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

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 741807.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:05:18 (78.9 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:23 (69.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919071-REL


Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

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

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

2. What specific action taken by Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen initiated the dispute with the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association?

3. What was Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument for why the HOA’s Flag Display Rule was invalid?

4. On what authority did the Carter Ranch HOA claim it had the right to create and enforce its Flag Display Rule?

5. According to the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule,” which specific flags are homeowners permitted to fly?

6. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this hearing, and how is it defined in the decision?

7. What protection does Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808(C) provide for “political signs”?

8. What were the two key failures of the petitioner’s case, as identified in the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law?

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

10. What are the next steps for a party wishing to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Van Dan Elzen represented himself, while the HOA was represented by its attorney, Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

2. The dispute began on or about May 21, 2019, when the Carter Ranch HOA notified Mr. Van Dan Elzen that he had violated its rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag in his front yard. This notice of violation prompted Mr. Van Dan Elzen to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument was that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He contended that because CC&R section 3.14 only defines “SIGNS” and makes no reference to “Flags,” the HOA had no basis in the CC&Rs to regulate his flag.

4. The Carter Ranch HOA asserted its authority based on Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the HOA Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to the health, safety, or welfare of the owners and restrictions on the use of Lots.

5. The HOA’s Flag Display Rule prohibits flying any flag other than the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian National flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

6. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision 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.”

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) prevents an HOA from prohibiting the display of political signs on a member’s property, although it allows for regulation. An HOA cannot prohibit political signs earlier than 71 days before an election or later than three days after, and its rules on size and number can be no more restrictive than applicable city or county ordinances.

8. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the Flag Display Rule was improperly adopted or inconsistent with the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had not actually alleged that Carter Ranch violated the specific statute he cited, A.R.S. § 33-1808.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by state statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are designed to encourage a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the word “flag” does not appear in the CC&Rs. Why was this argument ultimately unconvincing to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Explain the legal distinction between a “flag” and a “political sign” as presented in A.R.S. § 33-1808. How might the petitioner’s case have differed if he had argued his “Trump 2020” flag was a “political sign” instead of a flag?

3. Discuss the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and why was this justification accepted by the court?

4. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” How can this be true when the petitioner’s initial filing explicitly cited this statute?

5. Based on the provided text of A.R.S. § 33-1808, under what specific circumstances could a homeowner in Carter Ranch successfully challenge the HOA’s rules on outdoor displays?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case centered on an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Carter Ranch CC&Rs grant the HOA Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Flag Display Rule

The specific rule created by the Carter Ranch HOA that prohibits flying any flag other than the American, military, POW/MIA, Arizona Indian National, Arizona State, and Gadsden flags.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Carter Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, the petitioner is Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

Defined by A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.” HOAs are restricted in their ability to prohibit the display of such signs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it,” meaning the fact is more probable than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent (Carter Ranch HOA) to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues. This case was decided as a result of a rehearing held on January 10, 2020.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the complaint. In this case, the respondent is the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919071-REL


He Fought the HOA Over a Political Flag—And Lost. Here Are 3 Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Pride and the Problem

Imagine this: You want to display a flag on your own property to support a political candidate. It feels like a fundamental right, an expression of free speech on your home turf. But then, a letter arrives from your Homeowners Association (HOA) citing you for a violation. This exact scenario happened to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who displayed a “Trump 2020” flag and promptly received a violation notice from the Carter Ranch HOA in Arizona.

Believing the HOA was overstepping its authority, Mr. Van Dan Elzen took them to court. He lost. The outcome might seem counter-intuitive, but the court’s decision reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner living under an HOA. Here are the three surprising legal reasons why the HOA won.

1. The Power of the Fine Print: Why a “Loophole” Wasn’t Enough

Mr. Van Dan Elzen built his case on a clever textual argument. He alleged that the HOA’s rule against his flag was invalid because the section of the master community documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—he believed it was based on only regulated “SIGNS” and made no mention of “FLAGS.” He argued that since the document didn’t explicitly prohibit flags, the rule against his was unenforceable.

