Vicky Glover v. Foothills Community Association

Posted on May 30, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919046-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-30
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding both the DRC's restriction on speaking during specific deliberations and the use of email communications for non-regularly scheduled committee business.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Vicky Glover	Counsel	—
Respondent	Foothills Community Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding both the DRC's restriction on speaking during specific deliberations and the use of email communications for non-regularly scheduled committee business.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, specifically because the DRC's restrictions on speaking were deemed reasonable, and email communications were not considered 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' requiring public access.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings and Member Right to Speak (DRC and Email Meetings)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by denying her the ability to speak at DRC meetings on other members’ requests, and by conducting deliberations and making decisions via email outside of regularly scheduled meetings.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Sections 33-1801 to 33-1818

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Design Review Committee, Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Email Meetings, A.R.S. 33-1804

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919046-REL Decision – 712028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:00 (94.0 KB)

19F-H1919046-REL Decision – 712028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:53 (94.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Glover v. Foothills Community Association (Case No. 19F-H1919046-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Vicky Glover versus the Foothills Community Association (FCA), where the petitioner’s claims were denied. The petitioner alleged that the FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) violated Arizona’s open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on two fronts: first, by conducting unannounced “email meetings” to vote on non-emergency matters, and second, by preventing members from speaking at appropriate times during regularly scheduled DRC meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove any statutory violation. The decision rested on a strict textual interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. Regarding speaking rights, the ALJ determined that while members have a right to speak at an “appropriate time” in committee meetings, the more specific right to speak on an agenda item before a formal vote applies exclusively to Board of Directors meetings, not committee meetings. The judge found it was reasonable for the DRC to rule that a member speaking on another member’s application was not an “appropriate time.”

Concerning the email communications, the ALJ ruled that they do not constitute “regularly scheduled committee meetings” as defined by the statute. Because the email discussions and decisions did not occur at a set weekly, monthly, or quarterly time, they are not subject to the open meeting requirements. The general state policy favoring open meetings was found to be subordinate to the specific statutory language. The petition was therefore denied in its entirety.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This case involved a dispute between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the application of Arizona’s open meeting laws to a committee of the association.

Name / Entity

Representation / Title

Petitioner

Vicky Glover

Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent

Foothills Community Association (FCA)

B. Austin Baillio (Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.)

Adjudicator

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings

Phoenix, Arizona

Case Timeline

• December 13, 2018 & January 9, 2019: Petitioner attends and records DRC meetings where the alleged violations occurred.

• January 23, 2019: Vicky Glover files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• January 28, 2019: The Department issues a notice to the FCA regarding the petition.

• May 10, 2019: An administrative hearing is held.

• May 30, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues the final decision.

——————————————————————————–

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner, Vicky Glover, alleged that the Foothills Community Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 in two specific ways:

1. Improper Email Meetings: The FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) held unannounced meetings via email to vote on non-emergency matters, which should have been handled in open, public meetings.

2. Denial of Speaking Rights: The DRC refused to allow community members, including the petitioner, to speak at an appropriate time during its regularly scheduled meetings, specifically when she wished to speak on other members’ pending requests.

Key Factual Findings

The facts underlying the petition were not in dispute by the parties during the hearing. The key findings of fact established were:

• Organizational Structure:

◦ The FCA Board of Directors is comprised of seven members and meets on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m.

◦ The Design Review Committee (DRC) is appointed by the Board, is comprised of five members (two of whom are also on the Board), and meets on the second Wednesday of the month at 2:00 p.m.

• Events at DRC Meetings:

◦ On December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, Vicky Glover attended and recorded DRC meetings.

◦ During these meetings, she was not permitted to speak on issues being discussed related to other members’ pending requests.

• Use of Email by the DRC:

◦ During meetings, DRC members mentioned that additional information for certain requests would be shared via email after the meeting.

◦ Based on this emailed information, DRC members would approve or deny the request.

◦ Decisions made via email between meetings were formally “ratified” at the subsequent DRC meeting.

◦ FCA Manager Pat Wontor testified, denying that the DRC took initial action via email, asserting instead that emails were only used to gather additional information on matters that had already been discussed in an open meeting.

