Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:19 (90.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717034-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.


Richard Long vs. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Long Counsel —
Respondent Pebble Creek Resort Community Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01; CC&Rs § 1(Hh), 2(P)(i); ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy

Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Block Wall, Privacy Wall, CC&Rs, ALC Guidelines, Party Wall
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 586501.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:42 (117.9 KB)

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 588547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:45 (1013.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717037-REL


Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.

The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.

Case Overview

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Real Estate Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

August 30, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 14, 2017

Core Dispute and Party Positions

Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)

• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.

• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”

• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.

• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”

• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.

Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)

• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.

• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”

• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:

1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.

2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).

3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.

4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.

Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)

• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.

• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:

◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.

◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.

◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”

◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”

◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”

◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”

◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.

• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls

◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”

◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.

• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls

◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”

◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.

• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”

◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:

▪ Free-standing alumawood.

▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.

▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”

◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.

• Key Findings of Law:

1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.

2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.

3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).

• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”

• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Final Order and Subsequent Actions

• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.

• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:

1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.

4. Newly discovered material evidence.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.

7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.

• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.






Study Guide – 17F-H1717037-REL


Study Guide: Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community (Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association. It covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented, the relevant community rules, and the final legal outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the specific structure that the Petitioner, Richard Long, proposed to build, and what was its intended purpose?

2. On what grounds did the Respondent, Pebble Creek Resort Community, justify its restrictions against the type of wall the Petitioner proposed?

3. What conditional variance did the Respondent offer to the Petitioner on May 1, 2017?

4. What were the primary concerns expressed by the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans, which led them to decline the proposed wall agreement?

5. According to ALC Guideline JJ, what alternative structure could the Petitioner have built for privacy, and what were its key requirements?

6. How do the CC&Rs define a “Party Wall,” and what right does CC&R § 2(P)(i) grant to contiguous property owners regarding such a wall?

7. What rule from the ALC Guidelines prohibits the construction of two parallel walls side-by-side, and why is this rule in place?

8. What is the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the hearing decision?

9. Who held the burden of proof to establish that the homeowners’ association violated its governing documents?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the case after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was reviewed?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner proposed to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall for privacy between his patio and his neighbor’s patio. The wall was to be located a foot or so inside his side of the property line, so his neighbors could not attach to it.

2. The Respondent explained that walls built near, but not on, the property line can lead to problems. This can result in two parallel walls being built, creating an unmaintainable space between them that collects refuse, leaves, insects, nests, and rodents.

3. The Respondent approved a variance on the condition that the wall be built on the property line. Both the Petitioner and his neighbors (the Rohlmans) had to agree in writing that current or future owners could extend the wall, with this agreement being disclosed upon sale of either house.

4. The Rohlmans declined because they believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect their property’s value. They were also concerned about the legal expense and perpetual nature of an easement, and the possibility that future owners could lengthen the wall without consent.

5. ALC Guideline JJ permits a “privacy panel wall,” which is a free-standing alumawood wall. This wall must be 6 feet high, no longer than 16 feet, and located at least 3 feet from the property line. The Petitioner rejected this option, feeling it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

6. CC&R § 1(Hh) defines a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of lots. CC&R § 2(P)(i) states that each owner of a contiguous property has the right to use the Party Wall, provided it does not interfere with the other owner’s use.

7. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states that an existing party wall along a joint property line “precludes any adjacent parallel party wall.” This rule is in place to prevent the negative situation described by the Respondent where a difficult-to-maintain space is created between two walls.

8. A “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 also described as “the greater weight of the evidence” that is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue over the other.

9. The Petitioner, Richard Long, bore the burden of proof. He had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

10. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, becoming a Final Order. The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case documents to formulate a comprehensive answer supported by specific facts and citations to the community’s governing documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s desire for a specific type of privacy structure and the Respondent’s interpretation of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines. How did the governing documents prioritize community standards and potential future problems over an individual homeowner’s preference?

2. Discuss the role and reasoning of the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans. Evaluate their concerns regarding property value, easements, and future modifications as presented in their email, and explain how their refusal to sign the agreement was a critical factor in the dispute.

3. Explain the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky to reach her decision. Detail which specific sections of the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines were most influential and how she applied them to unequivocally deny the Petitioner’s request.