This seemingly logical “loophole” argument failed. The HOA countered by pointing to a different, much broader clause in their CC&Rs. Article V, Section 5.3, gave the HOA board expansive power to create new rules.

The Board may, from time to time, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to: … (iii) the health, safety or welfare of the owners, Lessees and Residence, or (iv) restrictions on the use of Lots…

This general power to create rules for the “welfare of the owners” was enough to give the HOA the legal authority to regulate flags, even if the word “flag” wasn’t in the specific section the homeowner cited. The broad power to govern trumped the narrow, semantic argument.

2. A Flag Is Not a Sign (At Least, Not According to the Law)

While the homeowner’s flag was political in nature, it did not receive the legal protections granted to “political signs” under Arizona law. This distinction proved fatal to his case.

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808, is highly specific about which flags an HOA is forbidden from prohibiting. The protected list includes: the American flag, official military branch flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, Arizona Indian nations flags, and the Gadsden flag. Critically, the Carter Ranch HOA’s own Flag Display Rule mirrored this state-approved list exactly, demonstrating they had aligned their regulations with the law. A political campaign flag, like “Trump 2020,” is not on this protected list.

The same law does protect political signs, but it defines them very precisely:

“political sign” means a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.

The key takeaway is that the law treats a political flag differently from a political sign. Because the “Trump 2020” item was a flag and not on the state’s protected flag list, the HOA was well within its rights to restrict its display based on its own community rules.

3. A Critical Misstep: Arguing the Wrong Point

The most decisive reason for the loss was not a procedural error, but a substantive legal failure. Mr. Van Dan Elzen filed his petition with the state on the grounds that the HOA had violated a specific state law, A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and political signs.

However, his entire case was built on arguing that the HOA’s internal rules were inconsistent with its own CC&Rs—the “sign” versus “flag” argument. This was the wrong legal target. To win, he had to prove that the HOA had violated the state statute. But the statute explicitly allows an HOA to regulate any flag not on the protected list. By regulating his “Trump 2020” flag, the HOA was doing exactly what the state law permitted. His argument about internal documents, even if correct, did not add up to a violation of the state law he sued under.

The Administrative Law Judge recognized this fundamental flaw, concluding that the homeowner hadn’t actually made a case for a statutory violation at all.

Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

This is a crucial lesson: it’s not enough to feel wronged. Your argument must directly prove that the specific law you cite in your complaint has actually been broken. The homeowner’s claim was dismissed because his central argument was irrelevant to the law he needed to prove was violated.

Conclusion: Know Your Rights, and Your Rules

The case of the “Trump 2020” flag is a powerful illustration for homeowners everywhere. It highlights three critical realities of living in an HOA: the broad rule-making power granted by community documents can override perceived loopholes; state laws make very specific and narrow distinctions between protected items like signs and flags; and a sound legal strategy is paramount.

This case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, your property rights are defined not by what you feel is right, but by what is written down. Before you make a stand, are you certain you’re fighting the right battle on the right legal ground?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines LLC
    Appeared for Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Dustin Snow (property manager)
    SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES
    Recipient of order transmission

Brad W. Stevens vs. Mogollon Aripark, Inc.,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG, 18F-H1818045-REL, 18F-H1818054-REL, 18F-H1818054-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-03-01
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Warren R. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Mogollon Airpark, Inc. Counsel Gregory A. Stein, Esq.; Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled that Mogollon Airpark, Inc. violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) by charging a $25 late fee, as the statutory limit applies to all assessments,. However, the ALJ found no violation regarding the $325 assessment increase because the $209 portion was a special assessment and the remaining regular increase did not exceed the 20% limit,,.

Why this result: The Petitioners' primary loss on the assessment cap issue was due to a failed legal interpretation that 'regular assessment' encompasses all assessments, a view the ALJ found would render statutory language redundant,.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to $325 Assessment Increase (Docket 029-RHG)

Petitioner Brown argued that 'regular assessment' refers to the procedure (motion, second, vote) and thus the entire $325 increase should be subject to the 20% cap,. The ALJ rejected this, finding that $116 was a regular increase (14.1%) and $209 was a special assessment, to which the cap did not apply,.