• DRC Policies: A request submitted to the DRC is deemed approved if it is not denied within 60 days.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Judge’s Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on a strict interpretation of the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so on both counts.

I. Member Speaking Rights at Committee Meetings

The judge analyzed the petitioner’s claim that she was wrongfully denied the right to speak at DRC meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) states that at “any regularly scheduled committee meetings… all members… shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge found a critical distinction within the statute’s text. A later clause specifies that “the board… shall permit a member… to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item.”

• Conclusion: The judge ruled that this specific right to speak on an item before a vote applies only to meetings of the Board of Directors, not to committee meetings. For committee meetings, the standard is the more general “appropriate time.” The ALJ concluded it was reasonable for the DRC to determine that having one member speak on another member’s private application was not an “appropriate time.” Therefore, the DRC’s refusal to allow the petitioner to speak did not violate the statute.

II. Email Deliberations and “Meetings”

The judge next addressed the claim that email communications constituted illegal, non-public meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that open meeting rules apply to “regularly scheduled committee meetings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge concluded that the email discussions, deliberations, and decisions among DRC members did not meet the definition of “regularly scheduled.” These communications did not occur at a set time on a recurring basis (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly). While they could be considered a form of meeting, they were not regularly scheduled ones.

• Effect of State Policy: The judge acknowledged the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which expresses a legislative preference for open meetings. However, the judge ruled that this general policy “does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

• Conclusion: Because the email communications were not regularly scheduled, they did not fall under the open meeting requirements of the statute, and no violation occurred.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal analysis, the Administrative Law Judge found that the petitioner did not establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

• Next Steps: The decision is binding on the parties. A party may file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Study Guide: Glover v. Foothills Community Association (No. 19F-H1919046-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Vicky Glover (Petitioner) and the Foothills Community Association (Respondent). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the source document.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided legal decision. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case and what were their respective roles?

2. What were the two specific violations of state statutes that the Petitioner alleged?

3. Describe the composition and meeting schedules of the Board of Directors and the Design Review Committee (DRC).

4. What specific action did the Petitioner take during the DRC meetings on December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019?

5. According to the decision, what was the DRC’s practice regarding decisions made via email between meetings?

6. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how does the decision define it?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the statutory phrase “an appropriate time” for a member to speak during a committee meeting?

8. Why did the Judge conclude that the DRC’s email communications did not violate the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804?

9. What was the final ruling, or Order, issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

10. What recourse did the parties have if they disagreed with the Judge’s order?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Vicky Glover, the Petitioner who filed the complaint, and the Foothills Community Association (FCA), the Respondent homeowners association. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated state statutes by holding unannounced email meetings to vote on non-emergency matters. She also alleged that the Respondent would not allow community members to speak at appropriate times during Design Review Committee (DRC) meetings.

3. The Board of Directors has seven members and meets at 6:00 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of the month. The Design Review Committee (DRC) is appointed by the Board, has five members (two of whom are also on the Board), and meets at 2:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of the month.

4. During the DRC meetings on December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, the Petitioner attended and recorded the proceedings. She was not allowed to speak on other members’ pending requests during these meetings.

5. The DRC would gather additional information via email after a meeting and members would then approve or deny the request via email. Any decisions made via email between DRC meetings were then “ratified” at the next formal DRC meeting.

6. The Petitioner had the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

7. The Judge determined that the statute does not define what constitutes “an appropriate time” to speak at a committee meeting. Therefore, it was reasonable for the DRC to decide that the deliberation regarding a different member’s request was not an appropriate time for the Petitioner to speak.

8. The Judge concluded that email communications are not “regularly scheduled committee meetings” because they do not occur at a set time on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Since A.R.S. § 33-1804 only requires regularly scheduled committee meetings to be open, the email discussions were not a violation.

9. The final Order was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner did not establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

10. Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer-form essay responses to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case details and legal reasoning. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s statutory construction of A.R.S. § 33-1804. How does the judge distinguish between the open meeting requirements for Board of Directors meetings versus committee meetings, and what role does the “plain language” of the statute play in this interpretation?

2. Discuss the two central allegations made by Vicky Glover. For each allegation, detail the undisputed facts of the events and explain the specific legal reasoning the judge used to conclude that no statutory violation occurred.

