Tag Archives: A.A.C. R2-19-119

Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID17F-H1717027-REL
AgencyADRE
TribunalOAH
Decision Date2017-06-27
Administrative Law JudgeTammy L. Eigenheer
OutcomeThe petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.
Filing Fees Refunded$500.00
Civil Penalties$0.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerMark VirdenCounsel—
RespondentLakeside Ski Village HOACounselStewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:26 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:32 (736.4 KB)

Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Mark Virden and Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA, concerning the construction of an internet service tower. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what does this statute govern?

3. Describe the unique governance structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA as noted in the hearing’s findings of fact.

4. What was the arrangement between AireBeam, Lou Talarico, and Carl Rygg that led to the construction of the internet tower?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific authority was granted to its Architectural Committee?

6. On what key legal basis did the Administrative Law Judge reject the Petitioner’s claim of a conflict of interest violation?

7. What was the Petitioner’s alternative argument regarding the tower not being for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, and how did the Judge rule on it?

8. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

9. What was the final outcome of Mark Virden’s petition, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted?

10. After the Final Order was issued on July 10, 2017, what were the potential next steps for a party wishing to challenge the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Respondent). The central dispute was Virden’s allegation that the HOA improperly allowed the construction of an internet service tower on common property due to an undisclosed conflict of interest involving board members.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. This statute governs contracts and conflicts of interest for an HOA’s board of directors, requiring a board member to declare a conflict in an open meeting if a decision would benefit them or a close family member.

3. The Lakeside Ski Village HOA does not have a traditional board of directors. Instead, its Bylaws state that the affairs of the Association are managed directly by the members, who are authorized to exercise all powers normally held by a board.

4. After the HOA failed to secure enough subscribers for AireBeam to build the tower, Lou Talarico offered to pay the upfront cost. In exchange for his payment, AireBeam agreed to provide free internet service to Mr. Talarico and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg for as long as the tower was operational.

5. The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants the Architectural Committee the authority to “permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

6. The Judge rejected the claim because the HOA’s CC&Rs empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the tower directly, without needing ratification from the members acting as a board. Therefore, the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which apply to actions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors,” were not applicable to the Committee’s decision.

7. The Petitioner argued that because people outside the HOA could subscribe to the service, the tower was not for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, meaning the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. The Judge ruled that the language of the CC&Rs does not require that the system exclusively benefit the HOA.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, Mark Virden, bore the burden of proving his allegations by this standard.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied, concluding that the Architectural Committee’s approval of the tower was proper. This decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it the Final Order.

10. A dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty (30) days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. Alternatively, a party could appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review in court.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs board actions, and the specific powers granted to the Architectural Committee in the Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s CC&Rs. Explain in detail how this conflict, and its interpretation by the Judge, determined the outcome of the case.

2. Discuss the concept of “conflict of interest” as presented in the Petitioner’s complaint. Evaluate whether the actions of the Talaricos and Carl Rygg constituted a conflict of interest, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, referencing the use of the term arguendo in the Conclusions of Law.

3. Explain the procedural journey of this case, from the initial petition filing on or about March 23, 2017, to the Final Order issued on July 10, 2017. Identify the key bodies and officials involved at each stage (e.g., Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge, Commissioner).

4. The Petitioner’s complaint details his frustration with a perceived lack of transparency from board members regarding their compensation agreement with AireBeam. Despite these ethical concerns, the petition failed. Based on the “Conclusions of Law,” explain the legal reasoning that rendered the Petitioner’s arguments about transparency and fairness insufficient to prove a violation under the cited statute.

5. The Final Order outlines eight specific causes for which a rehearing or review could be granted. Choose two of these causes (e.g., “The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” or “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing”) and construct a hypothetical argument that Mark Virden could have made for a rehearing based on them, using the facts presented in the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona legislature. The statute at the center of this case was A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Arguendo

A Latin term meaning “for the sake of argument.” The Judge used this to temporarily accept a point as true (that the free service was compensation) in order to show that even if it were true, the Petitioner’s argument would still fail on other legal grounds.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. These are the governing legal documents that establish the rules and operational framework for a homeowners association.