4. Compare and contrast the two types of structures discussed for ensuring privacy: the block wall proposed by the Petitioner and the “privacy panel wall” permitted by ALC Guideline JJ. What are the key differences in their material, specifications, placement, and the implications of those differences within the community’s rules?

5. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Final Order. Describe the distinct roles and authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC), the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes decisions on disputes. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties, such as walls and fences, based on the community’s guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community documents.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

The Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association was the Respondent.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 1(Hh), “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.” CC&R § 2(P)(i) grants each owner the right to use the Party Wall.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner Richard Long.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and “[t]he greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717037-REL


Why Your HOA Can Control a Wall Built Entirely on Your Property

Introduction: The Privacy Paradox

Imagine you want a bit more privacy from your next-door neighbor. The solution seems simple: build a wall. To avoid any disputes, you decide to build it entirely on your land, a good foot inside your property line. It’s your property, your wall, your right. But what if your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) tells you that you can’t? This is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s precisely what happened to homeowner Richard Long when he tried to build a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall.

Mr. Long proposed building the wall just one foot inside his property line, believing this would make it a private structure, free from the shared-property rules that often complicate neighborly relations. The HOA denied his request, sparking a legal dispute. The outcome of this case provides surprising and counter-intuitive lessons that every homeowner in a planned community should understand about property rights, community rules, and the hidden logic that governs them.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Hidden Logic: Preventing the “Rodent Run”

At first glance, the HOA’s rule might seem like arbitrary overreach. Why should they care if a wall is on the property line or one foot away from it? The answer reveals a practical, long-term logic designed to prevent a specific, unpleasant problem: two parallel walls built side-by-side.

The HOA’s governing documents were written to avoid a scenario where a small, unmaintainable gap is created between two separate walls on adjacent properties. If Mr. Long built his wall a foot inside his line, and his neighbor later decided to do the same, a narrow dead space would be created between the homes. In its official written answer, the HOA vividly described the issue this creates:

This is not a good situation in that there often isn’t room between the walls to properly maintain either wall, and the area in between the two walls becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.

This reveals a core principle of planned community management: rules are often designed not to restrict current owners, but to mitigate future risks and liabilities for the entire community. This preventative governance aims to protect the community from future blight, sanitation issues, and pest infestations.

——————————————————————————–

2. The “Immediately Adjacent” Rule: Your Property Isn’t an Island

The homeowner’s central argument was that by building the wall a foot inside his property, it was his private wall, not a shared “party wall” subject to joint rules. It was a clever attempt to circumvent the regulations, but it failed because of the precise wording in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Here, the dispute hinged on two seemingly innocuous words. The community’s CC&Rs define a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed “on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary.” The Administrative Law Judge interpreted a wall built only a foot away as falling under the definition of “immediately adjacent.” This single phrase effectively negated the homeowner’s entire strategy.

The judge’s determination that the wall qualified as “immediately adjacent” was critical. By legally defining it as a Party Wall, another rule from the CC&Rs automatically kicked in: the adjoining neighbor’s explicit right to use it. This completely undermined the homeowner’s central goal of creating a purely private structure.

As if that weren’t definitive enough, another, even more explicit rule served as the final nail in the coffin. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.” This rule directly forbids the exact “rodent run” scenario, showing that the governing documents had multiple, overlapping prohibitions against his plan.

——————————————————————————–

3. The Neighbor’s Veto: It’s a Three-Party Problem

In an attempt to find a middle ground, the HOA offered a potential compromise. They would approve the wall, but only if it were built directly on the property line and if both Mr. Long and his neighbors, the Rohlmans, signed a formal “Party Wall/Fence Agreement.” This solution, however, revealed another layer of complexity. The neighbors refused to sign.

The Rohlmans explained their reasoning in an email, highlighting concerns that went beyond simple aesthetics. They worried about the financial and legal implications of a shared wall on the property line.

[We] declined to have a wall built on the property line between our homes because it affects the current and future value of our property – and yours. Furthermore, each of us would have to grant the other an easement in perpetuity, which is a legal document… Upon the sale of our home, we would have to inform the purchaser of the easement, which lowers the value of the property.

