The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 11.1 because that section grants the Board discretion, rather than a mandatory obligation, in the timing of enforcement actions.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated CC&R Section 11.1, as the ALJ found the Board's decision to temporarily delay enforcement pending litigation and settlement discussions fell within the discretion granted by the CC&R.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure of HOA to Enforce Architectural Approval Conditions (Hot Tub Screening)
Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to enforce the mandatory installation of a pergola and screening around a neighbor's hot tub, a condition imposed by the Architectural Review Committee when retroactively approving the installation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
CC&R Article 4, Section 4.27
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Dispute, Architectural Control, Discretionary Enforcement
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
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 Article 4, Section 4.27
CC&R Article 11, Section 11.1
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (43.0 KB)
20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (7.1 KB)
20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:12 (119.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020053-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the key findings and judicial decision in the administrative case of Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL. The petition, filed by homeowner Erik R. Pierce, was ultimately denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 10, 2021.
The core of the dispute was Pierce’s allegation that the SMCA failed to enforce its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) against his neighbors, the Kinstles, who installed a hot tub visible from Pierce’s property, creating a privacy violation. While the SMCA Board retroactively approved the hot tub, it did so with the explicit condition that a pergola and screening be installed to mitigate the visibility issue. The Kinstles subsequently failed to install the required screening.
The judge concluded that the SMCA’s conditional approval resolved the initial violation claim under CC&R Section 4.27. The central issue then became whether the SMCA’s subsequent failure to compel the installation of the screening constituted a violation of its enforcement duty under CC&R Section 11.1. The judge ruled that it did not, finding that the CC&Rs grant the Association a discretionary right to enforce its rules, not an absolute obligation. The judge found persuasive the SMCA’s testimony that it delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation and in an attempt to foster a settlement between the neighbors. This exercise of discretion was deemed permissible under the Association’s governing documents.
1. Case Overview
Parties and Legal Representation
Entity
Legal Counsel
Petitioner
Erik R. Pierce
James C. Frisch, Esq. & Michael Resare, Esq. (King & Frisch, P.C.)
Respondent
Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)
Heather M. Hampstead, Esq. & Nicholas C.S. Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP)
Key Case Details
• Case Number: 20F-H2020053-REL
• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: January 25, 2021 (conducted via Google Meet)
• Decision Date: February 10, 2021
• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is statutorily authorized to hear petitions from homeowners’ association members. This case was referred by the ADRE to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
2. Core Dispute and Allegations
Petitioner’s Complaint
On March 23, 2020, Erik R. Pierce filed a complaint with the ADRE alleging that the SMCA was in violation of its own CC&Rs, specifically Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).
The dispute originated with the installation of a hot tub by Pierce’s neighbors, the Kinstles. Pierce testified that the hot tub and its occupants were visible from inside his house, and that occupants of the hot tub could look directly into his home, violating his right to privacy.
Timeline of Key Events
• September 4, 2019: Pierce submits his initial complaint to the SMCA, noting the hot tub’s visibility and asserting that the Kinstles had failed to obtain prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
• Post-September 2019: The SMCA informs the Kinstles that they installed the hot tub without approval and directs them to submit plans for the proper approval process.
• February 10, 2020: After several rejections, the SMCA Board approves the Kinstles’ hot tub installation on the condition that a pergola and screening are installed.
• March 3, 2020: Pierce receives a letter from the property management company, AAM, LLC, stating that the installation was approved with the screening requirement and that the complaint was closed.
• January 25, 2021: At the time of the hearing, the Kinstles had still not installed the required pergola and screening.
3. Analysis of Key Testimonies
The decision was informed by testimony from four witnesses presented by the Petitioner.
• Erik R. Pierce (Petitioner): Outlined the timeline of the dispute, the visibility of the neighbors’ hot tub, the resulting privacy violation, and the SMCA Board’s failure to enforce its own conditional approval requiring a pergola and screening.
• Bill Oliver (Former SMCA President, Fall 2019 – April 2020): Confirmed that the Board approved the hot tub retroactively with the stipulation for a pergola and screening. He stated the Board had a “rigorous process of enforcement” but could not recall if a specific violation letter was sent to the Kinstles after the conditional approval was granted.
• Jodie Cervantes (Former Community Manager, 2019 – June 2020): Testified that she believed the CC&Rs were enforced and the matter was closed. She suggested the Kinstles had a six-month period to comply with the screening requirement, which she believed was in the Design Guidelines, but could not point to the specific language.
• Martin Douglas (Current SMCA President, from April 2020): Stated he had been to the Pierce residence for another matter and the hot tub was not visible to him. He attributed the lack of enforcement action to the “ongoing litigation and multiple settlement offers which were being exchanged.” He testified that upon resolution of the case, the Board “will follow through with enforcement actions should the Kinstle’s fail to comply.”
4. Judicial Reasoning and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of the SMCA’s CC&Rs and the discretionary power of its Board.
Governing CC&R Provisions
The ruling rested on the specific language of two sections of the SMCA CC&Rs:
• Section 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas): This section permits the installation of a hot tub only if it is “properly screened… if neither it nor its occupants are Visible from Neighboring Property, and with the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”
• Section 11.1 (Enforcement): This section states that “The Association or any Owner shall have the right to enforce the Project Documents… The failure of the Association or an Owner to take enforcement action with respect to a violation of the Project Documents shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver of the right of the Association or any Owner to enforce the Project Documents in the future.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions
1. Resolution of the Section 4.27 Claim: The judge determined that the initial issue regarding the unapproved hot tub “was essentially resolved by the Board instructing the Kinstle’s erect a pergola and install screening.” By making its approval conditional on a privacy solution, the Board addressed the core requirement of the section.
2. The “Heart of the Matter” – Section 11.1 Enforcement: The judge identified the central question as whether the SMCA violated Section 11.1 by failing to enforce the screening requirement against the Kinstles.
3. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: The judge concluded that the language of Section 11.1 grants the Board a “right to enforce, not an absolute obligation.”
4. Rationale for Delayed Enforcement: The judge found the testimony of the current SMCA President, Martin Douglas, to be “more persuasive.” Douglas’s explanation—that the Board delayed enforcement to “foster an agreement with the neighbors” amid ongoing litigation—was accepted as a valid exercise of the Board’s discretion.
5. Final Ruling: The judge stated, “Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.” Consequently, the judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated CC&R Section 11.1.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.
The order was issued on February 10, 2021, and is binding unless a rehearing is granted.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020053-REL
Study Guide: Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2020053-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing concerning the dispute between Erik R. Pierce and the Sierra Morado Community Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms and entities involved in the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the provided source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the initial reason for Mr. Pierce’s complaint against his neighbors, the Kinstles?
3. Which two sections of the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA) CC&Rs did Mr. Pierce allege were violated?
4. What action did the SMCA Board take after being informed that the Kinstles had installed a hot tub without prior approval?
5. What specific conditions did the SMCA Board require for the retroactive approval of the Kinstles’ hot tub installation?
6. According to former Board President Bill Oliver’s testimony, what was the Board’s common practice regarding architectural requests made after an installation?
7. What reason did Community Manager Jodie Cervantes give for her belief that no further enforcement action could be taken against the Kinstles?
8. According to current SMCA Board President Martin Douglas, why had the Board delayed enforcement actions against the Kinstles?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision regarding the alleged violation of CC&R Section 11.1?
10. How did the judge interpret the Board’s enforcement power as described in Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Erik R. Pierce, who was the Petitioner filing the complaint, and the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA), which was the Respondent. Mr. Pierce is a homeowner and member of the SMCA.
2. Mr. Pierce’s complaint originated because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his backyard. He testified that occupants in the hot tub were visible from inside his house, violating his privacy.
3. The Petitioner, Mr. Pierce, alleged that the Respondent, SMCA, was in violation of sections 4.27 and 11.1 of the SMCA CC&Rs. Section 4.27 pertains to the installation of spas, and Section 11.1 addresses the enforcement of project documents.
4. After Mr. Pierce filed his complaint, the SMCA informed the Kinstles that they had installed the hot tub without approval. The Board then directed the Kinstles to submit their plans and go through the proper architectural approval process.
5. The Kinstles’ hot tub was approved retroactively on February 10, 2020, on the condition that they install a pergola and screening. This was intended to address the visibility of the hot tub from Mr. Pierce’s property.
6. Bill Oliver, the SMCA President from fall 2019 to April 2020, testified that the Board would approve architectural requests retroactively. He confirmed that this is what occurred in the case of the Kinstles’ hot tub.
7. Jodie Cervantes, the Community Manager, testified that she believed the matter was closed because the Kinstles had six months to comply with the pergola and screening requirements. She believed this six-month deadline was outlined in the Design Guidelines, though she could not locate the specific language.
8. Martin Douglas, who became Board President in April 2020, testified that the Board delayed enforcement actions due to the ongoing litigation. He stated that multiple settlement offers were being exchanged in an effort to foster an agreement between the neighbors.
9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge concluded that Mr. Pierce did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the SMCA had violated CC&R Section 11.1.
10. The judge determined that Section 11.1 grants the Board a right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This interpretation means the Board has the discretion to delay enforcement, which it did in this case to facilitate a potential settlement.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and testimony from the case documents to construct a thorough analysis. No answers are provided.
1. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Analyze why the Petitioner, Erik R. Pierce, failed to meet this burden of proof concerning the violation of CC&R Section 11.1.
2. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Pierce’s initial complaint on September 4, 2019, to the final decision on February 10, 2021. Discuss the key actions, delays, and decisions made by the SMCA Board during this period.
3. Compare and contrast the testimonies of Bill Oliver, Jodie Cervantes, and Martin Douglas. How do their different roles and timeframes with the SMCA shape their perspectives on the association’s enforcement process and the specific handling of the Kinstle case?
4. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of CC&R Section 11.1. Discuss the distinction made between a “right to enforce” and an “absolute obligation,” and explain how this interpretation was central to the final ruling.
5. Based on the judge’s findings and the testimony of Martin Douglas, what are the likely next steps for the SMCA regarding the Kinstles’ non-compliance with the pergola and screening requirement? Evaluate the potential for future conflict or resolution between the parties involved.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
AAM, LLC
The property management company that employed Community Manager Jodie Cervantes and managed the Sierra Morado Community Association during the period of the dispute.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Architectural Committee (ARC)
The committee within the SMCA responsible for approving construction, installations, and alterations to properties, as referenced in CC&R Section 4.27.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearing from members of homeowners’ associations. Mr. Pierce filed his initial complaint with this department.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove its allegations. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents or rules of a planned community. The dispute centered on alleged violations of Sections 4.27 (Swimming Pools and Spas) and 11.1 (Enforcement).
Hearing
The formal proceeding held on January 25, 2021, where the parties presented exhibits and witness testimony to the Administrative Law Judge.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or complaint to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Erik R. Pierce.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA).
Retroactive Approval
The act of approving an architectural installation (such as a hot tub) after it has already been completed, which the SMCA Board did in this case.
Sierra Morado Community Association (SMCA)
The homeowners’ association in Tucson, Arizona, of which Erik R. Pierce and the Kinstles are members.
Stipulation
An agreement between the parties in a legal proceeding. In this case, the parties stipulated to enter all submitted exhibits into the record.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020053-REL
Your HOA Can Ignore Its Own Rules? A Surprising Legal Case Every Homeowner Needs to Understand
Introduction: The Homeowner’s Dilemma
Most homeowners in a planned community operate under a simple assumption: if a neighbor violates a clear rule, you can file a complaint, and the Homeowners Association (HOA) is required to take action. It’s the fundamental promise of an HOA—consistent enforcement to protect property values and quality of life.