3. Examine the conflict between the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)) and the specific statutory language governing committee meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). How did the judge resolve this apparent conflict in her final decision?

4. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” describe the operational procedures of the Design Review Committee, including its use of email for decision-making and subsequent ratification. How did these procedures become central to the legal dispute?

5. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. How did the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” shape the proceedings, and why was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Petitioner “did not establish” a violation critical to the final order?

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer, the judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision in this case.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute that the Petitioner alleged was violated. It governs open meetings for planned communities, including member associations, boards of directors, and regularly scheduled committees.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which the Petitioner filed her petition and which has jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Foothills Community Association, comprised of seven members. It appoints the Design Review Committee.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A five-member committee appointed by the Board of Directors. Two of its members are also on the Board. The DRC’s meetings were the subject of the Petitioner’s complaint.

Foothills Community Association (FCA)

The Respondent in the case. An association of homeowners located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Petitioner

Vicky Glover, who filed a petition on January 23, 2019, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Foothills Community Association.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required of the Petitioner. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Ratified

The term used to describe the process where decisions made by the DRC via email between meetings were formally approved at the next DRC meeting.

Regularly scheduled committee meetings

The specific type of meeting subject to the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that email communications do not meet this definition as they do not occur at a set time.

Respondent

The Foothills Community Association (FCA), against which the petition was filed. Represented in the hearing by B. Austin Baillio.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting a statute. The primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, first by looking at the plain text of the statute.

3 Shocking Loopholes in HOA ‘Open Meeting’ Laws This Homeowner Discovered the Hard Way

Introduction: The Illusion of Transparency

For anyone living in a homeowner’s association (HOA), there’s a fundamental expectation: the business of the community is conducted in the open. We assume that as members, we have a right to attend meetings, understand the decisions being made, and voice our opinions before our board takes action.

But a startling court decision from an Arizona Administrative Law Judge throws a wrench in that assumption. One homeowner’s legal challenge against her association didn’t just fail—it inadvertently created a roadmap for how HOAs can legally operate behind closed doors, affecting millions of residents in planned communities.

This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from this legal battle, revealing how the specific wording of the law can create major gaps in transparency and challenge everything you thought you knew about your rights as a homeowner.

1. Your Right to Speak is Weaker Than You Think—Especially in Committee Meetings

Most homeowners believe they have a protected right to speak on any agenda item at any official HOA meeting. The case of petitioner Vicky Glover shows this is a dangerous assumption.

On December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, Ms. Glover attended meetings of her community’s Design Review Committee (DRC) and was not permitted to speak about other members’ pending architectural requests. She argued this violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, pointed out a critical distinction in the law’s text. The statute explicitly guarantees a member the right “to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action.” This specific right, the ALJ concluded, applies only to meetings of the Board of Directors.

For committee meetings, the law sets a much vaguer standard, requiring only that members “be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.” The ALJ found it was reasonable for the DRC to decide that having Ms. Glover speak on another member’s application was not an “appropriate time.”

This is a crucial distinction because committees—like architectural, design, or finance committees—often make the decisions that most directly impact homeowners’ property and daily lives. Yet, this ruling clarifies that the guaranteed right to be heard before a vote is taken is significantly weaker in those very forums.

2. “Email Meetings” Can Be a Legal Way to Sidestep Open Meeting Rules

The common understanding of open meeting laws is that they exist to prevent boards and committees from deliberating and making decisions in private. But what if the meeting doesn’t happen in a room, but in an email chain?

Ms. Glover’s second claim was that the DRC was conducting business and making decisions via email between its official meetings. Evidence showed that after a meeting, additional information would be shared with committee members who could then “approve or deny the request… via email.” The association’s manager, Pat Wontor, denied this, claiming emails were only used to gather information on matters already discussed in a meeting.

The ALJ’s conclusion on this matter was stunning and sidestepped the conflicting testimony entirely. The Arizona open meeting law in question only applies to “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” Because email exchanges do not occur at a set, scheduled time—like the second Wednesday of the month—the judge ruled they do not fall under the open meeting requirements of the statute, regardless of their content.