This demonstrates a common blind spot for homeowners: disputes are rarely bilateral. The rights and financial interests of adjacent property owners create a complex, multi-party dynamic. More often than not, an HOA dispute is a three-party negotiation, and a neighbor’s consent—or lack thereof—can be the deciding factor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

The final outcome was decisive. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the HOA’s decision, and the homeowner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the community’s governing documents “unequivocally prohibit” the proposed wall. However, this was not a total denial of privacy. Mr. Long did have an approved option: a free-standing “alumawood” privacy panel, provided it was located three feet from the property line. He rejected this alternative because he felt it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

This case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts. The conflict was ultimately not between a homeowner’s right to privacy and the HOA, but between the homeowner’s specific aesthetic preference and the community’s established architectural standards. What you can do on your own land is deeply intertwined with the collective rules you agreed to when you purchased your home.

Before your next home improvement project, does your plan align not just with your vision, but also with the shared vision encoded in your community’s rules?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard Long (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Petitioner's wife (interested party)
    Required, along with Petitioner, to agree in writing to the wall conditions for variance approval (Unit 39 Lot 12)

Respondent Side

  • Jack Sarsam (executive/witness)
    Robson Communities
    Senior Vice President for Robson Communities, overseeing Respondent's operations; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who adopted the ALJ decision in the Final Order
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Contact for rehearing requests; listed as HOA Coordinator

Other Participants

  • The Rohlmans (neighbor/interested party)
    Adjacent neighbors (Unit 39 lot 11) whose refusal to sign the party wall agreement was central to the dispute

Richard Long vs. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Long Counsel —
Respondent Pebble Creek Resort Community Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01; CC&Rs § 1(Hh), 2(P)(i); ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy

Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Block Wall, Privacy Wall, CC&Rs, ALC Guidelines, Party Wall
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 586501.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:09 (117.9 KB)

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 588547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:10 (1013.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717037-REL


Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.

The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.

Case Overview

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Real Estate Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

August 30, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 14, 2017

Core Dispute and Party Positions

Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)

• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.

• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”

• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.

• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”

• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.

Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)

• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.

• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”

• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:

1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.

2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).

3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.

4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.

Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)

• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.

• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:

◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.

◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.

◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”

◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”

◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”

◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”

◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.

• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls

◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”

◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.

• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls

◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”

◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.

• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”

◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:

▪ Free-standing alumawood.

▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.

▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”

◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.

• Key Findings of Law:

1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.

2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.

3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).

• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”

• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Final Order and Subsequent Actions

• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.

• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:

1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.

4. Newly discovered material evidence.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.

7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.

• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.


Richard Long vs. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Long Counsel —
Respondent Pebble Creek Resort Community Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01; CC&Rs § 1(Hh), 2(P)(i); ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy

Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Block Wall, Privacy Wall, CC&Rs, ALC Guidelines, Party Wall
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 586501.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:24 (117.9 KB)

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 588547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:25 (1013.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717037-REL


Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.

The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.

Case Overview

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Real Estate Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

August 30, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 14, 2017

Core Dispute and Party Positions

Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)

• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.

• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”

• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.

• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”

• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.

Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)

• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.

• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”

• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:

1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.

2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).

3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.

4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.

Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)

• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.

• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:

◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.

◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.

◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”

◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”

◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”

◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”

◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.

• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls

◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”

◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.

• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls

◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”

◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.

• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”

◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:

▪ Free-standing alumawood.

▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.

▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”

◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.

• Key Findings of Law:

1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.

2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.

3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).

• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”

• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Final Order and Subsequent Actions

• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.

• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:

1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.

4. Newly discovered material evidence.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.

7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.

• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.


Richard Long vs. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard Long Counsel —
Respondent Pebble Creek Resort Community Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01; CC&Rs § 1(Hh), 2(P)(i); ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy

Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Block Wall, Privacy Wall, CC&Rs, ALC Guidelines, Party Wall
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 1(Hh)
  • CC&R § 2(P)(i)
  • ALC Guideline SS(4)(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 586501.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:43 (117.9 KB)

17F-H1717037-REL Decision – 588547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:43 (1013.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717037-REL


Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.

The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.

Case Overview

The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent

Case Number

No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037

Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)

Petitioner

Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Real Estate Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

August 30, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 14, 2017

Core Dispute and Party Positions

Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)

• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.

• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”

• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.

• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”

• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.

Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)

• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.

• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”

• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:

1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.

2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).

3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.

4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.

Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)

• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.

• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:

◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.

◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.

◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”

◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”

◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”

Analysis of Governing Documents

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”

◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”

◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.

• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls

◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”

◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.

• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls

◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”

◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.

• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”

◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:

▪ Free-standing alumawood.

▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.

▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”

◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.

• Key Findings of Law:

1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.

2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.

3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).

• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”

• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Final Order and Subsequent Actions

• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.

• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:

1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.

4. Newly discovered material evidence.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.

7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.

• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.






Study Guide – 17F-H1717037-REL


Study Guide: Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community (Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL)

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association. It covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented, the relevant community rules, and the final legal outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the specific structure that the Petitioner, Richard Long, proposed to build, and what was its intended purpose?

2. On what grounds did the Respondent, Pebble Creek Resort Community, justify its restrictions against the type of wall the Petitioner proposed?

3. What conditional variance did the Respondent offer to the Petitioner on May 1, 2017?

4. What were the primary concerns expressed by the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans, which led them to decline the proposed wall agreement?

5. According to ALC Guideline JJ, what alternative structure could the Petitioner have built for privacy, and what were its key requirements?

6. How do the CC&Rs define a “Party Wall,” and what right does CC&R § 2(P)(i) grant to contiguous property owners regarding such a wall?

7. What rule from the ALC Guidelines prohibits the construction of two parallel walls side-by-side, and why is this rule in place?

8. What is the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the hearing decision?

9. Who held the burden of proof to establish that the homeowners’ association violated its governing documents?

10. What was the final, binding outcome of the case after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was reviewed?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner proposed to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall for privacy between his patio and his neighbor’s patio. The wall was to be located a foot or so inside his side of the property line, so his neighbors could not attach to it.

2. The Respondent explained that walls built near, but not on, the property line can lead to problems. This can result in two parallel walls being built, creating an unmaintainable space between them that collects refuse, leaves, insects, nests, and rodents.

3. The Respondent approved a variance on the condition that the wall be built on the property line. Both the Petitioner and his neighbors (the Rohlmans) had to agree in writing that current or future owners could extend the wall, with this agreement being disclosed upon sale of either house.

4. The Rohlmans declined because they believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect their property’s value. They were also concerned about the legal expense and perpetual nature of an easement, and the possibility that future owners could lengthen the wall without consent.

5. ALC Guideline JJ permits a “privacy panel wall,” which is a free-standing alumawood wall. This wall must be 6 feet high, no longer than 16 feet, and located at least 3 feet from the property line. The Petitioner rejected this option, feeling it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

6. CC&R § 1(Hh) defines a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of lots. CC&R § 2(P)(i) states that each owner of a contiguous property has the right to use the Party Wall, provided it does not interfere with the other owner’s use.

7. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states that an existing party wall along a joint property line “precludes any adjacent parallel party wall.” This rule is in place to prevent the negative situation described by the Respondent where a difficult-to-maintain space is created between two walls.

8. A “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 also described as “the greater weight of the evidence” that is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue over the other.

9. The Petitioner, Richard Long, bore the burden of proof. He had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.

10. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, becoming a Final Order. The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case documents to formulate a comprehensive answer supported by specific facts and citations to the community’s governing documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s desire for a specific type of privacy structure and the Respondent’s interpretation of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines. How did the governing documents prioritize community standards and potential future problems over an individual homeowner’s preference?

2. Discuss the role and reasoning of the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans. Evaluate their concerns regarding property value, easements, and future modifications as presented in their email, and explain how their refusal to sign the agreement was a critical factor in the dispute.

3. Explain the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky to reach her decision. Detail which specific sections of the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines were most influential and how she applied them to unequivocally deny the Petitioner’s request.

4. Compare and contrast the two types of structures discussed for ensuring privacy: the block wall proposed by the Petitioner and the “privacy panel wall” permitted by ALC Guideline JJ. What are the key differences in their material, specifications, placement, and the implications of those differences within the community’s rules?

5. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Final Order. Describe the distinct roles and authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC), the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes decisions on disputes. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties, such as walls and fences, based on the community’s guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community documents.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

The Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association was the Respondent.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 1(Hh), “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.” CC&R § 2(P)(i) grants each owner the right to use the Party Wall.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner Richard Long.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this civil case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and “[t]he greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717037-REL


Why Your HOA Can Control a Wall Built Entirely on Your Property

Introduction: The Privacy Paradox

Imagine you want a bit more privacy from your next-door neighbor. The solution seems simple: build a wall. To avoid any disputes, you decide to build it entirely on your land, a good foot inside your property line. It’s your property, your wall, your right. But what if your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) tells you that you can’t? This is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s precisely what happened to homeowner Richard Long when he tried to build a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall.

Mr. Long proposed building the wall just one foot inside his property line, believing this would make it a private structure, free from the shared-property rules that often complicate neighborly relations. The HOA denied his request, sparking a legal dispute. The outcome of this case provides surprising and counter-intuitive lessons that every homeowner in a planned community should understand about property rights, community rules, and the hidden logic that governs them.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Hidden Logic: Preventing the “Rodent Run”

At first glance, the HOA’s rule might seem like arbitrary overreach. Why should they care if a wall is on the property line or one foot away from it? The answer reveals a practical, long-term logic designed to prevent a specific, unpleasant problem: two parallel walls built side-by-side.

The HOA’s governing documents were written to avoid a scenario where a small, unmaintainable gap is created between two separate walls on adjacent properties. If Mr. Long built his wall a foot inside his line, and his neighbor later decided to do the same, a narrow dead space would be created between the homes. In its official written answer, the HOA vividly described the issue this creates:

This is not a good situation in that there often isn’t room between the walls to properly maintain either wall, and the area in between the two walls becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.

This reveals a core principle of planned community management: rules are often designed not to restrict current owners, but to mitigate future risks and liabilities for the entire community. This preventative governance aims to protect the community from future blight, sanitation issues, and pest infestations.

——————————————————————————–

2. The “Immediately Adjacent” Rule: Your Property Isn’t an Island

The homeowner’s central argument was that by building the wall a foot inside his property, it was his private wall, not a shared “party wall” subject to joint rules. It was a clever attempt to circumvent the regulations, but it failed because of the precise wording in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Here, the dispute hinged on two seemingly innocuous words. The community’s CC&Rs define a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed “on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary.” The Administrative Law Judge interpreted a wall built only a foot away as falling under the definition of “immediately adjacent.” This single phrase effectively negated the homeowner’s entire strategy.

The judge’s determination that the wall qualified as “immediately adjacent” was critical. By legally defining it as a Party Wall, another rule from the CC&Rs automatically kicked in: the adjoining neighbor’s explicit right to use it. This completely undermined the homeowner’s central goal of creating a purely private structure.

As if that weren’t definitive enough, another, even more explicit rule served as the final nail in the coffin. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.” This rule directly forbids the exact “rodent run” scenario, showing that the governing documents had multiple, overlapping prohibitions against his plan.

——————————————————————————–

3. The Neighbor’s Veto: It’s a Three-Party Problem

In an attempt to find a middle ground, the HOA offered a potential compromise. They would approve the wall, but only if it were built directly on the property line and if both Mr. Long and his neighbors, the Rohlmans, signed a formal “Party Wall/Fence Agreement.” This solution, however, revealed another layer of complexity. The neighbors refused to sign.

The Rohlmans explained their reasoning in an email, highlighting concerns that went beyond simple aesthetics. They worried about the financial and legal implications of a shared wall on the property line.

[We] declined to have a wall built on the property line between our homes because it affects the current and future value of our property – and yours. Furthermore, each of us would have to grant the other an easement in perpetuity, which is a legal document… Upon the sale of our home, we would have to inform the purchaser of the easement, which lowers the value of the property.

This demonstrates a common blind spot for homeowners: disputes are rarely bilateral. The rights and financial interests of adjacent property owners create a complex, multi-party dynamic. More often than not, an HOA dispute is a three-party negotiation, and a neighbor’s consent—or lack thereof—can be the deciding factor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

The final outcome was decisive. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the HOA’s decision, and the homeowner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the community’s governing documents “unequivocally prohibit” the proposed wall. However, this was not a total denial of privacy. Mr. Long did have an approved option: a free-standing “alumawood” privacy panel, provided it was located three feet from the property line. He rejected this alternative because he felt it was “unsightly and flimsy.”