But what happens when the HOA agrees a violation has occurred, demands a fix, and then… does nothing to enforce it?
A real-world legal case, Erik R. Pierce versus the Sierra Morado Community Association, provides a surprising and cautionary answer. The final court decision reveals a critical loophole that may exist in your own HOA agreement. This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from that case that every homeowner should understand.
Takeaway 1: “A Right to Enforce” Isn’t an “Obligation to Enforce”
The core of the dispute was straightforward. Homeowner Erik Pierce filed a complaint because his neighbors, the Kinstles, installed a hot tub that was visible from his property, a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—the legally binding rules that govern the community. The HOA’s Architectural Committee retroactively approved the hot tub, but only on the condition that the neighbors install a pergola and screening to shield it from view.
The neighbors never installed the required screening, yet the HOA took no further enforcement action. This inaction led Mr. Pierce to sue the HOA.
The judge’s decision hinged on a crucial interpretation of the HOA’s governing documents. The judge ruled in favor of the HOA because the documents gave the Board the right to enforce the rules, not an absolute obligation to do so. This distinction granted the HOA discretion to choose its strategy. The judge found the board’s reasoning for the delay persuasive: it was deliberately choosing negotiation over immediate punitive action to resolve the conflict. The board’s discretion wasn’t just a right to do nothing; it was a right to choose a different path to compliance.
The key phrase here is “shall have the right to enforce.” Had the documents stated the board “shall enforce,” the outcome would likely have been entirely different. This single phrase transforms enforcement from a mandate into a strategic option for the board.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlights this critical point:
“…Section 11.1 only gives the Board a right to enforce, not an absolute obligation. While Petitioner is understandably upset that there has yet to be any follow through on enforcement of the screening requirements, this tribunal finds the testimony of Mr. Douglas more persuasive, namely that the Board has delayed in enforcing because it was trying to foster an agreement with the neighbors. Section 11.1 expressly granted the Board this discretion, and it should not be disturbed.”
This finding is shocking for most homeowners, who reasonably assume that the rules laid out in their CC&Rs are mandates for the board, not a menu of discretionary options.
Takeaway 2: Suing Your HOA Can Ironically Pause Enforcement
The board’s discretionary power was put on full display when Mr. Pierce filed his lawsuit, creating a legal Catch-22. The current SMCA Board President, Martin Douglas, testified that the board deliberately paused formal enforcement actions against the neighbors who had violated the architectural requirement.
The judge ultimately found that the board’s rationale for this pause was a valid exercise of its discretion. The decision to delay was framed not as inaction, but as a strategic choice “to foster an agreement with the neighbors” amidst the complexities of litigation.
This reveals a deep irony: by filing a petition to force the HOA’s hand, the homeowner inadvertently provided the context for the HOA to justify a delay. The judge accepted that the board’s attempt to find a negotiated solution instead of escalating fines and penalties during an active lawsuit was a reasonable use of its discretionary authority. This case demonstrates how legal action, intended to accelerate a resolution, can sometimes be used by an HOA board to justify a different, slower approach.
Takeaway 3: A Clear Rule Violation Doesn’t Guarantee a Win in Court
One of the most surprising aspects of this case is that the facts of the violation were not in dispute. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the neighbors were in violation of the Architectural Review Committee’s requirement. The official decision states:
“Based upon the evidence provided, the Kinstle’s are in violation of the requirement the ARC Committee imposed on them.”
Despite this clear violation by the neighbor, the homeowner, Mr. Pierce, still lost his case against the HOA.
The case was lost on a critical legal distinction: the lawsuit was not about the neighbor’s violation, but about the HOA’s alleged failure to act. Since the judge determined the HOA had the discretionary right—not the mandatory obligation—to enforce the rule, its choice to pursue negotiation rather than immediate punitive action was not considered a violation of its duties.
The lesson here is profound: proving a neighbor is breaking the rules is only the first step. To win a case against your HOA for non-enforcement, you must also prove that its response (or lack thereof) constitutes a breach of its specific duties as outlined in your community’s governing documents.
Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Temper Your Expectations
The case of Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is often more complex than it appears. The precise wording of your community’s CC&Rs is critically important, as a single phrase can be the difference between a mandatory duty and a discretionary power. This case illustrates that the gap between a rule existing on paper and the board’s power to enforce it can be vast.
As a homeowner, your first step should be to obtain a copy of your community’s most recent CC&Rs and search for the enforcement clause—does it say your board “shall” enforce the rules, or does it say they have the “right” to?
This case forces every homeowner to ask: If your governing documents give your board the ‘right’ to act, what leverage do you truly have to ensure they actually will?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Erik R. Pierce(petitioner)
James C. Frisch(petitioner attorney) King & Frisch, P.C.
Michael Resare(petitioner attorney)
Respondent Side
Nicholas C.S. Nogami(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Heather M. Hampstead(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Jodie Cervantes(property manager/witness) AAM, LLC Community Manager for Respondent SMCA
Bill Oliver(board member/witness) Former SMCA President (Fall 2019 to April 2020)
Martin Douglas(board member/witness) Current SMCA Board President (since April 2020)
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(unknown) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient
AHansen(unknown) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient
djones(unknown) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient
DGardner(unknown) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient
ncano(unknown) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmission recipient
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-01-08
Administrative Law Judge
Kay Abramsohn
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Debra K. Morin
Counsel
—
Respondent
Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Counsel
Lydia A. Perce Linsmeier, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by Solera of the governing documents regarding the maintenance of Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS). The Tribunal dismissed the Petition and the subsequent Rehearing Appeal, finding Solera was in compliance with CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Solera violated its governing documents. The CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to be the "sole judge" as to appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement of all AREAS.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times
Petitioner alleged that Solera failed to meet the maintenance standard required by CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, citing various examples of disrepair, including weeds, sidewalks, and streets, and arguing the same standard applied to homeowners must apply to the HOA. The Tribunal rejected this, finding that the CC&Rs designate the Board as the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show a violation.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, and the Petition/Rehearing Appeal was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Maintenance, CC&Rs, Jurisdiction, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative law case involving a homeowner, Debra K. Morin (Petitioner), and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent/Solera). The case centered on the Petitioner’s allegations that the HOA failed to maintain common areas to the standards required by its own governing documents.