The implication of this loophole is profound. It allows a committee to conduct significant deliberation and decision-making entirely outside of public view. This practice can turn the open meeting into a hollow formality. A committee can present a “done deal” for public ratification, rendering the member’s right to observe and speak effectively meaningless. The public meeting becomes a theatrical rubber stamp for a decision already made in secret.

3. The “Spirit of the Law” Doesn’t Beat the Letter of the Law

Many laws contain a policy statement that outlines their overarching goal—the “spirit of the law.” Arizona’s statute on HOA meetings has an exceptionally strong one, stating that all meetings should be open and that the law should be interpreted to favor transparency. The text explicitly declares:

“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly… and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.” (from A.R.S. § 33-1804(F))

Ms. Glover and many homeowners would read this and assume it guarantees broad transparency. The ALJ, however, ruled that this powerful policy statement “does not override the specific provisions” of the law.

In other words, the literal, specific text—like the distinction between “board” and “committee” meetings, or the “regularly scheduled” requirement—takes precedence over the law’s general intent.

This is perhaps the most important lesson for all homeowners. Relying on the assumed purpose or “spirit” of a rule is not enough. In a legal dispute, the precise, technical wording is what matters most. It highlights the critical importance for homeowners to read and understand the exact text of state statutes and their own governing documents, because the loopholes are often found in the fine print.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

While Vicky Glover lost her petition, her case provides an invaluable education for every member of a community association. It is a stark warning that transparency in an HOA is not a guaranteed principle but a legal standard with specific, and at times counter-intuitive, boundaries that can be exploited.

The loopholes her case exposed reveal a sobering reality: your right to speak is conditional, “meetings” can legally occur out of sight in an email chain, and the stated “spirit” of the law can be rendered toothless by its literal text. HOA governance is not guided by general principles of fairness, but by very specific legal language.

Given these loopholes, it’s worth asking: How many of the most important decisions in your community are happening in an inbox instead of the boardroom?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Vicky Glover (petitioner)

Respondent Side

B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Pat Wontor (manager)
Manager for DRC/Foothills Community Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Del Sol (staff/clerk)
Transmitting staff

George E Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Posted on December 17, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918013-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	George E Lord	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:51 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:54 (47.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:46 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:49 (47.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.

The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.

The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:

• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.

• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.

• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.

• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.

As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)

◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018

• Decision Date: December 17, 2018

• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.

II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events

1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.

2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:

◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo

◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo

◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo

3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.

4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.

5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.

6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.

7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.

8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.

9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.

10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.

11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.

III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:

• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.

• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.

Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)

The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.

• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.

• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.

• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.

Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)

The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.

• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.

• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”

• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.

Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)

The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.

• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.

• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.

V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents

Reference

Provision Summary

Relevance to Case

A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)

Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.

The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)

Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.

The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)

Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.

The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.

CC&R Section 7.21

Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.

The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.

CC&R Section 7.3

Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.

The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.

Leasing Policy

States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.

The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.

VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes

• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.

• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.

Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.

3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?

4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?

5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?

6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?

7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?

8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?

9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?

10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.

3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.

4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.

5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.

6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.

7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.

8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.

9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.

2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?

3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.

4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?

5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Name

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.

A.R.S. § 33-1260.01

A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.

Amenity

A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.

Barrie Shepley

The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).

George E. Lord

The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.

Itinerant population

A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.

Notice of Violations

A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.

Subletting

The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.

The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.

The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit

A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.

For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.

Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround

The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.

The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.

First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.

Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.

The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:

However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.

Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.

Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights

Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.

This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.

Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.

Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think

Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:

“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”

Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.

This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.

Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.

This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

George E. Lord (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Maria Kupillas (respondent attorney)
Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
Danielle Morris (community manager)
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Barrie Shepley (renter/key individual)

Peter Biondi, Jr. vs. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners

Posted on August 21, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818048-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-08-21
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA's remaining Director acted permissibly and reasonably upon legal advice in refusing to defend a previous legal action, as the initial Board decision to remove fellow directors was contrary to mandatory statutory procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1243, which requires removal by unit owners, not by the board.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Peter Biondi, Jr.	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1243, Respondent’s Bylaw Article II, Section 3 and Article III, Sections 2 and 3, and Respondent’s CC&Rs Section 8.13

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA's remaining Director acted permissibly and reasonably upon legal advice in refusing to defend a previous legal action, as the initial Board decision to remove fellow directors was contrary to mandatory statutory procedures outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1243, which requires removal by unit owners, not by the board.

