s petition against the Greenlaw HOA?
2. What three specific scenarios for parking restrictions are outlined in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs?
3. On what grounds did Mr. Lee argue that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid?
4. How did Greenlaw defend its use of email to distribute the revised Rules and Regulations to homeowners?
5. According to Section 8 of the revised Rules and Regulations, what are the potential consequences for parking on an association street?
6. What was the judge’s conclusion regarding the validity and authority of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof to meet it in this case?
8. Why did the judge find Mr. Lee’s testimony about a booted jeep to be insufficient evidence?
9. Did the judge find that Greenlaw’s general parking ban violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs? Explain why or why not.
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Lee’s central allegation was that the Greenlaw HOA had violated its CC&Rs and Rules and Regulations. Specifically, he claimed the association’s decision to ban all parking on its streets and to contract with a company to boot vehicles was improper.
2. The CC&R amendments outline three specific parking restrictions. Amendment 1 bans parking in designated fire lanes, Amendment 2 bans parking on roads during snow removal, and Amendment 3 allows for the towing of abandoned vehicles in a state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
3. Mr. Lee argued the 2018 rules were invalid because he was not given proper notice. He contended that the HOA’s Bylaws required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, and that the email he received was not a valid method of distribution.
4. Greenlaw defended its use of email by arguing that the Bylaw’s requirement for personal or mail delivery only applied to notices that were required by statute or the CC&Rs. The HOA contended it was not required by law to provide notice for an amendment to its Rules and Regulations.
5. Section 8 states that cars parked in violation on an association street may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company. The rule identifies the streets as “Private Fire Access Lanes.”
6. The judge concluded that the Rules and Regulations revised in July 2018 were the controlling rules for Greenlaw. Furthermore, the judge found that these rules do allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to tow or boot cars in violation.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof that convinces a judge that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, William P. Lee, bore the burden of proving his claims by this standard.
8. The evidence was insufficient because Mr. Lee did not know who owned the jeep or who was responsible for booting it. There was no direct evidence provided that proved Greenlaw or its contractor was responsible for the action.
9. No, the judge did not find that the ban violated the CC&Rs. The judge reasoned that the amendments only provided specific scenarios where parking was banned and did not prevent the HOA from enacting a broader, more general parking ban in its Rules and Regulations.
10. The final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge was that the Petitioner’s (Mr. Lee’s) petition is denied.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis
The following questions are for further reflection. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) regarding notice and its 2018 distribution of revised Rules and Regulations. Discuss both parties’ arguments and explain how the judge’s ultimate decision implies a resolution to this conflict.
2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did William P. Lee’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard affect the outcome of his claims regarding both the parking ban and the alleged booting/towing incidents?
3. Compare and contrast the parking restrictions detailed in the CC&R Amendments with the broader ban instituted in Section 8 of the 2018 Rules and Regulations. Explain why the existence of the specific amendments did not prevent the HOA from enacting a more general rule.
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by Mr. Lee. What were the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments and testimony, particularly concerning the booted jeep and the motivation behind the parking ban?
5. Imagine you are legal counsel for the Greenlaw HOA. Based on the arguments and outcome of this case, what advice would you give the Board of Directors regarding future amendments to its Rules and Regulations to avoid similar disputes?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings at administrative agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Affirmative Defenses: Arguments made by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. The Respondent (Greenlaw) bears the burden to establish these defenses.
• Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Lee had the burden of proof to establish his claims.
• Bylaws: A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, for governing its internal operations. Greenlaw’s bylaws addressed the method for providing notices to members.
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A set of rules governing the use of land in a planned community or subdivision. Owners agree to be bound by the CC&Rs.
• Homeowners Association (HOA): An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the HOA in this case.
• Petitioner: The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. William P. Lee is the Petitioner.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in which the trier of fact is convinced that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as “the greater weight of the evidence.”
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the Respondent.
• Rules and Regulations: A set of rules established by the HOA, in addition to the CC&Rs and Bylaws, that govern the day-to-day life and conduct within the community. The 2018 revised parking ban was located in Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918019-REL
Select all sources
703187.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
1 source
This document presents an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between William P. Lee, a homeowner, and Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two, his Homeowners Association. The central issue revolved around the Greenlaw HOA’s implementation of a comprehensive ban on street parking and its contracting with a towing company to enforce the rule, which Mr. Lee contended violated the association’s governing documents, specifically amendments to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the proper notification procedures for revised rules. The findings of fact detail the history of the parking rules, the homeowner’s receipt of the electronic notification of the revised rules, and Mr. Lee’s arguments that the association failed to use the required postal mail or personal delivery methods for notice. The Conclusions of Law determined that the controlling rules were the revised July 2018 Rules and Regulations and that Mr. Lee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated either the CC&Rs or relevant Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
William P. Lee(petitioner) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association member Testified on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Timothy D. Butterfield(HOA attorney) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Barbara(board member) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association Contended by Lee to be the reason for the parking ban
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2018-12-26
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
—
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners' Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
Bylaw 2.4
Outcome Summary
In the initial decision, Petitioner established violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (election materials disposal) and A.R.S. § 33-1804 (closed/improperly noticed meetings), but failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Issue 1). The rehearing only addressed Issue 1, which was ultimately dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 violation) because the ALJ found that while the Bylaw applied to Members, Petitioner failed to show it prohibited a Director from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned, and the investigation was initiated by a Board member immediately following the meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Election Objection Waiver)
Whether Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on an objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting, given that the Bylaw requires members to object to irregularities 'at the meeting' to avoid waiver.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed as to Issue 1.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Challenge, Bylaw Violation, Meeting Notice, Record Retention, Rehearing
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative legal dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the HOA’s board election of March 18, 2017. The core of the dispute involved the HOA board’s decision to investigate and ultimately overturn the initially announced election results, leading to a run-off election.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overseeing the case and a subsequent rehearing issued a mixed final decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, successfully proved that the Desert Ranch HOA committed two statutory violations:
1. Destruction of Election Materials: The HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by destroying ballot envelopes shortly after the election, materials which are required to be retained for at least one year.