The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition, with the primary surviving issue being that Solera, its Board of Directors, and its management company were not maintaining the “Areas of Association Responsibility” (AREAS) in good condition and repair at all times. The Petitioner’s core argument was that the same stringent maintenance standard applied to individual homeowners must be equally applied to the HOA. She provided extensive photographic evidence of issues such as weeds, deteriorating sidewalks, street disrepair, and exposed wiring.
The HOA defended its actions by citing its established procedures for maintenance, including a committee review process, a scheduled Reserves plan, and the use of licensed contractors. Critically, Solera’s defense rested on provisions within its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which grant the Board of Directors the exclusive right to interpret the CC&Rs and designate it as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.
Following an initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ ruled that under the governing documents, the HOA Board has sole discretion in maintenance matters, and the Petitioner’s subjective opinions on how and when work should be done were not relevant to determining a violation. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing, where she presented additional evidence and arguments. However, the ALJ upheld the original decision, reaffirming that the CC&Rs grant the Board authority superseding that of an individual homeowner in determining appropriate maintenance. The petition was dismissed, and Solera was deemed the prevailing party in both instances.
Case Overview
Case Name
Debra K. Morin, Petitioner, v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Respondent.
Case Number
No. 20F-H2020051-REL / 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Tribunal
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kay Abramsohn
Petitioner
Debra K. Morin (represented herself)
Respondent
Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (represented by Lydia Linsmeier, Esq.)
Petition Filed
On or about March 12, 2020
Initial Hearing
May 20, 2020 and July 15, 2020
Initial Decision
August 19, 2020 (Petition Dismissed)
Rehearing Hearing
December 16, 2020
Rehearing Decision
January 8, 2021 (Original Dismissal Upheld)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner, a resident of Solera for four years, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of Solera’s Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, CC&Rs, and Rules and Regulations (R&Rs). The allegations were organized into two primary issues.
Issue #1: Lack of Direct Communication
• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and its management company, Premier Management Company (Premier), “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.”
• Requested Relief: The Petitioner sought to have this “policy” rescinded.
• Outcome: This issue was connected to allegations of ethics violations based on the Board’s Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal determined was a non-governing document outside its jurisdiction. As a result, the Petitioner withdrew Issue #1 during the May 20, 2020 hearing.
Issue #2: Failure to Maintain Common Areas
• Allegation: Solera, its Board, and Premier “are not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility … in good condition and repair at all times.” Specific complaints included “uncontrolled weeds” and poor maintenance of the Community Center and other AREAS.
• Core Argument: The Petitioner’s central thesis was that the HOA must be held to the identical maintenance standard it imposes on homeowners. She argued that just as homeowners are required to maintain their lots “in a weed free condition 365 days a year,” the HOA has no discretion for delays in addressing maintenance issues in common areas.
• Requested Relief:
1. A public admission by the Board of its failures to follow governing documents.
2. The establishment of “direct communication rules” for reporting management deficiencies.
3. Compliance monitoring by the “Real Estate Board.”
Evidence and Specific Complaints
The Petitioner presented over 80 photographs at the initial hearing (growing to 310 by the rehearing) and multiple emails to document a wide range of perceived maintenance failures.
Maintenance Issue
Petitioner’s Specific Complaint
Uncontrolled weeds in granite rock locations throughout the community.
Community Center
Poor exterior condition.
Streets & Curbs
Deteriorating asphalt, cracking, and issues with sealing.
Sidewalks
Trip hazards and disintegrating cool-decking.
Drainage
Clogged storm drains and water pooling issues.
Landscaping
Exposed wiring for lights, exposed drip irrigation lines, and unremoved tree stumps.
Disrepair of boundary walls.
A key piece of evidence was a February 21, 2020 email exchange regarding weeds, which the ALJ found “representative of the overall situation.”
Petitioner’s Complaint: “This is NOT being done and our HOA looks disgusting with the continued presence of unchecked weeds inside and outside our community! No excuses, you cannot hold homeowners to a higher standard than you are willing to do for our HOA. You are on notice to rectify this violation immediately!”
General Manager’s Response: “…the landscape crew hula hoes and sprays daily, based on routine maintenance cycle and location of site work… Considering that we have 1,143,550 square feet of granite and 270,933 square feet of turf, the maintenance of weeds is a continuous and ongoing concern that is constantly being addressed.”
Petitioner’s Rebuttal: “YOUR response is just more excuses!… It appears that since it is not your personal money being spent, it is ok to have substandard work performance.”
Respondent’s Position and Defense
Solera HOA moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted. While the motion was effectively denied after Issue #1 was withdrawn, Solera’s core defense remained consistent throughout the proceedings.
• Central Legal Argument: Solera contended that its Board of Directors is vested with the ultimate authority on maintenance matters by the community’s governing documents. It repeatedly cited CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].”
• Interpretation Authority: The HOA also pointed to CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, which gives it the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” with such interpretations being “final, conclusive and binding.”
• Operational Defense: Denise Frazier, Solera’s on-site general manager, testified that the HOA has established processes for maintenance.
◦ Committee Structure: A Building and Grounds Committee (B&G) reviews projects, which are then assessed by a Finance Committee before going to the Board for approval.
◦ Reserves Schedule: Solera maintains a Reserves schedule for large projects, such as sidewalk repairs (every 4 years), street repairs (every 8 years), and sealing cracks (every 2 years).