Why this result: The Board's previous action of removing directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243 because director removal must be performed by a member vote. Because the HOA lacked a legal defense to the directors' challenge, the current petition failed to prove a violation when the sole remaining Director chose not to incur unnecessary fees contesting an unwinnable case, which was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure of the sole remaining Director to defend a prior petition challenging the board's removal of two directors.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents and statutes when the remaining Director chose not to contest a prior Department petition filed by two removed Directors, resulting in their reinstatement. The ALJ found that the initial removal of the Directors by fellow Directors was illegal under A.R.S. § 33-1243(B) and (H), which reserves removal power to members. Because the HOA lacked a good legal defense, the remaining Director's decision not to defend the prior petition, based on legal advice, was permissive under A.R.S. § 33-1242 and not a violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium, HOA Director Removal, Board Authority, Condo Bylaws

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1243
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818048-REL Decision – 654904.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:13:38 (155.5 KB)

18F-H1818048-REL Decision – 654904.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:48 (155.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in Case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, where a petition filed by homeowner Peter Biondi, Jr. against the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association (HOA) was denied. The central conflict revolved around the HOA Board’s removal of two directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, for alleged violations of the association’s leasing restrictions.

The ALJ’s decision rested on a critical point of law: the HOA Board acted improperly and in violation of Arizona state statute when it removed two of its own members. According to A.R.S. § 33-1243, the power to remove a board director is reserved exclusively for the association’s members (the unit owners) through a formal petition and vote, not for the Board of Directors itself.

Because the initial removal was legally invalid, the subsequent actions of the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden, were deemed reasonable and permissible. Her decision not to defend the HOA against a petition from the improperly removed directors, a choice made upon the advice of three separate attorneys, was not a violation of her duties. The governing statute (A.R.S. § 33-1242) uses the permissive term “may” regarding the defense of litigation, and the ALJ concluded that no entity is required to mount a defense that is ill-advised and likely to fail. Consequently, Henden’s reinstatement of the directors was a logical correction of the Board’s unlawful action. The factual question of whether the directors had violated the leasing rules was considered secondary to this overriding procedural and statutory failure by the Board.

Case Background and Procedural History

The dispute originated from complaints by HOA members that two serving directors, Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier, were violating Section 8.13 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rental By Owner (“VRBOs”).

1. Initial Board Action: The Board of Directors met to consider the complaints, concluded that Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs, and gave them 14 days to remedy the violation by presenting compliant long-term rental agreements.

2. Removal of Directors: At a contentious executive session on January 4, 2018, the five other directors voted to remove or disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board. Board member Bonnie Henden testified that she felt this action was a “vendetta” against the two directors for taking opposing positions on other issues.

3. Board Collapse: Following the removal, the Board structure disintegrated. The petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., and another director, Jeffrey Washburn, “decided to resign in order to restore calm in the community.” A third director was removed or resigned due to non-payment of assessments. By March or April 2018, this left Bonnie Henden as the sole remaining director.

4. Legal Challenge and Reinstatement: Luzzis and Dubasquier filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to protest their removal. After consulting with three different attorneys, Henden chose not to file an answer on behalf of the HOA. The Department subsequently issued a decision in favor of Luzzis and Dubasquier. Following this outcome, Henden reinstated them to the Board to complete their elected terms and cancelled the planned election for their replacements.

5. Petitioner’s Complaint: On May 9, 2018, Peter Biondi, Jr. filed the current petition, alleging that Henden’s refusal to defend the HOA and her decision to reinstate the two directors constituted a violation of Arizona statutes (§§ 33-1242 and 33-1243), HOA Bylaws, and CC&Rs.

Central Legal Issues and Findings

The ALJ determined that the petitioner, Biondi, bore the burden of proof but that the operative facts of the case were not in dispute. The core of the case was not a factual determination but a legal one.

The Dispositive Question: Legality of Director Removal

The judge identified the central legal question as the primary determinant of the case’s outcome:

“…the dispositive issue is not the factual issue of whether Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier violated CC&R Section 8.13 by using their units as short-term VRBOs, but the legal issue of whether the other directors on Respondent’s Board properly removed them from the Board…”

The ruling established that the Board’s method of removal was the critical point of failure, rendering the underlying CC&R violation secondary.