Common Area

Property within the HOA, such as land for a community tower, that is owned and shared by all members of the association.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that has jurisdiction to hear certain disputes between property owners and their homeowners associations.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community or subdivision that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Mark Virden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing a fact is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

How Two HOA Insiders Got Free Internet For Life—And Why the Law Couldn’t Stop Them

Introduction: The Rules Aren’t Always What They Seem

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowner Association (HOA) is built on a simple assumption: while the rules can be strict, they exist to protect the community from abuses of power. We trust that state laws and an HOA’s own documents prevent board members from using their position for personal enrichment. The concept of a “conflict of interest” seems straightforward—board members can’t vote on deals that benefit themselves or their families.

But what if a deal that looks like a textbook conflict of interest was found to be perfectly legal? This is the cautionary tale of Mark Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA, a shocking case from Arizona that turns our assumptions on their head. It’s a story where insiders secured a deal for free lifetime internet service, and despite a homeowner’s legitimate outrage, the law was powerless to stop them. The case wasn’t decided on fairness or ethics, but on the fine print buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

This case is a crucial lesson for every homeowner. It reveals how seemingly innocuous clauses can be weaponized to bypass transparency laws, effectively legalizing what would otherwise be considered a blatant conflict of interest. It demonstrates that in the world of community associations, power doesn’t always reside where you think it does, and the only thing protecting you is a deep understanding of your own community’s rules.

Takeaway 1: A Committee’s Power Can Sidestep Conflict-of-Interest Laws

The petitioner’s argument was simple and seemed like a slam dunk. An internet company needed to build a service tower on HOA common property but lacked enough subscribers to fund it. Lou Talarico, whose wife Susan was on the HOA’s Architectural Committee, offered to pay the upfront installation costs. In exchange, Mr. Talarico and the HOA’s Vice President, Carl Rygg, would receive free internet service for life.

This arrangement reeks of a conflict of interest, and on its face, appears to be a direct violation of Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811). The law requires that if an action “taken by or on behalf of the board of directors” would benefit a board member’s spouse, the conflict must be declared in an open meeting. Here, no such declaration was made.

But here is the stunning legal twist: the Administrative Law Judge found that the decision to approve the tower was made not by the “board,” but exclusively by the “Architectural Committee.” The HOA’s governing documents explicitly granted this committee the power to approve communication systems. Because the state’s conflict-of-interest law applies specifically to actions taken by the board, it had no jurisdiction over a decision made independently by the committee. In essence, the state law was watching the front door (the board), but the HOA’s documents gave the Architectural Committee a back door—one with no legal supervision for conflicts of interest. This technicality meant the deal, and the conflict of interest at its core, was entirely proper under the law.

Takeaway 2: An HOA ‘Board’ Might Not Be a Board at All

The second critical fact that enabled this outcome was the highly unusual structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA itself. The judge noted that the association “does not have a traditional Board.” Instead, all the members collectively act as the board.

The HOA’s Bylaws lay out this unique governance model:

“[t]he affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

This structure is fundamentally important. State laws governing HOAs are written with a traditional model in mind—a small group of elected directors making decisions for the community. But at Lakeside Ski Village, the power of the “members acting as a board” was limited by specific authority delegated to other entities, most notably the Architectural Committee. This decentralized structure created a loophole the state’s conflict-of-interest law was not designed to close.

The lesson for homeowners is that you can never assume all HOAs are structured alike. The very definition of the “board” and the scope of its power can be radically different from one community to another. Here, that unique structure was the key that unlocked the committee’s unchecked power.

Takeaway 3: The Fine Print Is All That Matters

Ultimately, this entire dispute was decided not by broad principles of transparency or fiduciary duty, but by specific phrases written in the HOA’s founding documents years ago. The petitioner, Mark Virden, expressed understandable outrage that the insiders involved refused to be transparent.

He recounted a particularly telling exchange with the association’s Vice President when he asked about the terms of the internet deal:

When we initially asked the VP what their compensation was, he stated “it’s none of your business”.

While this response would infuriate any homeowner, the court’s final decision effectively proved it right. Because the Architectural Committee was acting within its sole authority, the details of its agreement were not subject to the disclosure rules that govern the board. The response, “it’s none of your business,” turned out to be legally correct.