◦ Vendor Management: The Board relies on licensed contractors for specialized work, including landscaping, tree trimming (by two different companies for different heights), and stump grinding.
• Response to Specific Issues:
◦ Weeds: Frazier attributed the prevalence of weeds in early 2020 to an unusual amount of rain, creating “optimal” conditions. She noted that Solera had instructed landscapers to use dye in the weed spray to demonstrate to residents that spraying was occurring.
◦ Sidewalks: Frazier acknowledged a several-month delay in repairing a specific sidewalk area but stated that warning cones had been placed in the interim. Solera uses a ¼ inch standard for review but the City of Chandler’s ½ inch trip-hazard guideline for repairs.
◦ Exposed Wiring: This was explained as a temporary measure by landscapers to avoid cutting electrical and irrigation lines during tree and granite replacement projects.
Rulings and Legal Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s case after the initial hearing and reaffirmed this dismissal after a rehearing, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet her legal burden of proof.
Key Legal Principles Applied
• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the Petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has violated the planned community document(s’) provisions.”
• Supremacy of Governing Documents: The case was decided on the interpretation of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which function as the binding contract between the association and its members.
• Board’s Discretionary Authority: The central and decisive legal conclusion was that the HOA’s governing documents explicitly grant the Board superior authority over maintenance decisions.
◦ CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 (“sole judge”) was interpreted to mean that only Solera is charged with determining when and how to perform maintenance, repair, and replacement in common areas.
◦ The ALJ concluded this provision “lifts the Board’s authority above that of a homeowner.” The Petitioner failed to provide legal support for her argument that the same maintenance standard must be applied to the Board as is applied to homeowners.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The Tribunal’s role is limited to adjudicating alleged violations of governing documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that a “homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
Final Order
The ALJ concluded that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, including the critical CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The Petitioner’s subjective opinions about the timeliness or quality of repairs were deemed irrelevant in the face of the Board’s contractual authority to be the “sole judge.”
Initial Order (August 19, 2020): “IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed and Solera is deemed the prevailing party.”
Rehearing Order (January 8, 2021): “IT IS ORDERED that Solera is the prevailing party with regard to the Rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.” The order was declared binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
This guide provides a review of the administrative case between Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent), as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decision of August 19, 2020, and the subsequent Rehearing Decision of January 8, 2021.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues the petitioner, Debra K. Morin, raised in her initial petition filed on March 12, 2020?
3. Why was the petitioner’s first issue, regarding direct communication, withdrawn during the initial hearing?
4. What was the petitioner’s central argument regarding the maintenance standard that Solera should be held to?
5. According to the CC&Rs, what specific authority does the Solera Board have regarding maintenance, which formed the core of its defense?
6. What type of evidence did the petitioner primarily use to document her claims of poor maintenance in the Areas of Association Responsibility (AREAS)?
7. Who is Denise Frazier, and what role did she play in the proceedings?
8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision in the initial hearing on August 19, 2020?
9. On what grounds did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing decision was issued on January 8, 2021?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Solera), the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn, and Solera was represented by Premier Management Company and its on-site general manager.
2. The petitioner’s Issue #1 alleged that Solera, its Board, and its management company “do not allow direct communication from homeowners.” Issue #2 alleged they were not providing oversight to the General Manager in maintaining all Areas of Association Responsibility in good condition and repair at all times.
3. The petitioner withdrew Issue #1 after it was determined that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not include interpreting or applying non-governing documents. Her complaint was based on the Solera Code of Ethics, which the Tribunal could not consider.
4. The petitioner argued that the same maintenance standard must be applied to Solera as is applied to homeowners. She contended that if homeowners are required by the governing documents to maintain their lots “in good condition and repair at all times,” then the HOA must be held to the identical standard for common areas (AREAS).
5. Solera’s defense centered on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which states the Board “shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all [AREAS].” Additionally, CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 gives Solera the exclusive right to construe and interpret the CC&Rs.
6. The petitioner presented a large volume of photographic evidence, including over eighty photos for the initial hearing and more for the rehearing. These photographs were intended to document weeds, issues with sidewalks, exposed wiring, storm drains, and other maintenance problems in the common areas.
7. Denise Frazier is the on-site general manager for Solera and an employee of Premier Management Company. She testified on behalf of Solera regarding its maintenance schedules, procedures, reserve studies, and responses to the specific issues raised by the petitioner.
8. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petitioner’s petition and deemed Solera the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated a violation of the governing documents, as the CC&Rs grant the Board sole judgment on maintenance matters.
9. The request for a rehearing was granted because the petitioner claimed there were irregularities in the proceedings, misconduct by the prevailing party, and that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by the evidence or contrary to law.
10. The rehearing affirmed the original decision. The Administrative Law Judge again concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof and that Solera was in compliance with its governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. The appeal was dismissed, and Solera was again named the prevailing party.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case by contrasting the petitioner’s interpretation of CC&R Article 7, Section 7.2 with the respondent’s defense based on CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1 and Article 9, Section 9.5. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this interpretive dispute?
2. Discuss the concept of jurisdiction as it applied to this case. Explain why certain arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner—such as the Board’s Code of Ethics, Premier Management Company standards, and City of Chandler ordinances—were deemed outside the Tribunal’s authority to consider.
3. Evaluate the petitioner’s strategy and use of evidence. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of relying heavily on photographic evidence and detailed email complaints. Why did this “enormity” of evidence ultimately fail to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard?
4. Explain the significance of the phrase “sole judge” in CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1. How does this clause grant discretionary authority to the HOA Board, and how did it function as the key element in defeating the petitioner’s claim?
5. Trace the procedural history of the case, from the initial Petition and Motion to Dismiss through the original hearing, the Decision, the Rehearing Request, and the final Rehearing Decision. Identify the key rulings and turning points that determined the ultimate outcome.
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The judge presiding over the administrative hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Judge Kay Abramsohn.