2. Improper Closed Meeting: The HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a board meeting with its attorney at a private residence without providing the required notice to its members.
However, the Petitioner’s primary challenge—that the board violated its own Bylaw 2.4 by acting on an objection raised after the annual meeting had adjourned—was dismissed. The ALJ ruled that the bylaw’s waiver of claims applied to general “Members” but not to “Directors” acting in their official capacity. This ruling effectively upheld the board’s authority to investigate the election, which led to the discovery of invalid ballots and the eventual run-off election won by Brian Schoeffler.
As the prevailing party on two of the three issues, Mr. Barrs was awarded a reimbursement of his $1,000.00 filing fee. The judge, however, found that no civil penalty against the HOA was appropriate.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch HOA, represented by Catherine Overby (President) and Brian Schoeffler (Vice President)
• Case Number: 18F-H1818035-REL
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
• Subject of Dispute: Alleged violations of Arizona statutes and HOA bylaws related to the handling and outcome of the March 18, 2017, annual board election.
II. Chronology of the Contested Election
The dispute originated from the following sequence of events surrounding the 2017 election for two vacant seats on the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors.
1. Pre-Election: Absentee ballots were distributed to members, listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates and providing a space for a write-in candidate.
2. March 18, 2017 (Annual Meeting): Ballots were submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger (a write-in) were announced as the winning candidates. No members present objected to the results before the meeting was adjourned.
3. Immediately Following the Meeting: Board member Patrick Rice gathered the ballots and “expressed his concerns with the election results.”
4. Circa March 18, 2017: All ballot envelopes from the election were destroyed.
5. March 19, 2017: Candidate Brian Schoeffler sent an email regarding the election, stating, “I’m asking you to review the situation and make a decision if there is enough concern that there should be a revote.”
6. March 20, 2017: Board President Catherine Overby emailed the members, announcing that the election had been “contested.” In the email, she asserted that the bylaws did not permit write-in candidates and declared that she and Mr. Schoeffler were the new directors.
7. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Ms. Overby and Mr. Rice, held an unannounced meeting with an attorney at Ms. Overby’s home. During this meeting, it was discovered that “duplicate ballots and a proxy ballot” had been improperly counted.
8. Post-March 29, 2017: After consulting the attorney, the board determined that the valid vote count resulted in a tie between Mr. Schoeffler and Mr. Klinger. The board decided to hold a run-off election.
9. April 29, 2017: The run-off election was held, and Brian Schoeffler was announced as the winner.
10. May 10, 2017: The newly constituted Board of Directors held its organizational meeting.
III. Adjudicated Issues and Rulings
The petition, originally filed as a single issue, was converted to a multiple-issue case. At the hearing, the dispute was clarified into three distinct issues, each with a specific ruling from the ALJ.
Petitioner’s Allegation
Legal Basis
Final Ruling
The HOA improperly overturned the election results based on an objection raised after the annual meeting had adjourned.
Bylaw 2.4
Dismissed
The HOA unlawfully discarded ballot envelopes and related election materials.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
Violation Found
The HOA held closed board meetings without providing proper notice to the membership.
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Violation Found
——————————————————————————–
A. Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Improperly Overturning Election)
• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs contended that the board was barred from investigating or acting on any concerns about the election after the meeting had concluded. His argument was based on Bylaw 2.4, which states:
• ALJ Finding: The petition on this issue was dismissed. The judge’s finding was affirmed after a rehearing requested by the Petitioner.
• ALJ Rationale:
1. Initiation of Investigation: Testimony established that Board member Patrick Rice expressed concerns “immediately after the Annual Meeting adjourned.” Therefore, Mr. Schoeffler’s email the following day did not initiate the board’s investigation.
2. Distinction Between “Member” and “Director”: The judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific and non-interchangeable meanings. The waiver in Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member,” and the Petitioner failed to prove that a “Director” was prohibited from raising questions about the validity of an election after a meeting.
B. Issue 2: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (Destruction of Election Materials)
• Statutory Requirement: Arizona law mandates that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… for at least one year after completion of the election.”
• Respondent’s Action: The HOA destroyed the ballot envelopes at or around the time of the election.
• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner established that the HOA violated the statute.
• ALJ Rationale: The ruling was based on “uncontroverted evidence” presented at the hearing that established the destruction of the materials.
C. Issue 3: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Improper Closed Meetings)
• Statutory Requirement: Arizona law requires all HOA board meetings to be open to all members. A meeting can only be closed for specific reasons, such as receiving legal advice, and the board must provide notice and cite the legal authority for entering a closed session.
• Respondent’s Action: Certain board members met with an attorney at a private residence on March 29, 2017, to discuss the election. No notice was provided to the membership regarding this meeting.
• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner established that the HOA violated the statute.