Analysis of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The decision was grounded in a de novo review of A.R.S. § 33-1243, which governs the powers and removal of a condominium association’s board of directors.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(B): This subsection explicitly prohibits a board from acting on behalf of the association to “determine the qualifications, powers and duties or terms of office of board of directors members.” The ALJ found that the Board’s vote to disqualify Luzzis and Dubasquier was in direct violation of this provision.

• A.R.S. § 33-1243(H): This subsection establishes the exclusive procedure for removing a director, stating that its provisions apply “notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary.” The statute mandates that removal can only be accomplished by:

1. A petition signed by a specified percentage or number of eligible unit owners (e.g., 25% or 100 votes, whichever is less, for an association of 1,000 or fewer members).

2. A majority vote of the unit owners at a special meeting called for this purpose within 30 days of receiving the petition.

The ALJ’s conclusion was unequivocal: “The referenced provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243 specifically and unequivocally require that the members who elected a director must remove the director.” Because the Board failed to follow this statutory procedure, its removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier was legally invalid, and the HOA “lacked any good legal defense” to their subsequent petition.

The Legality of the Sole Director’s Actions

Based on the finding that the initial removal was unlawful, the ALJ assessed the actions taken by the sole remaining director, Bonnie Henden.

Decision Not to Defend the HOA

The petitioner argued Henden had a duty to defend the HOA against the petition from Luzzis and Dubasquier. The ALJ rejected this argument by citing A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(4), which states an association “may… defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings.”

The judge’s legal interpretation was that the word “may” indicates permissive intent, not a mandatory requirement. Henden was not statutorily obligated to contest the petition. Her decision was further supported by the legal advice she received from three attorneys, who advised that a defense would likely fail and result in unnecessary legal fees for the association. The ALJ affirmed this prudence, stating, “No statute requires a condominium association or a director to take an ill-advised act or to mount a defense of a previously taken ill-advised act that likely will fail on its merits.”

Reinstatement of Removed Directors

Henden’s decision to reinstate Luzzis and Dubasquier to the Board was found to be a direct and logical consequence of the legally improper removal. By reinstating them, she was correcting the Board’s previous unlawful action.

Relevant Governing Documents and Testimony

Document/Testimony

Key Provisions or Content

Relevance to Decision

A.R.S. § 33-1243

Prohibits boards from determining member qualifications and mandates that only unit owners can remove directors via a petition and vote.

This was the controlling statute that rendered the Board’s initial removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier unlawful.

A.R.S. § 33-1242

States an association “may” defend itself in litigation.

Provided the legal basis for Henden’s discretionary and permissible decision not to defend the HOA.

HOA CC&Rs Section 8.13

Prohibits leasing for “transient, hotel, club, timeshare or similar purposes” and requires all leases to be for a minimum of six months.

This section was the basis for the original complaint but was deemed not the dispositive issue in the case.

HOA Bylaws Article III

Governs director qualifications, number, and the filling of vacancies.

While relevant to Board governance, these bylaws were superseded by the conflicting and more specific state statute (A.R.S. § 33-1243).

Bonnie Henden Testimony

Stated the removal felt like a “vendetta” and that she consulted three attorneys before deciding not to defend the HOA.

Provided context for the internal Board conflict and established that her actions were taken after seeking extensive legal counsel.

Peter Biondi, Jr. Evidence

Submitted exhibits showing Luzzis and Dubasquier were continuing to advertise their units as VRBOs.

The evidence was acknowledged but deemed irrelevant to the central legal question of whether the Board had the authority to remove them.

Final Order and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.

The final decision establishes a clear legal principle: a homeowners association’s Board of Directors does not have the authority to remove its own members in Arizona. That power is reserved for the unit owners through a specific statutory process. Any action taken by a board in contravention of this statute is legally invalid. Consequently, a director’s decision not to defend such an invalid action, especially when based on legal advice, is not a breach of duty but a prudent measure to avoid wasting association resources on a defense with no legal merit.