This case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts. The conflict was ultimately not between a homeowner’s right to privacy and the HOA, but between the homeowner’s specific aesthetic preference and the community’s established architectural standards. What you can do on your own land is deeply intertwined with the collective rules you agreed to when you purchased your home.

Before your next home improvement project, does your plan align not just with your vision, but also with the shared vision encoded in your community’s rules?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard Long (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Petitioner's wife (interested party)
    Required, along with Petitioner, to agree in writing to the wall conditions for variance approval (Unit 39 Lot 12)

Respondent Side

  • Jack Sarsam (executive/witness)
    Robson Communities
    Senior Vice President for Robson Communities, overseeing Respondent's operations; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner who adopted the ALJ decision in the Final Order
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Contact for rehearing requests; listed as HOA Coordinator

Other Participants

  • The Rohlmans (neighbor/interested party)
    Adjacent neighbors (Unit 39 lot 11) whose refusal to sign the party wall agreement was central to the dispute

Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jason West Counsel —
Respondent Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association Counsel Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaw § 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.

Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Vacancies, Bylaw 3.6, Obstructionist Tactics, Refusal to Serve
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:30 (137.9 KB)

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:31 (1160.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716031-REL


Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL

• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.

• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.

Governing Bylaw in Dispute

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:

Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Role / Affiliation

Key Testimony / Actions

Jason West

Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President

Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.

Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray

Respondent’s Board President

Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.

Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla

Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)

Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.

Christina Van Soest

Former Board Member

Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.

Elizabeth Mayhew

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”

Myron (“Ray”) Elmer

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”

Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein

Former Board Members

Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.

Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations

The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.

• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.

• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.

• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.

• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.

• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”

• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”

• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.

Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies

The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.

• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.

• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.

• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.

• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.

• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.

Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.

• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.

• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.

• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:

• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.

2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”

3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.

4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”

5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”

Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.


Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jason West Counsel —
Respondent Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association Counsel Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaw § 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.

Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Vacancies, Bylaw 3.6, Obstructionist Tactics, Refusal to Serve
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:42 (137.9 KB)

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:43 (1160.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716031-REL


Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL

• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.

• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.

Governing Bylaw in Dispute

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:

Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Role / Affiliation

Key Testimony / Actions

Jason West

Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President

Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.

Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray

Respondent’s Board President

Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.

Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla

Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)

Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.

Christina Van Soest

Former Board Member

Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.

Elizabeth Mayhew

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”

Myron (“Ray”) Elmer

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”

Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein

Former Board Members

Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.

Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations

The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.

• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.

• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.

• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.

• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.

• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”

• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”

• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.

Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies

The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.

• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.

• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.

• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.

• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.

• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.

Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.

• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.

• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.

• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:

• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.

2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”

3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.

4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”

5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”

Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.


Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jason West Counsel —
Respondent Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association Counsel Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaw § 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.

Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Vacancies, Bylaw 3.6, Obstructionist Tactics, Refusal to Serve
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:24 (137.9 KB)

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:24 (1160.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716031-REL


Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL

• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.

• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.

Governing Bylaw in Dispute

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:

Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Role / Affiliation

Key Testimony / Actions

Jason West

Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President

Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.

Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray

Respondent’s Board President

Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.

Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla

Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)

Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.

Christina Van Soest

Former Board Member

Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.

Elizabeth Mayhew

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”

Myron (“Ray”) Elmer

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”

Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein

Former Board Members

Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.

Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations

The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.

• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.

• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.

• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.

• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.

• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”

• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”

• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.

Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies

The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.

• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.

• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.

• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.

• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.

• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.

Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.

• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.

• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.

• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:

• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.

2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”

3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.

4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”

5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”

Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716031-REL


Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?

2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?

3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?

4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.

5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?

6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.

7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?

8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?

9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.

4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.

6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.

7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.

8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”

9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.

10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.

2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?

3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?

4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?

5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)

An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.

Bylaw § 3.6

The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.

Jason West

The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.

National Property Service (NPS)

The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.

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 has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716031-REL


Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?

2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?

3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?

4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.

5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?

6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.

7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?

8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?

9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.

4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.

6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.

7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.

8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”

9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.

10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.

2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?

3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?

4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?

5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)

An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.

Bylaw § 3.6

The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.

Jason West

The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.

National Property Service (NPS)

The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.

