Case Summary
| Case ID |
22F-H2222028-REL-RHG |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2022-10-11 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$0.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
Asmaa Kadhum |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association |
Counsel |
— |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1256
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).
Key Issues & Findings
Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.
Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1256
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA lien, Collection fees, Attorney fees, Statutory violation, Jurisdiction, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 33-1256
- A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Decision Documents
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1_aamg stmt.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:00 (21.1 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 2_email from silvia regarding late fees.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:08 (457.3 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 3_email regarding plumbing repair from laweyer.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:22 (983.8 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 4_ledger dec 2021.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:27 (96.5 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 5_letter from lawyer.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:32 (138.0 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 7_petition response.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-20T14:11:40 (25.0 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 975165.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:36 (104.8 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:39 (93.3 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:43 (122.6 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_HearingScheduled.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:47 (129.6 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Pet.ResponseToRespondentsResponseToPetition.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:51 (132.2 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_MC_Response&ADRERequest.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:35:55 (133.2 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Hearing.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:36:14 (1101.1 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Notice_Petition.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:37:15 (3755.5 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Payment.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:37:20 (221.2 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Pet.ResponseTo.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:38:48 (5499.9 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Petition.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:40:23 (5828.4 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – HO22-22028_Response_Petition.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:40:26 (125.4 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1005275.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (101.7 KB)
22F-H2222028-REL Decision – 1009064.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:44 (37.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222028-REL
Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.
The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”
Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.
Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Representative(s)
Petitioner
Asmaa Kadhum
Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih
Respondent
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring
Chronology of Key Events
Prior to May 1, 2019
Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).
April 21, 2020
Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.
April 30, 2020
Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.
June 15, 2020
Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.
August 7, 2020
Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.
September 10, 2020
Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”
November 13, 2020
Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.
December 10, 2020
Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”
Post-Release
Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.
December 2021
An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.
January 12, 2022
Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.
April 4, 2022
An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.
October 11, 2022
Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.
October 27, 2022
Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.
Analysis of the Core Dispute
The Disputed Legal Fees
The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.
• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”
• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.
The Improper Lien
A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.
• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.
• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.
• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:
◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.
◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.
◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.
• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.
• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.
• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.
• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.
• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.
• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”
Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings
Case Details and Petition
• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL
• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028
• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”
• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.
• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.
• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.
• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.
• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”
Salient Quotes
• Petitioner: “Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”
• Petitioner: “$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”
• Respondent: “they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”
• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter): “…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”
• Administrative Law Judge: “There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”
• Administrative Law Judge: “I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”
• Administrative Law Judge (Decision): “the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”
Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.
1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?
3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?
4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?
5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?
6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?
7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?
8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?
9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?
10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.
2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.
3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.
4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.
5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”
6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.
7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.
8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.
9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.
10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.
2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.
3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?
4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.
5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1256
The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.
Assessment
A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.
Declaratory Judgment
A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.
Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.
A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.
Release of Lien
A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 22F-H2222028-REL
5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA
Introduction: The Notice on the Door
It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.
What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees
One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.
Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.
——————————————————————————–
2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed
The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.
This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.
The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:
and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.
The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.
——————————————————————————–
3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It
The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”
During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”
Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.
——————————————————————————–
4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale
Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.
However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”
Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.
——————————————————————————–
5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills
This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.
The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”
These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?
The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.
This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Asmaa Kadhum (petitioner)
Filed the petition and appeared on her own behalf,
- Mazin Ahmed (co-owner)
Referenced as part of 'Petitioner' definition; much of the correspondence was from/to him
Respondent Side
- Jerry Latschar (board member)
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Vice President of the Board of Directors, appeared on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
Also referred to as Tammy Aganeer,,,
- Louis Dettorre (Commissioner ADRE)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
Transmitted decision
- c. serrano (administrative staff)
Transmitted minute entry