Orders: Petition in Docket No. 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
  • Deer Valley v. Houser

Excessive Late Fee and Interest (Docket 045)

Petitioner Brown alleged that the $25 late charge and interest rate exceeded the limits of A.R.S. § 33-1803(A). The ALJ ruled that the statutory limit on late fees applies to all 'assessments', not just 'regular assessments', and found the HOA in violation,.

Orders: Respondent must rescind the $25 late fee and pay Petitioner his $500 filing fee within thirty days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
  • U.S. Parking Sys v. City of Phoenix

Challenge to $325 Assessment Increase (Docket 054 & Rehearing)

Petitioner Stevens argued the entire $325 must be a regular assessment because the HOA lacked authority to impose special assessments or used deceptive accounting to justify the increase,,. The ALJ found that 'regular assessment' is a specific type of assessment and the $116 increase (14.1%) did not exceed the cap,,.

Orders: Petition in Docket No. 18F-H1818054-REL and the subsequent rehearing are dismissed,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Assessment Increase Cap, Regular Assessment vs Special Assessment, Late Fee Limit, Statutory Construction, Accounting Impropriety Allegations, Rehearing, Consolidated Matter
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • A.A.C. § R2-19-119
  • Deer Valley v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • U.S. Parking Sys v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33, 34 (App. 1989)
  • McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona, 215 Ariz. 492 (2007)

Decision Documents

18F-H1818054-REL Decision – 666285.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-19T15:21:24 (151.9 KB)

18F-H1818054-REL Decision – 672623.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-19T15:21:25 (144.6 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Warren R. Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Brad W. Stevens (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf and testified

Respondent Side

  • Gregory A. Stein (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Counsel for Respondent, referred to as Greg Stein in rehearing
  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Counsel for Respondent (also spelled Sahl/Saul)

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (staff/clerk)
    Transmitting staff

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
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 2026-01-23T17:26:46 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

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





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL


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 – 19F-H1918013-REL


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.






Blog Post – 19F-H1918013-REL


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)

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
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 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (115.9 KB)

19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (47.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL


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 – 19F-H1918013-REL


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.






Blog Post – 19F-H1918013-REL


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 by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-08-21
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
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 2026-01-23T17:24:48 (155.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818048-REL


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 – 18F-H1818048-REL


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.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818048-REL


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.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Peter Biondi, Jr. (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; also a unit owner and HOA member
  • Jeffrey Washburn (witness)
    Former Board member; presented testimony by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
    Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
    Represented Respondent
  • Bonnie Henden (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Sole remaining Director; presented testimony
  • Jim Luzzis (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated
  • Jerry Dubasquier (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
    Transmitting agent
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-08-21
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
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 2025-10-09T03:32:58 (155.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818048-REL


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 – 18F-H1818048-REL


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.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818048-REL


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.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Peter Biondi, Jr. (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; also a unit owner and HOA member
  • Jeffrey Washburn (witness)
    Former Board member; presented testimony by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
    Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
    Represented Respondent
  • Bonnie Henden (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Sole remaining Director; presented testimony
  • Jim Luzzis (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated
  • Jerry Dubasquier (board member)
    Lakeshore at Andersen Springs Homeowners Association
    Director whose removal was overturned/reinstated

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
    Transmitting agent
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission

Annette Cohen vs. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Annette Cohen Counsel —
Respondent CBS 136 Homeowners Association Counsel Brian E. Ditsch

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party because Respondent established a technical violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested documents within the 10-day limit. However, the Administrative Law Judge found a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested association records within 10 business days

Petitioner requested sign-in sheets for the January 10, 2018, and February 15, 2018, CBS HOA meetings. Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute by failing to provide the requested documents within the required 10-day timeframe, although they were ultimately provided prior to the hearing.

Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future, and pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, failure to provide documents, condominium owners association, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 642888.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:22 (74.5 KB)

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 655537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:25 (83.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818033-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision from the administrative hearing case Annette Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association (No. 18F-H1818033-REL). The core of the dispute was the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) failure to provide requested documents—specifically, meeting sign-in sheets—to a member, Annette Cohen, within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258.

At the hearing, the Respondent HOA acknowledged this “technical violation,” attributing the delay to operational difficulties arising from a recent change in management companies. The Petitioner, Ms. Cohen, argued the delay was intentional and warranted a civil penalty.

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, found that the HOA did violate the statute. In the final order, the Judge declared Ms. Cohen the prevailing party and mandated future compliance by the HOA. While a civil penalty was deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, the Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Ms. Cohen’s $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Annette Cohen

Respondent

CBS 136 Homeowners Association (CBS)

Respondent’s Counsel

Brian Ditsch, Sacks Tierney P.A.

Respondent’s Mgmt. Co.

Key Witness

Susan Rubin (PRM)

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Case Number

18F-H1818033-REL

Hearing Date

June 6, 2018

Decision Date

June 26, 2018

Chronology of the Dispute

The dispute centered on two separate sets of document requests made by Petitioner Annette Cohen.

• Request 1 (January 10 Meeting):

◦ On or about Jan. 10, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the annual meeting held on this date.

◦ Jan. 2018: The management company PRM took over management of the CBS 136 HOA.

◦ Feb. 15, 2018: After more than a month, and after two scheduled review appointments were cancelled by the management company, the sign-in sheets were finally provided to Ms. Cohen by email.

• Request 2 (February 15 Meeting):

◦ Feb. 19, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 HOA meeting. Receipt of this request was acknowledged by PRM.

◦ Feb. 21, 26, 27 & March 5, 2018: Ms. Cohen made repeated follow-up requests for the same information.

• Formal Proceedings:

◦ March 9, 2018: Ms. Cohen filed a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

◦ April 10, 2018: The Respondent HOA filed an answer denying all allegations.

◦ June 6, 2018: An administrative hearing was held. The documents had been provided to Ms. Cohen at some point prior to this hearing.

◦ June 26, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision.

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Allegation

Annette Cohen alleged that the CBS 136 Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258 by failing to provide association records for review and copying within the statutorily required timeframe.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

The legal basis for the petition is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1258(A), which governs a member’s right to access association records. The statute states, in relevant part:

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member… The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”

The petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that “shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

Once the Respondent acknowledged the delay, the hearing focused solely on determining the appropriate remedy.

Petitioner’s Position (Annette Cohen)

• Intentional Negligence: Ms. Cohen argued that the Respondent “intentionally ignored her request for the documents.”

• Request for Penalty: Based on the belief of intentional neglect, she asserted that a civil penalty was an appropriate remedy.

• Unreasonable Delay: She noted that the documents “could have easily been emailed to her within the 10 day deadline,” but that the HOA’s management company did not present this as an option until after the deadline had already passed.

Respondent’s Position (CBS 136 HOA)

• Acknowledged Violation: At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent “acknowledged that the requested documents were not provided within the 10 day timeframe set forth in statute.”

• Mitigating Circumstances: The defense centered on testimony from Susan Rubin of the management company, PRM. Ms. Rubin testified to the following:

◦ No requests are “ever purposefully ignored.”

◦ PRM had only taken over management of the HOA in January 2018.

◦ At the time of the requests, PRM was “still getting documents from the former management company.”

◦ The delay was not due to ignoring the request, but because it “took a little longer than expected to provide the documents.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

Findings and Conclusions

• Violation Established: The Judge concluded there was “no dispute that Respondent failed to provide the requested documents within 10 days.” Therefore, the Petitioner “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Rejection of Civil Penalty: Despite the Petitioner’s argument, the Administrative Law Judge did “not find such a penalty to be appropriate given the circumstances in this matter.”

Final Order

The Judge issued a three-part order binding on the parties:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, is “deemed the prevailing party.”