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 has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jason West (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; testified on his own behalf
  • Linda Siedler (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Teresa Price (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Bret Morse (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; submitted absentee ballot; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Bryan Brunatti (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; attended meeting and counted ballots; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray

Respondent Side

  • Stewart F. Salwin (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Represented the Respondent
  • Eugenia Murray (board president, witness)
    Only current Board member at the time of hearing; testified for Respondent
  • Edward Padilla (property manager, witness)
    National Property Service (NPC)
    Community Manager; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE Commissioner who adopted the ALJ Decision

Other Participants

  • Korey Hjelmeir (witness, former board member)
    Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election
  • Debra Epstein (witness, former board member)
    Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election; appeared via Skype at a meeting
  • Adrian Justiniano (former board member)
    Resigned and later sought re-election
  • June Thompson (former board member)
    Elected and resigned in 2016
  • Christina Van Soest (former board member)
    Elected and resigned in 2017
  • Myron Elmer (former board member)
    Appointed and resigned in 2017
  • Elizabeth Mayhew (former board member)
    Appointed and resigned in 2017
  • David Epstein (member)
    Appeared via Skype at a meeting; expressed interest in serving on Board
  • Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
    Individual to whom requests for rehearing should be addressed

Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-28
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jason West Counsel —
Respondent Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association Counsel Stewart F. Salwin, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaw § 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.

Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Vacancies, Bylaw 3.6, Obstructionist Tactics, Refusal to Serve
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
  • Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:29 (137.9 KB)

17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:32 (1160.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716031-REL


Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL

• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.

• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.

• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.

Governing Bylaw in Dispute

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:

Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Role / Affiliation

Key Testimony / Actions

Jason West

Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President

Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.

Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray

Respondent’s Board President

Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.

Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla

Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)

Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.

Christina Van Soest

Former Board Member

Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.

Elizabeth Mayhew

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”

Myron (“Ray”) Elmer

Former Board Member

Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”

Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein

Former Board Members

Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.

Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations

The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.

• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.

• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.

• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.

• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.

• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”

• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”

• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.

Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies

The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.

• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.

• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.

• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.

• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.

• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.

Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.

• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.

• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.

• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:

• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.

2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”

3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.

4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”

5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”

Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.






Study Guide – 17F-H1716031-REL


Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?

2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?

3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?

4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.

5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?

6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.

7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?

8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?

9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.

4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.

6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.

7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.

8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”

9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.

10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.

2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?

3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?

4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?

5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)

An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.

Bylaw § 3.6

The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.

Jason West

The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.

National Property Service (NPS)

The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.

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 has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716031-REL


Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?

2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?

3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?

4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.

5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?

6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.

7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?

8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?

9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?

10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.

2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.

3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.

4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”

5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.

6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.

7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.

8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”

9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.

10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.

2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?

3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?

4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?

5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)

An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.

Bylaw § 3.6

The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.

Jason West

The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.

National Property Service (NPS)

The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.

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 has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jason West (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; testified on his own behalf
  • Linda Siedler (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Teresa Price (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Bret Morse (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; submitted absentee ballot; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
  • Bryan Brunatti (witness, member)
    Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; attended meeting and counted ballots; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray

Respondent Side

  • Stewart F. Salwin (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Represented the Respondent
  • Eugenia Murray (board president, witness)
    Only current Board member at the time of hearing; testified for Respondent
  • Edward Padilla (property manager, witness)
    National Property Service (NPC)
    Community Manager; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE Commissioner who adopted the ALJ Decision

Other Participants

  • Korey Hjelmeir (witness, former board member)
    Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election
  • Debra Epstein (witness, former board member)
    Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election; appeared via Skype at a meeting
  • Adrian Justiniano (former board member)
    Resigned and later sought re-election
  • June Thompson (former board member)
    Elected and resigned in 2016
  • Christina Van Soest (former board member)
    Elected and resigned in 2017
  • Myron Elmer (former board member)
    Appointed and resigned in 2017
  • Elizabeth Mayhew (former board member)
    Appointed and resigned in 2017
  • David Epstein (member)
    Appeared via Skype at a meeting; expressed interest in serving on Board
  • Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
    Individual to whom requests for rehearing should be addressed

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717026-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Pyron Counsel —
Respondent Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • R4-28-1310

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:37 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:38 (959.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717026-REL


Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.