AREAS (Areas of Association Responsibility)
The common areas within the Solera development that the Homeowners’ Association is responsible for managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing.
By-Laws
One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.
CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
A primary governing document for the Solera development, specifically the “Solera Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Springfield Lakes.” It outlines the rights and responsibilities of the homeowners and the association.
Denise Frazier
The on-site general manager for Solera, employed by Premier Management Company, who testified on behalf of the association regarding its maintenance operations.
Maintenance Standard
Defined in CC&R Article 1, Section 1.30 as “the standard of maintenance of Improvements established from time to time by the Board and/or the Architectural Review Committee in the Design Guidelines, or in the absence of any such standards, the standards of maintenance of Improvements generally prevailing through the Project.”
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request filed by Solera asking the Department of Real Estate to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the issues were outside the Department’s jurisdiction and the requested relief could not be granted.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin, a homeowner in Solera.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this administrative proceeding. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Premier Management Company
The management company hired by Solera to handle day-to-day operations of the community.
Project Documents
The set of governing documents for the community, defined as the CC&Rs, any supplemental declarations, the By-Laws, the R&Rs, and the Design Guidelines.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
R&Rs (Rules and Regulations)
One of the governing documents for the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association.
Tribunal
A term used in the documents to refer to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where the hearing was conducted.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020051-REL-RHG
A Homeowner Took on Her HOA with Over 300 Photos of Evidence. The Reason She Lost Is a Warning for Everyone.
Introduction: The Familiar Fight
It’s a scenario familiar to millions of Americans living in planned communities. You receive a violation notice for a minor infraction on your property, yet when you look at the common areas your HOA is responsible for, you see overgrown weeds, cracked sidewalks, and general disrepair. It feels deeply unfair. Why are homeowners held to a strict standard while the association itself seems to neglect its duties?
This exact frustration drove Debra K. Morin to take on her Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association. Armed with over 300 photographs documenting every weed and crack, she was certain her case was airtight. But she lost. The reasons why her case failed are a stark warning for any homeowner, revealing a legal battle that hinged entirely on the community’s binding contract: the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
——————————————————————————–
The 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s HOA Lawsuit
1. The “Sole Judge” Clause: Your HOA’s Ultimate Defense
The single most critical factor in this case was a single clause buried in the HOA’s governing documents. Ms. Morin argued that the HOA must “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” the common areas, believing this was the same standard applied to homeowners. However, the HOA pointed to CC&R Article 7, Section 7.1, which designates the HOA Board as the “sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement” of all common areas.
This clause proved to be an almost impenetrable defense. In essence, the legal standard for maintenance was not what a “reasonable person” would consider good repair, but whatever the Board, in its exclusive judgment, decided was appropriate. Even with extensive photo evidence, the case failed because the contract Ms. Morin agreed to when she bought her home gave the Board the ultimate discretion. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision made this crystal clear:
“While the CC&Rs allow an owner to bring to the Board a complaint, the CC&Rs specify that the Board is the sole judge regarding appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement of all AREAS.”
This “sole judge” clause is the cornerstone of a much broader power imbalance, one that is codified throughout the governing documents.
2. A Power Imbalance Is Written into the Rules
While Ms. Morin argued for an equal standard of responsibility, the legal documents revealed a clear and intentional power imbalance. CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5, granted the HOA the “exclusive right to construe and interpret the provisions of the [CC&Rs],” and stated that its interpretation is “final, conclusive and binding.”
This structure legally transforms the relationship from a partnership of equals into one of administrator and subject, where one party holds the power of final interpretation. The governing documents describe in detail how the HOA can levy penalties against an owner for violations, but they provide no equivalent process for an owner to penalize the HOA for its failures. The judge in the rehearing decision explicitly summarized this built-in hierarchy:
“Thus, it is clear, that pursuant to the governing documents, the Board’s authority is lifted above that of a homeowner.”
With the Board’s authority so clearly established, Ms. Morin’s mountain of evidence was about to run into a contractual brick wall.
3. An “Enormity of Evidence” Isn’t Always the Right Evidence
Ms. Morin presented a significant volume of evidence, starting with over 80 photographs in the first hearing and later referencing what she called an “enormity” of evidence totaling over 300 pictures of weeds, damaged sidewalks, and other maintenance issues.
The critical legal distinction the judge made was that the photographs documented the condition of the common areas, but they did not prove a violation of the governing documents. The legal question was not, “Are there weeds?” The question was, “Did the Board violate a contract that explicitly makes it the sole judge of maintenance?” This demonstrates that in a contract dispute, the quality of evidence is defined by its relevance to the specific contractual terms, not its sheer volume.
4. “At All Times” Doesn’t Mean “Instantly”
A key part of the homeowner’s argument was that the HOA was failing to “maintain in good condition and repair at all times” by allowing maintenance issues to persist for months. In response, the HOA detailed its operational reality. The HOA provided evidence of long-term capital plans, such as sealing street cracks every two years and major sidewalk repairs on a four-year cycle. Daily tasks, like weed control, were handled by landscape crews operating on a continuous, rotating schedule across the large community.
From a legal perspective, “at all times” is interpreted through the lens of operational reasonableness for a large entity, not as a guarantee of immediate perfection. For an organization managing a vast property, this standard is met through consistent processes and schedules, not by fixing every issue the moment it is reported.
5. Your Dissatisfaction Is Not a Lawsuit
At its heart, the case was driven by Ms. Morin’s deep frustration. The judge recognized that her petition stemmed from a core belief that the Board and its General Manager were unresponsive and providing poor oversight. While these feelings may have been valid, they were not legally actionable on their own. The judge’s decision in the rehearing drew a firm line between a homeowner’s frustration and a legal claim:
“However, a homeowner’s dissatisfaction with management is not within the purview of this process or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
This highlights a common misconception: while feelings of poor customer service are valid, they are legally irrelevant unless they can be tied to a specific, provable breach of the governing documents or a violation of state law.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Read Before You Sign
The primary lesson from this case is the absolute authority of a community’s governing documents. In any dispute, the specific, written words of the CC&Rs—the contract you sign when you buy your home—will almost always outweigh a homeowner’s subjective standards, sense of fairness, or even a mountain of photographic evidence.