The petitioner’s frustration was compounded by the professional background of the committee member at the center of the conflict. In his filing, he wrote: “To make things worse, the board member whose spouse paid the upfront fee to the tower company is a licensed realtor, Susan Talarico. If anyone should understand the fiduciary responsibility to owners of a HOA, it’s a realtor serving on a Board of that HOA.” His belief that a real estate professional should have known better underscores the feeling of betrayal.

And in a final, dramatic turn that reinforces the theme of insiders benefiting, the petitioner noted what happened after the deal was done: “She has since resigned but her husband has taken her place on the board.” This illustrates the most vital lesson of all: your sense of what is “fair” is legally irrelevant if the governing documents allow for a specific action. The CC&Rs and Bylaws are the ultimate source of truth and power in any HOA dispute.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know Your Rules?

The case of Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is a world of legal technicalities, where the written word of the founding documents is supreme. It shows how specific, delegated authority can create outcomes that defy the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. What appears to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing can be rendered perfectly permissible by a few key sentences in the bylaws or CC&Rs.

This case was decided on the specific authority granted to a single committee—do you know which committees in your HOA have the power to make decisions without board approval?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mark Virden (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Stewart F. Salwin (attorney)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
  • Susan Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Licensed realtor; spouse of Lou Talarico; resigned but husband took her place on the board
  • Lou Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Spouse of Susan Talarico; paid upfront tower cost; received free internet service; referred to as Treasurer in petition excerpt
  • Carl Rygg (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Vice President; received free internet service
  • Emmett Mitchell (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    President

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Addressee for rehearing requests

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID17F-H1717029-REL
AgencyADRE
TribunalOAH
Decision Date2017-06-18
Administrative Law JudgeTammy L. Eigenheer
OutcomePetitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded$500.00
Civil Penalties$0.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerLinda HaderliCounselJonathan A. Dessaules
RespondentCarriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.CounselSamuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA
Additional Citations:
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R’s Section 14.2
  • CC&R’s Section 15.2B
  • CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:51 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:55 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this 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.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. 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.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

[E]vidence 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.

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Linda Haderli (petitioner)
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
  • Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

  • Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
  • Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
  • Mary Candelaria (general manager)
    Respondent's General Manager; testified
  • Barb Putnam (employee)
    Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

  • Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
    Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation

Richard A. DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID17F-H1616006-REL
AgencyADRE
TribunalOAH
Decision Date2017-01-09
Administrative Law JudgeTammy L. Eigenheer
OutcomeThe Administrative Law Judge deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, finding that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by conducting votes via email. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute, reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.
Filing Fees Refunded$500.00
Civil Penalties$1,000.00

Parties & Counsel

PetitionerRichard A. DeBoerCounsel—
RespondentTurtle Rock III Homeowners AssociationCounsel—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, finding that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by conducting votes via email. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute, reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged that the HOA board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by using email communications to vote on substantive issues (common area lighting installation and removal). The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s practice of taking action via email consensus violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which requires meetings of the board of directors to be open to all members.

Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future. Respondent must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00. Respondent must pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $1,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Email Voting, HOA Governance
Additional Citations:
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

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

17F-H1616006-REL Decision – 538360.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T20:59:50 (72.5 KB)

17F-H1616006-REL Decision – 539992.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T21:00:03 (678.7 KB)

Briefing Document: DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the findings and outcome of the legal dispute between homeowner Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA Board of Directors’ practice of conducting votes on non-emergency matters via email, which the petitioner alleged violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the State of Arizona concluded that the HOA Board did violate state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) by using email to approve the purchase of new street lights and the removal of existing fixtures, thereby circumventing requirements for open meetings accessible to all members. The Board’s defense, that it had relied on poor advice from its management company, was not sufficient to overcome the violation.

Consequently, Mr. DeBoer was declared the prevailing party. The HOA was ordered to cease this practice, pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, and reimburse Mr. DeBoer for his $500 filing fee. The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Background

• Case Name: Richard A. DeBoer vs. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1616006-REL (Office of Administrative Hearings), HO17-16/006 (Department of Real Estate)

• Jurisdiction: The dispute was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioner: Richard A. DeBoer, a homeowner.