• ALJ Rationale: The ruling was based on “uncontroverted evidence” that the meeting occurred and that the board “did not provide any notice of the upcoming meeting and/or provide notice that the meeting would be closed because it involved legal advice from an attorney.”
IV. Final Order and Disposition
The final decision, issued on August 23, 2018, and upheld after a rehearing decision on December 26, 2018, ordered the following:
• Dismissal: The petition regarding Issue 1 (violation of Bylaw 2.4) was dismissed.
• Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, was deemed the prevailing party as to Issue 2 and Issue 3.
• Monetary Award: The Respondent, Desert Ranch HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00.
• Civil Penalty: The judge determined that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”
• Finality: The decision after rehearing was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Study Guide:Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions issued on August 23, 2018, and December 26, 2018.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the initially announced results of the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors election on March 18, 2017?
3. What were the two primary procedural violations that the Desert Ranch HOA Board committed following the March 18, 2017 election?
4. What was the Petitioner’s central argument regarding the violation of Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4?
5. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismiss the Petitioner’s claim regarding Bylaw 2.4?
6. Explain the violation related to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1812(A)(7) that the ALJ found the Respondent had committed.
7. Describe the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 concerning open meetings.
8. What was the final order from the initial hearing on August 23, 2018?
9. What was the specific focus of the rehearing held on December 6, 2018?
10. What was the ultimate outcome of the rehearing, and what legal recourse was available to the parties afterward?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Tom Barrs, who filed the dispute, and Respondent Desert Ranch HOA. The HOA was represented by its President, Catherine Overby, and Vice President, Brian Schoeffler. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
2. At the Annual Board Meeting on March 18, 2017, the ballots were counted and Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger were announced as the winning candidates for the two vacant seats on the Board of Directors. No members present raised an objection before the meeting was adjourned.
3. The HOA Board committed two primary procedural violations. First, they destroyed the ballot envelopes at or around the time of the election, and second, certain Board members met with an attorney without providing notice to the association members that a meeting was being held or that it would be a closed session.
4. The Petitioner argued that candidate Brian Schoeffler’s challenge to the election was invalid because it was raised the day after the meeting adjourned. According to Bylaw 2.4, any “Member” who fails to object to an irregularity at the meeting waives their claim, and the Petitioner argued this rule should also apply to Board members.
5. The ALJ dismissed the claim because the investigation was initiated by Board member Patrick Rice, who expressed concerns immediately after the meeting, not by Mr. Schoeffler’s later email. The judge also determined that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific, non-interchangeable meanings, and the Petitioner failed to show that a Director was barred from raising concerns after a meeting.
6. The ALJ found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) based on uncontroverted evidence presented at the hearing. This statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related election materials be retained for at least one year after an election, but the HOA discarded the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.
7. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when certain Board members met with an attorney at Ms. Overby’s house on March 29, 2017. The HOA failed to provide any notice of this meeting to the members and did not announce that the meeting would be closed to discuss legal advice, as required by the statute.
8. In the initial order, the ALJ dismissed the petition as to Issue 1 (the Bylaw 2.4 violation) but found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party on Issues 2 and 3 (the statutory violations). The judge ordered the Respondent HOA to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00 but found that no civil penalty was appropriate.
9. The rehearing focused exclusively on the first issue from the initial hearing: whether the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on objections to the election results after the Annual Meeting had adjourned. The Petitioner did not seek reconsideration of the lack of penalties for the other two violations.
10. The rehearing upheld the original decision, dismissing the petition as to Issue 1. The decision from the rehearing was final and binding, and any party wishing to appeal the order was required to seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, drawing upon specific facts and legal arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4, specifically the distinction between a “Member” and a “Director.” Discuss the strength of the Petitioner’s counter-argument and why the judge’s reasoning ultimately prevailed.
2. Examine the series of actions taken by the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors following the March 18, 2017 election announcement. Evaluate whether their actions to investigate irregularities, consult an attorney, and hold a run-off election were ultimately justified, despite the procedural violations they committed.
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as the burden of proof in this case. For each of the three issues presented, explain how the Petitioner either met or failed to meet this standard, citing specific evidence mentioned in the decisions.
4. Based on the events described, from the initial election to the final administrative ruling, critique the effectiveness of the HOA’s internal governance and dispute resolution processes. What systemic failures are evident, and how did they lead to a formal administrative hearing?
5. Although the Petitioner was the “prevailing party” on two of the three issues, the remedy was limited to a refund of his filing fee, with no civil penalty imposed. Argue for or against the appropriateness of this remedy, considering the nature of the HOA’s violations and their impact on the integrity of the election process.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Statute
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on evidence and law. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1804
An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all meetings of a homeowners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. A meeting may only be closed for specific reasons, such as receiving legal advice, and the board must state the statutory reason for closing the meeting.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
An Arizona Revised Statute that mandates the retention of election materials, including ballots and envelopes, in either electronic or paper format for at least one year after the completion of an election for member inspection.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
An Arizona statute that permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4
A provision in the HOA’s bylaws stating, “Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting… forever waives that claim.”
Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition
The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate by a homeowner to initiate a legal proceeding against their HOA for alleged violations.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of the evidence.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to consider a decision that has already been made, typically granted if there are perceived errors of law, misconduct, or if the decision was not supported by the evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch HOA.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Botched Election—Here Are 3 Lessons Every Board Should Learn
Friction between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) board is a common feature of community living, and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in disputes over elections and rule enforcement. But what happens when a board, trying to correct an error, makes the situation exponentially worse?