This case serves as a powerful reminder that from a contractual standpoint, the rules are not always designed to be “fair,” but to be enforceable. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question:
Before you complain about your HOA, have you read the rulebook they’re playing by—and that you agreed to?
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the key details and resolution of case number 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Marc Archer and Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. On March 16, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued an order vacating a scheduled rehearing. The core issue was procedural: the Petitioner’s request for rehearing was based on actions the Respondent took after the initial hearing’s decision, which falls outside the permissible scope of a rehearing. Upon being informed of this limitation, the Petitioner withdrew his request. He indicated his intent to file a new, separate petition to address the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build a house addition. The judge’s order is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court within 35 days.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
I. Case Identification
Detail
Information
Case Name
Marc Archer, Petitioner, vs PMPE Community Association, Inc., Respondent
The scheduled hearing was a rehearing requested by the Petitioner, Marc Archer. The basis for his request centered on events that transpired after the conclusion of the initial hearing.
• Petitioner’s Grounds for Rehearing: The request was explicitly based on “actions taken by Respondent after the decision in the initial hearing had been issued.”
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The Petitioner was informed at the hearing that the scope of a rehearing is limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed. The document states: “When Petitioner was informed that the only issues that could be addressed in a rehearing on his petition were those matters that occurred prior to his petition being filed…”
• Subject of New Dispute: The specific post-decision action Archer sought to challenge was the “Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
B. Resolution and Outcome
Faced with the procedural limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner altered his legal strategy, leading to the cancellation of the proceeding.
• Withdrawal of Request: The Petitioner “concluded that he wished to withdraw his request for a rehearing at that time.”
• Stated Intention: Archer “indicated that he would file a new petition to challenge Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
• Final Order: The judge issued a formal order vacating the hearing.
Legal Standing and Appeal Process
The order issued on March 16, 2021, carries legal weight and outlines specific requirements for any subsequent appeal.
• Binding Nature of the Order: The order is binding on the parties involved, as stipulated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B).
• Appeal Requirements: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review.
◦ Venue: The appeal must be filed with the superior court.
◦ Deadline: The filing must occur within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served upon the parties.
• Governing Statutes: The appeal process is prescribed by the following state statutes:
◦ A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
◦ A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
◦ Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
Document Distribution
Copies of the “Order Vacating Hearing” were officially distributed via mail, email, or fax on March 16, 2021, to the following parties:
◦ Nicholas Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP)
Study Guide – 20F-H2020063-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the provided legal document.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG and state their respective roles.
2. What was the specific legal action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 16, 2021, and who was the presiding judge?
3. What was the original reason Marc Archer requested a rehearing?
4. Why was the Petitioner informed that his reason for a rehearing was invalid for the current proceedings?
5. What was the Petitioner’s final decision regarding his request for a rehearing, and what was the outcome for the scheduled hearing?
6. What future action did Marc Archer state he intended to take after withdrawing his request?
7. According to the document’s notice, what is the legal standing of the “Order Vacating Hearing” on the parties involved?
8. Describe the process and timeline an involved party must follow to appeal this order.
9. Who legally represented the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., in this matter?
10. To what primary state agency and specific official was a copy of this order distributed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Marc Archer, who served as the Petitioner, and the PMPE Community Association, Inc., which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the petition, and the Respondent is the party against whom the petition was filed.
2. On March 16, 2021, an “Order Vacating Hearing” was issued, removing the matter from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The presiding judge who signed the order was Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
3. Marc Archer’s basis for requesting a rehearing was to address actions that the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., had taken after the decision in the initial hearing had already been issued.
4. The Petitioner was informed that his basis was invalid because a rehearing can only address matters that occurred prior to the filing of his original petition. The new actions he wished to contest would require a new, separate petition.
5. After being informed about the limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner concluded that he wished to withdraw his request. As a result, the judge ordered that the hearing be vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings’ calendar.
6. After withdrawing his request, Marc Archer indicated that he would file a new petition. This new petition would specifically challenge the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
7. The order is legally binding on the parties, as stated in the notice section referencing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B). This means both the Petitioner and the Respondent must legally comply with the order.
8. To appeal the order, a party must seek judicial review in the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H), title 12, chapter 7, article 6, and A.R.S. § 12-904(A).
9. The Respondent was represented by Nicholas Nogami, Esq. of the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP.
10. A copy of the order was mailed or e-mailed to Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Copies were also sent to several other email addresses associated with that department.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Develop a detailed essay answer for each of the following prompts, using only information found within the source document to support your analysis.
1. Analyze the procedural error made by the Petitioner that led to the hearing being vacated. Explain the critical distinction between the scope of a “rehearing” and a “new petition” as implied by the events in the order.
2. Based on the provided document, reconstruct the timeline of events. Begin with the implied initial hearing, describe the basis for the requested rehearing, detail the procedural clarification provided to the Petitioner, and outline the subsequent actions taken by both the Petitioner and the Administrative Law Judge.
3. Discuss the legal framework governing appeals for this type of administrative order. Cite the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the document and explain the jurisdiction, requirements, and timeline for seeking judicial review.
4. Evaluate the communication process documented in the order. Identify all named recipients of the order, their titles or affiliations, and hypothesize why each party or entity would need to be formally notified of this decision.
5. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge and the Office of Administrative Hearings in this specific dispute. How does the order demonstrate the limits of their jurisdiction and the procedural rules they enforce?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and has the authority to issue legally binding orders.
Appeal
The process by which a party requests that a higher court (in this case, the superior court) review the decision of a lower body (the Office of Administrative Hearings).