• Respondent: Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Key Dates

August 23, 2016

Petition filed by Richard A. DeBoer.

December 19, 2016

Hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 9, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Decision issued.

January 12, 2017

Final Order issued by the Department of Real Estate Commissioner.

January 13, 2017

Compliance letter sent to the HOA by the Department of Real Estate.

February 11, 2017

Deadline for HOA to show proof of payment for petitioner’s filing fee.

March 13, 2017

Deadline for HOA to pay the civil penalty.

Petitioner’s Allegations

Richard A. DeBoer’s petition, filed on August 23, 2016, alleged that the Turtle Rock III HOA Board of Directors had a “common practice” of conducting unnoticed email meetings to vote on non-emergency matters. This practice was alleged to be in violation of both Arizona state law and the HOA’s own bylaws.

• March 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the purchase and installation of four high-mast street lights in the common area.

• April 2016: The Board conducted an email vote to approve the removal and sale or disposal of fourteen large, iconic, architectural light fixtures from the common areas.

• The email meetings were not open to all association members.

• Members were denied the opportunity to attend and speak before the Board took formal action.

• The subject matter did not meet the criteria for a closed meeting.

• The Board failed to provide members with at least 48 hours’ advance notice.

• The meetings did not qualify as emergency meetings.

• Proper notices and agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” were not provided.

• The petitioner alleged the actions were contrary to Turtle Rock III Bylaws, Division VI, Item 2.i, which incorporates Robert’s Rules of Order.

• Specifically, the email meetings were conducted without authorization in the bylaws and failed to provide for “a single official gathering in one room or area.”

• The format lacked the required “conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among participating members.”

Respondent’s Defense and Testimony

The Turtle Rock III HOA initially filed an answer denying all allegations made in the petition.

During the hearing on December 19, 2016, the following testimony was provided on behalf of the HOA:

• Verl Curtiss (Board President) and Steve Pilcher (Board Treasurer) both acknowledged that the email votes regarding the lighting had occurred.

• Their defense centered on the claim that they had been advised by their management company and manager that their actions were not in violation of Arizona statutes or the HOA’s bylaws.

• Mr. Pilcher testified that they believed they had received “good advice.”

Legal Findings and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, determined that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

The decision focused on A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which states:

“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association… and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

Based on the evidence and testimony, including the Board’s admission that email votes took place, the ALJ issued a clear conclusion:

“This Tribunal concludes that the Board’s prior practice of taking action in the absence of a meeting by obtaining unanimous written consent of the Board’s members via email violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”

Final Order and Penalties

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was officially accepted and adopted as a Final Order by Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, on January 12, 2017. The HOA was ordered to undertake the following actions:

1. Cease and Desist: The Respondent must comply with all applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future.

2. Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner, Richard A. DeBoer, his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the Order.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent must pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty (60) days of the Order.

The Final Order constituted a final administrative action, subject to appeal or a motion for rehearing within 30 days.

Key Parties and Officials

Name/Entity

Richard A. DeBoer

Petitioner / Homeowner

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Respondent

Verl Curtiss

President, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Steve Pilcher

Treasurer, Respondent’s Board of Directors

Goodman Law Group

Respondent’s Representative

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Regulatory Agency / Jurisdiction for HOA Disputes

Judy Lowe

Commissioner, Department of Real Estate

Abby Hansen

HOA Dispute Coordinator, Department of Real Estate

Study Guide: DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Richard A. DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, case number 17F-H1616006-REL. It covers the key facts, legal arguments, judicial findings, and final orders as detailed in the provided legal documents.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

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

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific actions taken by the Turtle Rock III HOA Board of Directors in March and April 2016 were at the center of the dispute?

3. What key Arizona statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated, and what is the primary requirement of that law?

4. In addition to the state statute, what internal governing document and procedural rules did the Petitioner claim the HOA’s actions violated?

5. What was the defense offered by the HOA’s representatives, Verl Curtiss and Steve Pilcher, during the hearing?

6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is it defined in the case documents?

7. What was the ultimate conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the HOA’s practice of conducting votes via email?

8. What two distinct financial penalties were imposed on the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association in the final order?

9. Which state agency has jurisdiction over disputes between homeowners and condominium associations in Arizona and formally adopted the Judge’s decision?