Study Guide: Biondi v. Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818048-REL, concerning a dispute between a condominium owner and a homeowners association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific event prompted the Petitioner, Peter Biondi, Jr., to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs (Section 8.13), what were the rules regarding the leasing of condominium units?

4. Why were Board Directors Jim Luzzis and Jerry Dubasquier initially removed from their positions by the other directors?

5. How did Bonnie Henden become the sole remaining member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

6. What was the “dispositive issue” that the Administrative Law Judge identified as central to the case?

7. According to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1243(H), what is the proper procedure for removing a member of a condominium association’s board of directors?

8. Why did Ms. Henden choose not to defend the association against the petition filed by Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier?

9. What does the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” mean, as defined in the decision?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr., who is a condominium owner and a member of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association. The Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association itself.

2. The Petitioner filed the petition because the Board’s sole remaining member, Bonnie Henden, refused to defend the association against a petition filed by two former directors. Instead of defending the board’s prior action, Ms. Henden reinstated the two directors who had been removed.

3. Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs stipulated that all leases must be for a minimum of six months and that units could not be leased for transient, hotel, or similar purposes. Owners were also limited to leasing their unit no more than two separate times in any 12-month period and had to provide a signed copy of the lease to the association.

4. Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier were removed after other Board members concluded they had violated CC&R Section 8.13 by renting their units as short-term Vacation Rentals By Owner (VRBOs). The removal occurred after they were given 14 days to remedy the violation and failed to do so to the Board’s satisfaction.

5. After the removal of Luzzis and Dubasquier, the Petitioner and another director resigned to “restore calm.” A third director was removed or resigned for failing to pay an assessment, which left Ms. Henden as the only director on the Board.

6. The dispositive issue was not the factual question of whether Luzzis and Dubasquier had violated the CC&Rs. Rather, it was the legal issue of whether the other directors had the authority to properly remove them from the Board in the first place.

7. A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) states that unit owners may remove a board member by a majority vote at a meeting. This process must be initiated by a petition signed by a specific percentage or number of the association’s members who are eligible to vote.

8. Ms. Henden consulted three different attorneys who advised her that the association would likely lose the case. Their legal advice was based on A.R.S. § 33-1243, which states that board members cannot remove other board members, and defending the improper removal would incur unnecessary legal fees.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that the Board’s initial removal of the two directors was improper under state law and that Ms. Henden was not required to defend that ill-advised act.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis and synthesis of the case details. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the authority granted to the Board in the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Bylaws (Article III, Sections 2 & 3) and the limitations placed upon it by Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243. Explain which document takes precedence in the matter of director removal and why, citing the reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge.

2. Discuss the role and actions of Bonnie Henden after she became the sole remaining director. Evaluate her decision to reinstate Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier, considering the legal advice she received, her powers as the sole director, and the potential consequences for the homeowners association.

3. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, beginning with the initial complaints about VRBOs and culminating in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Identify the key actions, legal filings, and turning points for each party involved (Luzzis/Dubasquier, the Board, Peter Biondi, and Bonnie Henden).

4. The judge states that the case hinges on a legal issue, not a factual one. Explain the difference between the factual issue (the VRBO rentals) and the legal issue (the removal process) and detail how this distinction was fundamental to the case’s outcome.

5. Based on the statutes cited in the decision, outline the correct, legally compliant process that the members of the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association should have followed if they wished to remove Messrs. Luzzis and Dubasquier from the Board of Directors. Contrast this with the actions the Board actually took.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The decision references several statutes from Title 33 concerning property and condominiums.

Bylaws

The rules and regulations adopted by an organization, such as a homeowners association, for its internal governance. In this case, they govern matters like annual meetings and the composition of the Board of Directors.

Abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules recorded with the property deed that govern what homeowners can and cannot do with their property. Section 8.13 on leasing was a key CC&R in this case.

De Novo Review

A type of legal review where a court or administrative body decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous party that heard the case. It is used for determining the construction and application of statutes.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings from members of condominium associations.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Peter Biondi, Jr.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this matter) to present evidence that is more convincing and more likely to be true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association.

Abbreviation for Vacation Rental By Owner, referring to the practice of renting out properties on a short-term basis, similar to a hotel. This practice was alleged to be in violation of the association’s CC&Rs.