This article is a deep dive into the real administrative law case of Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA, a seemingly straightforward dispute that reveals surprising and practical lessons for anyone living in or governing a planned community. It’s a story of a cascade of errors, where initial election confusion led to a panicked and procedurally flawed response, compounded by a pre-existing failure in record-keeping. As we’ll see, the outcome wasn’t what anyone expected, and the board’s biggest mistakes weren’t the ones they thought they were fighting.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Lose the Main Argument But Still Win the Case
The dispute began at the Desert Ranch HOA’s annual meeting, where election results were announced. The trouble started immediately after the meeting adjourned when a board Director, Patrick Rice, gathered the ballots and expressed concerns about irregularities. A day later, a losing candidate, Brian Schoeffler, echoed those concerns via email. Citing the Director’s objection, the board overturned the initial results, prompting homeowner Tom Barrs to file a petition arguing this was a violation of the HOA’s own rules.
Barrs’ case hinged on Bylaw 2.4, which stated that any “Member” must object to irregularities during the meeting itself, or else they waive their right to complain. Barrs argued that since no one objected before adjournment, the results should stand. However, the judge disagreed, pointing to two critical distinctions in the evidence. First, the investigation was triggered by the concerns of a “Director,” not the losing candidate’s later email. Second, a close reading of the bylaws showed that the terms “Member” and “Director” were used as distinct categories and were not interchangeable. Since the bylaw only restricted “Members,” it did not prevent a Director from raising concerns after the meeting. Barrs lost his primary argument.
Despite this, in a counter-intuitive twist, the judge declared Barrs the “prevailing party” in the overall case and ordered the HOA to repay his $1,000 filing fee. Why? Because while investigating the petitioner’s main claim, the judge found the board had committed other clear violations of state law while trying to “fix” the election. This outcome underscores a critical principle for all boards: procedural integrity is paramount. The HOA won the battle over its right to review the election but lost the war because of its flawed process.
——————————————————————————–
2. Your Records (or Lack Thereof) Will Be Your Downfall
One of the board’s most significant errors was a simple but critical failure of administrative duty: they destroyed election materials in direct violation of state law. The HOA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7), which is unambiguous about an HOA’s responsibility.
According to A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7), “Ballots, envelopes and related materials…shall be retained…for at least one year after completion of the election.”
The legal decision states the evidence was “uncontroverted” that the HOA discarded the ballot envelopes around the time of the election. Because the HOA could not dispute this fact, it was an easy violation for the petitioner to prove.
This wasn’t just a minor administrative oversight; it was a catastrophic error. By destroying the envelopes, the board not only violated the law but also eliminated any possibility of independently verifying the vote count after their own director discovered irregularities. This single failure trapped them in a procedural corner of their own making. It made a definitive resolution of the election challenge impossible, leading to the messy and expensive situation of declaring a tie and holding a run-off, all of which could have been avoided if the primary evidence had been preserved as required by law.
——————————————————————————–
3. “Private” Board Business Can Be an Illegal Secret Meeting
In an attempt to resolve the election dispute correctly, the board took what it likely considered a responsible step: seeking legal advice. After the election was contested, certain board members met with an attorney at a board member’s house to figure out how to proceed. However, the way they did it constituted another clear violation of state law.
This private meeting violated Arizona’s open meeting law, A.R.S. § 33-1804. While the statute does allow a board to enter a closed session to receive legal advice, it has strict procedural requirements. The board must first provide notice of the meeting to all members and then, at that public meeting, officially vote to enter the closed session for that specific, legally permissible reason. The evidence was “uncontroverted” that the board failed to provide any notice of this meeting to the association members.
The board’s desire for confidential legal advice was understandable, but their method created an unforced legal error. The correct procedure—notifying members of a meeting and then voting to enter a closed session—protects the board by demonstrating procedural propriety. The shortcut they took exposed them to a clear-cut violation that was impossible to defend. For an HOA board, transparency is the default, and secrecy is a narrow, legally defined exception. The process of going private matters as much as the reason for doing so.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: It’s Not Just What You Do, It’s How You Do It
The Desert Ranch HOA board, in its attempt to correct a perceived election error, committed two clear statutory violations. In their haste, they held an illegal secret meeting and were hamstrung by their prior failure to properly retain election records—the very evidence needed for a clean resolution. These procedural missteps ultimately cost them the case.
The ultimate lesson from Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA is that for any governing body, procedural correctness is just as important as substantive correctness. This case serves as a stark reminder that good intentions are no defense against procedural law. When a crisis hits, does your board have the discipline to follow procedure, or will the rush to find a solution lead you to commit unforced errors that are far worse than the original problem?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Stephen Barrs(witness) Testified for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Catherine Overby(board president, witness) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Brian Schoeffler(board vice president, witness) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Patrick Rice(board member) Desert Ranch HOA Board member who expressed concerns with election results
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Jerome Klinger(board member) Desert Ranch HOA Director elected in disputed election
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.
Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.
The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.
◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.
• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.
• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.
• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.
Background and Timeline of the Dispute
The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).
• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):
◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.
◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.
◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.
◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.
• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:
◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.
◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.
◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.
• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.
• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.
• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.
• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.
• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.
Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)
The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”
• Specific Violations Alleged:
◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.
◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.
◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.
• Evidence Presented at Hearing:
◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.
◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).
◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.
◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.
Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)
The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.
• Core Arguments:
◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.
◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.
◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.
• Actions Taken by MCIII:
◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.
◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.
◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.
◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.
◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.
Governing Rules and CC&Rs
The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.
Document
Article/Rule
Provision
Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)
Rule 3
Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.12
Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.13
States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.14
Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.
• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.
• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.
◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.
◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”
◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.
◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.
• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918004-REL
Study Guide: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918004-REL, concerning a dispute over the enforcement of parking regulations. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues John W. Gray alleged in his petition filed with the Department on July 30, 2018?
3. According to the MCIII rules in effect at the time of the complaint, what were the primary restrictions placed on vehicle ownership and parking for residents?
4. Describe the key evidence the Petitioner presented at the hearing to substantiate his claims of widespread parking rule violations.
5. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not enforcing the more restrictive parking rules that were in place at the time of the complaint?
6. How did the new rules, adopted on October 23, 2018, change the association’s approach to vehicle limits and garage use?
7. Explain the significance of the inoperable red truck to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
8. What was the required standard of proof for the Petitioner in this case, and did the judge determine that he met it?
9. Prior to the hearing, what specific enforcement actions did MCIII take in response to the Petitioner’s documented complaints?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was MCIII required to do?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were John W. Gray, the Petitioner, who was a condominium owner in the MCIII development, and the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the Respondent and the governing unit owners’ association for the development. Mr. Gray initiated the legal action against the association for allegedly failing to enforce its rules.
2. The Petitioner’s two main allegations were that the association had failed to provide him with a copy of its management company agreement and that it refused to enforce its parking rules. He specifically alleged multiple units were violating rules regarding the number of vehicles and the presence of inoperable vehicles.
3. The rules in effect at the time of the complaint limited owners to a maximum of two cars per unit. The rules also “assigned” the garage as the designated parking spot for the first car and explicitly banned “inoperable” vehicles from the property.
4. The Petitioner presented credible evidence including photographs from multiple exhibits (6-16) showing numerous violations. He also testified based on his personal observations, identified specific units with three cars using garages for storage, and provided vehicle registration information obtained through a private investigator.
5. The Respondent defended its lack of enforcement by arguing that the existing restrictive rules were “almost impossible” to enforce without constant surveillance. The Community Manager also testified that she had received no prior complaints about parking from other residents.
6. The new rules, adopted October 23, 2018, removed the limit on the number of cars permitted per unit. However, they instituted a new requirement that owners must park their vehicles in their respective garages before using any common area parking spaces.
7. The inoperable red truck was significant because it had been parked in the same spot for over a year, serving as undisputed evidence of a long-standing violation. The judge noted that MCIII’s single letter to the owner, sent long after the violation began, demonstrated a clear failure to enforce its rules regarding inoperable vehicles.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that his contentions were more probably true than not. The judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof.
9. MCIII’s primary enforcement actions were to place the issue on its July 24, 2018, Board meeting agenda and to send one letter on July 23, 2018, to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck. The record also shows MCIII had previously enforced parking rules against the Petitioner himself by having his truck towed from a fire lane.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the case. The judge further ordered that MCIII must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts and arguments presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that revising the parking rules made the Petitioner’s complaints “moot.” Based on the judge’s decision, evaluate the strength of this defense and explain why it was ultimately unsuccessful.
2. Discuss the concept of a condominium association’s duty to enforce its own rules and CC&Rs, using the specific examples of MCIII’s actions (and inactions) from the case. How did the association’s selective enforcement—such as towing the Petitioner’s vehicle but not others—factor into the case’s context?
3. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Which party presented a more compelling case, and why? Support your analysis by citing specific exhibits, testimony, and documented observations mentioned in the decision.
4. Explore the timeline of events from the Petitioner’s first complaint in May 2018 to the judge’s decision in November 2018. How does this timeline illustrate the dispute’s escalation and the association’s response strategy?
5. The Administrative Law Judge found that MCIII’s argument of the rules being “unenforceable” was not a viable defense. What practical enforcement actions, short of 24/7 surveillance, could the association have taken according to the information provided in the hearing record?
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, it was Kay Abramsohn.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community like a condominium. MCIII’s CC&Rs were effective January 12, 1999.
Common Elements
Also referred to as the “Common Area,” these are parts of the condominium property, such as the parking lot, available for use by all unit owners.
Community Manager
An employee of the management company (Curtiss Management) hired by the association to handle its affairs. In this case, the manager was Andrea Lacombe.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal legal proceeding where parties present evidence (exhibits) and testimony to prove their case before a judge or hearing officer.
Inoperable Vehicle
A vehicle that cannot be operated. Both the old and new MCIII rules, as well as CC&R 4.14, prohibited storing such vehicles on the property outside of an enclosed garage.
A term used to describe an issue that is no longer in dispute or of practical significance. MCIII argued that its new rules made the Petitioner’s issues moot.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, John W. Gray.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The plat for MCIII showed there were 36 parking spaces in the lot.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true; it is a superior evidentiary weight that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal case. The judge deemed the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918004-REL
He Fought the HOA Over Parking—and Won. Here Are the 5 Surprising Lessons from His Battle.
Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of HOA Parking
For anyone living in a condo, townhome, or planned community, the daily dance of parking is a familiar routine. It’s a world of limited spaces, confusing rules about guest parking, and the constant fear of a warning sticker or, worse, a tow truck. This shared frustration often simmers just below the surface of community life, where the rules established by a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel arbitrary and inconsistently applied.