10. What specific, non-financial order was given to the Respondent to ensure future adherence to the law?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Richard A. DeBoer, a homeowner who filed the complaint. The Respondent was the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (HOA), the governing body of the community, which was accused of violating state law and its own bylaws.

2. In March 2016, the Board conducted an e-mail vote to purchase and install four high-mast street lights. In April 2016, the board held another e-mail vote to remove and sell or give away fourteen large, architectural light fixtures from the common areas.

3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. This statute’s primary requirement is that all meetings of an HOA’s board of directors must be open to all members of the association, who must be permitted to attend and speak.

4. The Petitioner claimed the e-mail votes also violated the Turtle Rock III Bylaws, specifically Division VI, Item 2.i. This section references Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR), which requires a “single official gathering” and “simultaneous aural communication” for meetings.

5. Verl Curtiss (President) and Steve Pilcher (Treasurer) testified that their management company and manager had advised them that they were not in violation of any statutes or bylaws. They did not deny that the e-mail votes had occurred.

6. The Petitioner had the burden of proving the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence of greater weight or more convincing than opposing evidence, showing the fact is more probable than not.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s practice of taking action through unanimous written consent via email, in the absence of a meeting, violated the open meeting provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

8. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 directly to him. Additionally, the HOA was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) has jurisdiction to hear these disputes. The Commissioner of the ADRE formally accepted and adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, making it a Final Order.

10. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) in the future. This directive mandates that the HOA cease its practice of holding votes outside of open meetings.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each question, drawing evidence and examples from the source documents.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s complaint, detailing both the statutory violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804) and the alleged bylaw infractions (Robert’s Rules of Order). Explain how these two lines of argument reinforced each other.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain how the testimony of the HOA’s own representatives, Verl Curtiss and Steve Pilcher, helped the Petitioner meet this burden of proof, despite their intentions.

3. Examine the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge and adopted by the Commissioner. Detail the specific remedies imposed and explain the purpose of each component (compliance, restitution, and civil penalty).

4. Based on the arguments presented, evaluate the significance of Arizona’s open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804) for homeowners in a planned community. Why is it critical for board decisions, such as those concerning common area fixtures, to be made in an open forum?

5. Trace the timeline of the case from the initial filing of the petition on August 23, 2016, to the issuance of the compliance letter from the Department of Real Estate on January 13, 2017. Identify the key milestones and explain the function of each step in the administrative hearing process.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and recommendations.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that mandates all HOA board meetings be open to all association members, allowing them to attend and speak.

Bylaws

The internal rules governing the operation of an organization. In this case, the Turtle Rock III Bylaws (Division VI, Item 2.i) were cited as being violated.

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine levied by a government agency for a violation of law, distinct from criminal punishment. The HOA was ordered to pay a $1,000.00 civil penalty.

Common Area

Property within a planned community owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use and benefit of all members. The light fixtures in the case were located in the common areas.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state agency that conducts formal hearings for disputes involving other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for adjudication.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Richard A. DeBoer.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, 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.”

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal dispute who is found to have won the case. Richard A. DeBoer was deemed the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent was the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association.

Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR)

A manual of parliamentary procedure that governs most meetings of deliberative assemblies. The Petitioner argued that the HOA’s e-mail votes violated RONR’s requirement for simultaneous aural communication.

Your HOA Board’s Emails Might Be Illegal Meetings: How One Homeowner Fought Back and Won

Introduction: The Hidden Risks of HOA Board Emails

Do you ever wonder how your Homeowners Association (HOA) board really makes its decisions? For many residents, board operations can feel like a black box. While official meetings are announced, it’s easy to assume that much of the groundwork happens behind the scenes. But what if those seemingly harmless email chains among board members are more than just casual discussions? What if they are, in fact, illegal meetings?

A powerful legal case from Arizona, involving a homeowner named Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association, provides a powerful lesson for HOA members nationwide. This post breaks down the four most impactful takeaways from that case, showing how one homeowner successfully held his board accountable for its lack of transparency.

Takeaway 1: “Convenient” Email Votes Can Be Illegal Secret Meetings

An Email Vote Isn’t Just an Email—It’s a Meeting.