2. Future Compliance: The Respondent, CBS 136 Homeowners Association, is ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future.”

3. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 directly to her within thirty (30) days of the order.






Study Guide – 18F-H1818033-REL


Study Guide: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Please answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 18F-H1818033-REL, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific documents did the Petitioner, Annette Cohen, request from the Respondent?

3. According to the petition, what was the core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen against the Homeowners Association?

4. What was the timeline for the Respondent’s failure to produce the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 meeting?

5. How did the Respondent initially respond to the petition after it was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

6. What admission did the Respondent make at the June 6, 2018 hearing?

7. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the delay in providing the requested documents to the Petitioner?

8. What remedy did the Petitioner argue was appropriate for the violation, and on what grounds?

9. What legal standard of proof was the Petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that she met it?

10. What were the three components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Annette Cohen, who was the Petitioner, and the CBS 136 Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.

2. The Petitioner requested the sign-in sheets from two separate meetings. She requested the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 annual meeting and the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 CBS HOA meeting.

3. The core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen was that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires homeowner associations to provide requested records to members for examination or copying within a ten-business-day timeframe.

4. Ms. Cohen requested the January 10, 2018 sign-in sheets on or about that same date (January 10). She did not receive them via email until February 15, 2018, which is well beyond the ten-business-day limit stipulated by law.

5. On or about April 10, 2018, the Respondent filed an answer to the petition. In this official response, the Respondent denied all of the allegations made by the Petitioner.

6. At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent acknowledged its failure to comply with the law. The Respondent admitted that the requested documents were not provided within the 10-day timeframe set forth in the statute, constituting a technical violation.

7. The Respondent, through the testimony of Susan Rubin from its management company PRM, explained the delay was not intentional. Ms. Rubin stated that PRM had just taken over management of the HOA in January 2018 and was still in the process of getting documents from the former management company.

8. The Petitioner argued that a civil penalty was the appropriate remedy. She contended that the Respondent intentionally ignored her requests and could have easily emailed the documents within the deadline, but failed to do so until after the deadline had passed.

9. The Petitioner had the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge found that she successfully met this standard because there was no dispute that the Respondent failed to provide the documents within the required 10 days.

10. The three components of the final Order were: 1) The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, was deemed the prevailing party; 2) The Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future; and 3) The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format responses. Use the provided case documents to formulate a comprehensive analysis.

1. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the appropriate remedy for the acknowledged statutory violation. Evaluate the mitigating circumstances offered by the Respondent and discuss why the Administrative Law Judge may have found them persuasive enough to deny a civil penalty while still finding in favor of the Petitioner.

2. Discuss the legal framework governing disputes between property owners and condominium associations in Arizona as outlined in the case documents. Explain the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings, and detail the specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).

3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the judge’s decision. Explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof, particularly in light of the Respondent’s initial denial of all allegations versus its later admission at the hearing.

4. Deconstruct the final Order issued by Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer. What were the three distinct parts of the Order, and what legal and practical purpose did each part serve in resolving the dispute, compensating the Petitioner, and ensuring future compliance by the Respondent?

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, creating a timeline of key events from Ms. Cohen’s first document request to the issuance of the final Order. Discuss the significance of each step, including the multiple requests, the petition filing, the Respondent’s answer, the hearing, and the final decision.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge

The official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes cited in the case. It mandates that a homeowners association must make records available for member examination within ten business days and may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to prove their assertions. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the statute.

CBS 136 Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; an association of condominium owners located in Sun City West, Arizona.

Department

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

Findings of Fact

The section of the decision that outlines the factual history and evidence presented in the case, as determined by the judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state office where the formal hearing on the petition was conducted.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Annette Cohen.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

The management company that took over management of the CBS 136 Homeowners Association in January 2018.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the CBS 136 Homeowners Association.

Technical Violation

An acknowledged infringement of a rule or statute where the substance of the rule may not have been maliciously violated. The Respondent admitted to a technical violation of the 10-day timeframe for document production.






Blog Post – 18F-H1818033-REL



Select all sources