This post breaks down a real-life administrative court case where one resident, John W. Gray, took on his Condominium Association for its complete failure to enforce its own parking rules. Without getting lost in legal jargon, we will explore how a single, determined individual was able to hold his HOA accountable. This wasn’t just a simple disagreement; it was a formal challenge that went before a judge.
The official court decision in Gray’s favor offers powerful and surprising lessons for any homeowner, renter, or board member. This David vs. Goliath story is more than just a victory for one resident; it’s a practical guide filled with takeaways on how to effectively address community disputes and understand the true responsibilities of an HOA.
1. The ‘It’s Too Hard to Enforce’ Excuse Doesn’t Work
The association (MCIII) built its primary defense on the argument that its own parking rules were “almost impossible” to enforce. They claimed that the two-car limit per unit was too restrictive and would require constant, 24/7 monitoring and picture-taking, which was simply not feasible.
The administrative law judge completely rejected this excuse. The core lesson from the ruling is that an HOA cannot simply choose to ignore its governing documents because enforcement is inconvenient. The judge pointed out that the association had simpler tools at its disposal, such as issuing violation notices and levying fines as outlined in their rules, but failed to take even these basic steps.
The judge’s finding offers a powerful reality check for any board that feels overwhelmed by its own regulations:
MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable is not a viable defense in this instance, as the rules contained many provisions that could have been noticed to the units regarding parking rules and their enforcement.
2. Meticulous Data is Your Strongest Weapon
John W. Gray didn’t just complain; he built an airtight case. His methodical approach to proving the association’s failure was a key factor in his success. The court record details the specific actions he took:
• He conducted personal observations and took photographs of the offending vehicles.
• He identified the specific units that had too many cars and were using their garages for storage instead of parking.
• He hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to definitively link cars to specific units.
The judge found this evidence to be “credible and convincing.” Gray’s detailed documentation painted a clear picture of the problem’s scale. According to his calculations, just 12 of the community’s 33 units were monopolizing 27 parking spaces, leaving very few for the remaining 21 units. This takeaway is clear: a well-documented, fact-based complaint is infinitely more powerful than anecdotal grievances.
3. Changing the Rules Doesn’t Erase Past Failures
In response to Gray’s formal complaint, the HOA Board took a strategic but ultimately unsuccessful step. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the Board reviewed and adopted a new set of parking rules. These new rules conveniently removed the two-car limit that the association had claimed was unenforceable.
The association then argued that this rule change made the petitioner’s original complaint “moot,” or irrelevant. They essentially claimed that since the rule he was complaining about no longer existed, there was no longer a case to be heard.
This strategy failed because the judge ruled on the HOA’s past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the complaint. This is a crucial lesson in accountability. An organization cannot escape responsibility for its prior negligence simply by changing the rules at the last minute. The failure to act had already occurred, and the consequences of that failure were the basis of the lawsuit.
4. Ignoring Small Violations Can Create a Major Crisis
Nowhere was the HOA’s failure more obvious than in the case of a single inoperable red truck. The vehicle had been parked in the same spot for over a year, in clear violation of the rules prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the property.
Despite this long-term, visible violation, the hearing record shows the HOA’s response was both delayed and minimal. They sent only one letter to the unit owner about the truck, and this action was taken “long after” the violation began and only after Gray had formally complained.
The judge’s observation on this single vehicle underscores the wider impact of the board’s inaction:
Even the clearing of just one more space would have made the tenuous parking situation better.
The red truck was a symptom of a much larger disease. The failure to address one obvious, easily-proven violation demonstrated a systemic failure to manage the community’s shared resources, which directly contributed to the parking crisis and the disproportionate use of spaces by a few residents.
5. Enforcement Must Be Fair, Not Just Convenient
Perhaps the most telling detail from the hearing record was the apparent double standard in the HOA’s enforcement actions. The record explicitly mentions only two enforcement actions the association had taken regarding parking:
• Towing the petitioner’s own truck on one occasion for parking in a fire lane.
• Sending a single, very late letter about the red truck that had been parked for over a year.
The hearing record is devastatingly clear on this point. The only enforcement actions the board could point to were punitive or reactive: towing the truck of the very resident demanding action, and sending a single, belated letter about a year-old violation after he had filed a formal complaint. This wasn’t just inconsistent enforcement; it was a textbook case of selective enforcement that targeted the complainant while ignoring the systemic problem.
For an HOA’s authority to be respected and legally defensible, its rules must be applied fairly and consistently to all residents, not just when it is convenient or aimed at a perceived nuisance.
Conclusion: A Win for the Power of One
The judge’s order was a decisive victory for resident rights, affirming that an HOA’s duty to enforce its own rules is not optional. While the association was ordered to repay his $500 filing fee, the real prize was the validation that one resident, armed with credible evidence, can successfully hold a board accountable to the entire community. This case proves that meticulous documentation, persistence, and a refusal to be ignored are the great equalizers in community governance. It makes you wonder: what ‘unenforceable’ rules in your community are just waiting for a champion to demand they be followed?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John W. Gray(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Austin Baillio(attorney) Maxwell & Morgan PC Represented Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Andrea Lacombe(community manager) Curtiss Management Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.
Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.
The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.
◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.
• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.
• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.
• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.
Background and Timeline of the Dispute
The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).
• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):
◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.
◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.
◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.
◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.
• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:
◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.
◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.
◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.
• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.
• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.
• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.
• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.
• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.
Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)
The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”
• Specific Violations Alleged:
◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.
◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.
◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.
• Evidence Presented at Hearing:
◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.
◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).
◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.
◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.
Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)
The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.
• Core Arguments:
◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.
◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.
◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.
• Actions Taken by MCIII:
◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.
◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.
◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.
◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.
◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.
Governing Rules and CC&Rs
The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.
Document
Article/Rule
Provision
Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)
Rule 3
Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.12
Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.13
States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.14
Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.
• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.
• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.
◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.
◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”
◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.
◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.
• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918004-REL
Study Guide: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918004-REL, concerning a dispute over the enforcement of parking regulations. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues John W. Gray alleged in his petition filed with the Department on July 30, 2018?
3. According to the MCIII rules in effect at the time of the complaint, what were the primary restrictions placed on vehicle ownership and parking for residents?
4. Describe the key evidence the Petitioner presented at the hearing to substantiate his claims of widespread parking rule violations.
5. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not enforcing the more restrictive parking rules that were in place at the time of the complaint?
6. How did the new rules, adopted on October 23, 2018, change the association’s approach to vehicle limits and garage use?
7. Explain the significance of the inoperable red truck to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
8. What was the required standard of proof for the Petitioner in this case, and did the judge determine that he met it?
9. Prior to the hearing, what specific enforcement actions did MCIII take in response to the Petitioner’s documented complaints?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was MCIII required to do?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were John W. Gray, the Petitioner, who was a condominium owner in the MCIII development, and the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the Respondent and the governing unit owners’ association for the development. Mr. Gray initiated the legal action against the association for allegedly failing to enforce its rules.
2. The Petitioner’s two main allegations were that the association had failed to provide him with a copy of its management company agreement and that it refused to enforce its parking rules. He specifically alleged multiple units were violating rules regarding the number of vehicles and the presence of inoperable vehicles.
3. The rules in effect at the time of the complaint limited owners to a maximum of two cars per unit. The rules also “assigned” the garage as the designated parking spot for the first car and explicitly banned “inoperable” vehicles from the property.
4. The Petitioner presented credible evidence including photographs from multiple exhibits (6-16) showing numerous violations. He also testified based on his personal observations, identified specific units with three cars using garages for storage, and provided vehicle registration information obtained through a private investigator.
5. The Respondent defended its lack of enforcement by arguing that the existing restrictive rules were “almost impossible” to enforce without constant surveillance. The Community Manager also testified that she had received no prior complaints about parking from other residents.
6. The new rules, adopted October 23, 2018, removed the limit on the number of cars permitted per unit. However, they instituted a new requirement that owners must park their vehicles in their respective garages before using any common area parking spaces.
7. The inoperable red truck was significant because it had been parked in the same spot for over a year, serving as undisputed evidence of a long-standing violation. The judge noted that MCIII’s single letter to the owner, sent long after the violation began, demonstrated a clear failure to enforce its rules regarding inoperable vehicles.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that his contentions were more probably true than not. The judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof.
9. MCIII’s primary enforcement actions were to place the issue on its July 24, 2018, Board meeting agenda and to send one letter on July 23, 2018, to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck. The record also shows MCIII had previously enforced parking rules against the Petitioner himself by having his truck towed from a fire lane.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the case. The judge further ordered that MCIII must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts and arguments presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that revising the parking rules made the Petitioner’s complaints “moot.” Based on the judge’s decision, evaluate the strength of this defense and explain why it was ultimately unsuccessful.
2. Discuss the concept of a condominium association’s duty to enforce its own rules and CC&Rs, using the specific examples of MCIII’s actions (and inactions) from the case. How did the association’s selective enforcement—such as towing the Petitioner’s vehicle but not others—factor into the case’s context?
3. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Which party presented a more compelling case, and why? Support your analysis by citing specific exhibits, testimony, and documented observations mentioned in the decision.
4. Explore the timeline of events from the Petitioner’s first complaint in May 2018 to the judge’s decision in November 2018. How does this timeline illustrate the dispute’s escalation and the association’s response strategy?
5. The Administrative Law Judge found that MCIII’s argument of the rules being “unenforceable” was not a viable defense. What practical enforcement actions, short of 24/7 surveillance, could the association have taken according to the information provided in the hearing record?
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, it was Kay Abramsohn.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community like a condominium. MCIII’s CC&Rs were effective January 12, 1999.
Common Elements
Also referred to as the “Common Area,” these are parts of the condominium property, such as the parking lot, available for use by all unit owners.
Community Manager
An employee of the management company (Curtiss Management) hired by the association to handle its affairs. In this case, the manager was Andrea Lacombe.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal legal proceeding where parties present evidence (exhibits) and testimony to prove their case before a judge or hearing officer.
Inoperable Vehicle
A vehicle that cannot be operated. Both the old and new MCIII rules, as well as CC&R 4.14, prohibited storing such vehicles on the property outside of an enclosed garage.
A term used to describe an issue that is no longer in dispute or of practical significance. MCIII argued that its new rules made the Petitioner’s issues moot.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, John W. Gray.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The plat for MCIII showed there were 36 parking spaces in the lot.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true; it is a superior evidentiary weight that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal case. The judge deemed the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918004-REL
He Fought the HOA Over Parking—and Won. Here Are the 5 Surprising Lessons from His Battle.
Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of HOA Parking
For anyone living in a condo, townhome, or planned community, the daily dance of parking is a familiar routine. It’s a world of limited spaces, confusing rules about guest parking, and the constant fear of a warning sticker or, worse, a tow truck. This shared frustration often simmers just below the surface of community life, where the rules established by a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel arbitrary and inconsistently applied.
This post breaks down a real-life administrative court case where one resident, John W. Gray, took on his Condominium Association for its complete failure to enforce its own parking rules. Without getting lost in legal jargon, we will explore how a single, determined individual was able to hold his HOA accountable. This wasn’t just a simple disagreement; it was a formal challenge that went before a judge.
The official court decision in Gray’s favor offers powerful and surprising lessons for any homeowner, renter, or board member. This David vs. Goliath story is more than just a victory for one resident; it’s a practical guide filled with takeaways on how to effectively address community disputes and understand the true responsibilities of an HOA.
1. The ‘It’s Too Hard to Enforce’ Excuse Doesn’t Work
The association (MCIII) built its primary defense on the argument that its own parking rules were “almost impossible” to enforce. They claimed that the two-car limit per unit was too restrictive and would require constant, 24/7 monitoring and picture-taking, which was simply not feasible.
The administrative law judge completely rejected this excuse. The core lesson from the ruling is that an HOA cannot simply choose to ignore its governing documents because enforcement is inconvenient. The judge pointed out that the association had simpler tools at its disposal, such as issuing violation notices and levying fines as outlined in their rules, but failed to take even these basic steps.
The judge’s finding offers a powerful reality check for any board that feels overwhelmed by its own regulations:
MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable is not a viable defense in this instance, as the rules contained many provisions that could have been noticed to the units regarding parking rules and their enforcement.
2. Meticulous Data is Your Strongest Weapon
John W. Gray didn’t just complain; he built an airtight case. His methodical approach to proving the association’s failure was a key factor in his success. The court record details the specific actions he took:
• He conducted personal observations and took photographs of the offending vehicles.
• He identified the specific units that had too many cars and were using their garages for storage instead of parking.
• He hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to definitively link cars to specific units.
The judge found this evidence to be “credible and convincing.” Gray’s detailed documentation painted a clear picture of the problem’s scale. According to his calculations, just 12 of the community’s 33 units were monopolizing 27 parking spaces, leaving very few for the remaining 21 units. This takeaway is clear: a well-documented, fact-based complaint is infinitely more powerful than anecdotal grievances.
3. Changing the Rules Doesn’t Erase Past Failures
In response to Gray’s formal complaint, the HOA Board took a strategic but ultimately unsuccessful step. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the Board reviewed and adopted a new set of parking rules. These new rules conveniently removed the two-car limit that the association had claimed was unenforceable.
The association then argued that this rule change made the petitioner’s original complaint “moot,” or irrelevant. They essentially claimed that since the rule he was complaining about no longer existed, there was no longer a case to be heard.
This strategy failed because the judge ruled on the HOA’s past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the complaint. This is a crucial lesson in accountability. An organization cannot escape responsibility for its prior negligence simply by changing the rules at the last minute. The failure to act had already occurred, and the consequences of that failure were the basis of the lawsuit.
4. Ignoring Small Violations Can Create a Major Crisis
Nowhere was the HOA’s failure more obvious than in the case of a single inoperable red truck. The vehicle had been parked in the same spot for over a year, in clear violation of the rules prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the property.
Despite this long-term, visible violation, the hearing record shows the HOA’s response was both delayed and minimal. They sent only one letter to the unit owner about the truck, and this action was taken “long after” the violation began and only after Gray had formally complained.
The judge’s observation on this single vehicle underscores the wider impact of the board’s inaction:
Even the clearing of just one more space would have made the tenuous parking situation better.
The red truck was a symptom of a much larger disease. The failure to address one obvious, easily-proven violation demonstrated a systemic failure to manage the community’s shared resources, which directly contributed to the parking crisis and the disproportionate use of spaces by a few residents.
5. Enforcement Must Be Fair, Not Just Convenient
Perhaps the most telling detail from the hearing record was the apparent double standard in the HOA’s enforcement actions. The record explicitly mentions only two enforcement actions the association had taken regarding parking:
• Towing the petitioner’s own truck on one occasion for parking in a fire lane.
• Sending a single, very late letter about the red truck that had been parked for over a year.
The hearing record is devastatingly clear on this point. The only enforcement actions the board could point to were punitive or reactive: towing the truck of the very resident demanding action, and sending a single, belated letter about a year-old violation after he had filed a formal complaint. This wasn’t just inconsistent enforcement; it was a textbook case of selective enforcement that targeted the complainant while ignoring the systemic problem.
For an HOA’s authority to be respected and legally defensible, its rules must be applied fairly and consistently to all residents, not just when it is convenient or aimed at a perceived nuisance.
Conclusion: A Win for the Power of One
The judge’s order was a decisive victory for resident rights, affirming that an HOA’s duty to enforce its own rules is not optional. While the association was ordered to repay his $500 filing fee, the real prize was the validation that one resident, armed with credible evidence, can successfully hold a board accountable to the entire community. This case proves that meticulous documentation, persistence, and a refusal to be ignored are the great equalizers in community governance. It makes you wonder: what ‘unenforceable’ rules in your community are just waiting for a champion to demand they be followed?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John W. Gray(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Austin Baillio(attorney) Maxwell & Morgan PC Represented Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Andrea Lacombe(community manager) Curtiss Management Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