In 2016, the Turtle Rock III HOA board made two significant decisions affecting community property. In March, they conducted an email vote to purchase and install four high-mast street lights. In April, they conducted another email vote to remove and sell, or give away, fourteen “large, iconic, architectural, light-fixtures” from the common areas.

The petitioner, Richard A. DeBoer, argued that this practice was a direct violation of Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs, which states:

“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association or any person designated by a member in writing as the member’s representative and all members or designated representatives so desiring shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings. . .” — A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the homeowner, concluding that the board’s practice of taking action via email “violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).” The case record reveals the board’s actions failed on multiple fronts. Specifically, their email votes violated the law because they were conducted in a way that:

• Were not open to all members: The decisions were made in a private digital space, excluding the very residents they affected.

• Denied members the right to attend and speak: Homeowners were given no opportunity to hear the deliberations or provide input before the board took formal action.

• Failed to provide 48-hour notice: Members were not given the legally required advance notice of the “meetings” where votes were cast.

• Lacked proper agendas: No agendas were provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed or decided.

• Did not qualify as emergency meetings: The subject matter did not meet the stringent requirements for an emergency session that might bypass standard notice rules.

This ruling affirms a crucial principle: transparency laws apply to modern forms of communication. Boards cannot use technology to circumvent their legal obligation to conduct business in the open.

Takeaway 2: “Bad Advice” Is Not a Valid Legal Defense

“But Our Manager Said It Was OK” Won’t Hold Up in Court.

During the hearing, the HOA board did not deny that the email votes took place. Instead, they offered a defense: they were just following advice.

Board President Verl Curtiss and Treasurer Steve Pilcher both testified that their management company and its manager had told them they were not in violation of the law. Mr. Pilcher stated that they believed they had received “good advice.”

Despite this testimony, the judge ruled against the HOA. This outcome is a stark reminder that reliance on bad advice is not a legal shield. Board members have a fiduciary duty to the community they serve, and a core part of that duty is understanding and adhering to the laws governing their association. This responsibility cannot be outsourced to a management company. Ultimately, the board—not its vendors—is accountable for upholding the principles of open governance.

Takeaway 3: A Single Homeowner Can Force an Entire Board to Comply

One Determined Homeowner Can Win Against the Whole Association.

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of this case is who brought it forward. The petition was not filed by a large group of angry residents or a high-powered law firm. It was initiated by a single person: Richard A. DeBoer.

Mr. DeBoer filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on August 23, 2016. When the hearing took place on December 19, 2016, he “appeared on his own behalf.”

In the end, the court’s order officially deemed Mr. DeBoer the “prevailing party.” This victory demonstrates that the legal framework provides a viable path for individual homeowners to hold their boards accountable. It shows that one person with a clear understanding of the law and the determination to see it enforced can successfully challenge an entire association and win.

Takeaway 4: Cutting Corners on Transparency Carries a Financial Cost

Ignoring the Law Comes With a Price Tag.

Violating open meeting laws isn’t just a procedural error; it has direct financial consequences. As a result of the ruling, the Turtle Rock III HOA was ordered to pay for its actions. The financial penalties included:

• The HOA was ordered to pay back the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA was ordered to pay a $1,000.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

The board’s decision to cut corners on transparency cost their neighbors—the very people they were elected to serve—a total of $1,500. This money, which came directly from the association’s funds, could have gone toward community maintenance or improvements. Instead, it was spent paying for a legal and procedural failure. This case proves that when a board fails to follow the law, the entire community pays the price.

Conclusion: Transparency Is Not Optional

The case of DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association delivers a clear and powerful message: HOA boards must conduct business in the open, and homeowners have both the right and the ability to enforce those transparency laws. Email votes and other back-channel communications that exclude members from the decision-making process are not just bad practice—they can be illegal.

This case was decided in Arizona, but the principle of transparency is universal. Does your HOA board’s communication meet the standard of the law, and what would you do if you discovered it didn’t?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard A. DeBoer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Verl Curtiss (board member)
    Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
    President; Appeared on behalf of Respondent; witness
  • Steven Pilcher (board member)
    Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
    Treasurer; Appeared on behalf of Respondent; witness

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Business Services Division (ADRE)