Case Summary: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association

Explicit Notice: This summary covers both the original administrative decision (Case No. 24F-H047-REL) and the subsequent rehearing proceedings (Case No. 24F-H047-REL-RHG). The procedural history, issues, and outcomes of the two proceedings are distinct and outlined separately below to prevent conflation.

I. Original Proceeding (Case No. 24F-H047-REL)

Key Facts: The Petitioner, AZNH Revocable Trust, requested to inspect election documents from the Respondent, Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (HOA), concerning a February 2024 election. The HOA utilized a third-party vendor, “Vote HOA Now,” to conduct electronic voting. In response to the inspection request, the HOA provided paper ballots, absentee envelopes, and data tally lists verifying the electronic votes cast via the vendor.

Main Issue: The Petitioner argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by failing to produce an actual image of each electronic ballot as seen and voted on by the members, asserting that data lists were insufficient for a valid recount or inspection.

Outcome: On November 5, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the HOA complied with statutory requirements, determining that retaining the data lists demonstrating the electronic votes satisfied the requirement to keep records “in electronic format”. The ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)(4) mandates the storage of “electronic votes,” not necessarily visual images of electronic ballots.

II. Procedural History & Rehearing (Case No. 24F-H047-REL-RHG)

Procedural History: Following the original decision, the Petitioner appealed to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Superior Court remanded the matter to the Arizona Department of Real Estate to conduct an evidentiary hearing to address “additional evidence” proposed by the Petitioner (specifically, an electronic ballot allegedly in the HOA’s custody). Consequently, the Department granted a rehearing, leading to the RHG docket.

Rehearing Proceedings & Key Arguments: The rehearing was scheduled for September 26, 2025. At 12:13 a.m. on the day of the hearing, the Petitioner electronically filed a “Peremptory Change of Administrative Law Judge” alongside a request for a continuance. The Petitioner invoked a newly revised statute (A.R.S. § 41-1092.07), effective that same day, which entitles a party to one peremptory change of judge.

Prior to going on the record, the ALJ and the OAH Interim Director determined that the Petitioner’s filing was a “motion” and was untimely under Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-106. Because the filing was deemed untimely, the ALJ retained the case. The Petitioner’s attorney argued that the peremptory change was an absolute statutory right—not a discretionary “motion”—and subsequently refused to participate, leaving the hearing room before the proceedings officially went on the record.

Rehearing Outcome: Because the Petitioner’s counsel left and failed to present evidence or argument, the HOA moved to dismiss the matter. On October 9, 2025, the ALJ formally granted the dismissal based on the Petitioner’s failure to proceed with the case.

Note: Following the dismissal of the rehearing, the Petitioner filed an Original Special Action Complaint in Superior Court (CV2025-036466) against the ALJ, OAH, and the HOA. The Petitioner is seeking a judgment declaring that the peremptory change of judge was immediate and incontrovertible by legislative fiat, and that the ALJ exceeded her legal authority by dismissing the rehearing