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The document references A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B), § 41-1092.08(H), and § 12-904(A) to establish the legal basis for the order’s finality and the appeal process.
Judicial Review
A type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for disputes. In this case, it presided over the matter between Marc Archer and the PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Order Vacating Hearing
A formal directive from a judge that cancels a previously scheduled hearing and removes it from the court’s or agency’s calendar.
Petition
A formal written request submitted to a court or administrative body, initiating a legal case or making a specific application.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition with a court or administrative body. In this case, Marc Archer.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to consider issues that were part of the original petition. As clarified in the order, it cannot be used to address new matters that arose after the initial decision.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to it. In this case, PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Superior Court
A state-level trial court of general jurisdiction. The document specifies that any appeal of the administrative order must be filed with the superior court.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020063-REL
Select all sources
864308.pdf
864361.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020063-REL
2 sources
The provided sources are two copies of an Order Vacating Hearing issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings in the matter of Marc Archer vs PMPE Community Association, Inc. The order, signed by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on March 16, 2021, indicates that Petitioner Marc Archer requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision was issued. Because the rehearing was limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed, Mr. Archer chose to withdraw his request for a rehearing and announced his intention to file a new petition to challenge the community association’s denial of his proposal to build a house addition. Consequently, the hearing was vacated from the administrative calendar, and the order includes a notice regarding the process for judicial review if a party wished to appeal.
Why did Marc Archer withdraw his request for a rehearing on case 20F-H2020063-REL?
What were the specific procedural limitations governing the scope of the administrative rehearing?
How does this order relate to the Petitioner’s future challenge regarding his house addition?
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Marc Archer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; Homeowner and member of PMPE
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Represented Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Keith Kauffman(board member) PMPE Community Association, Inc. President, Treasurer, and AC member; testified at hearing
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presided over the main hearing and issued the order vacating rehearing
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Ruled in a prior related evidentiary hearing
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressee for transmission of orders
DGardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
f. del sol(Staff) Signed transmittal of ALJ decision
c. serrano(Staff) Signed transmittal of Order Vacating Hearing
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
ncano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
Other Participants
Carlotta L Turman(unknown) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Listed in transmission details associated with PMPE counsel
CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5
Outcome Summary
The ALJ concluded that Foothills demonstrated Respondents' violation of the community governing documents by commencing and continuing construction of a second-story Addition without obtaining the required Architectural Committee approval. Foothills was deemed the prevailing party, and Respondents' appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized 2nd story addition
Respondents constructed a second-story Addition to their property without first obtaining approval from the Foothills Architectural Committee, violating the community governing documents.
Orders: Respondents’ appeal is dismissed, and Foothills is deemed the prevailing party with regard to its Petition.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.4
CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5
Analytics Highlights
Topics: architectural review, cc&r violation, unapproved construction, second story addition, prevailing party
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. §§ 32-2102
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199 et al.
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120004-REL Decision – 839537.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:43 (135.4 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120004-REL
Briefing Document: Foothills Club West HOA v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Foothills Club West Homeowners Association v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust (No. 21F-H2120004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core dispute involved the construction of a second-story addition by homeowners (Respondents) without the prior approval of the Homeowners Association (Petitioner), a direct violation of the community’s governing documents.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found conclusively in favor of the Foothills Club West HOA. The evidence demonstrated that the Respondents not only began construction without seeking approval but continued the project even after receiving a formal denial from the HOA’s Architectural Committee. A subsequent agreement between the parties, wherein the Respondents would demolish the addition in exchange for a waiver of fines, was not honored by the Respondents. The ALJ dismissed the Respondents’ appeal and declared the HOA the prevailing party, validating its authority to enforce the community’s architectural standards as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
I. Case Overview
• Case Name: Foothills Club West Homeowners Association, Petitioner, v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust, Respondent.
• Case Number: 21F-H2120004-REL
• Jurisdiction: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Administrative Law Judge: Kay Abramsohn
• Hearing Date: October 5, 2020
• Decision Date: November 27, 2020
• Central Issue: The petition filed by Foothills HOA on July 24, 2020, alleged that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized and unapproved second-story addition to their property. This action was alleged to be in violation of CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5.
II. Chronology of Key Events
The hearing record established the following undisputed sequence of events:
Oct. 2018
Respondents begin construction of the second-story addition.
Nov. 7, 2018
The City of Phoenix issues a stop-work order, noting a permit is required.
Nov. 7, 2018
Foothills HOA issues a violation notice to the Respondents.
Dec. 17, 2018
Respondents obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix.
Jan. 18, 2019 (approx.)
Respondents submit a request for approval to the Foothills Architectural Committee.
Jan. 18, 2019
Foothills HOA issues a penalty notice to the Respondents, with further notices issued monthly.
Feb. 22, 2019
Foothills HOA issues a formal denial of the application.
Mar. 15, 2019
The City of Phoenix gives final approval to the construction and issues a Certificate of Occupancy.
Post Feb. 2019
The parties reach an agreement for Respondents to demolish the addition in exchange for a waiver of fines.
July 24, 2020
Foothills HOA files its petition, noting Respondents have not complied with the demolition agreement.
Oct. 5, 2020
The administrative hearing is held.
Nov. 27, 2020
The Administrative Law Judge issues the final decision.
III. Arguments of the Parties
A. Petitioner: Foothills Club West HOA
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA argued that the Respondents violated CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3 by commencing construction without first obtaining approval from the Architectural Committee.
• Disregard for Denial: The HOA asserted that the Respondents completed the addition after receiving a formal denial of their application.
• Breach of Agreement: The HOA noted that the parties had reached a settlement agreement for demolition, which the Respondents failed to honor. The HOA requested that the Tribunal enforce this agreement.
• Jurisdictional Distinction: The HOA maintained that approval from the City of Phoenix was a separate matter and did not negate the requirement to obtain approval from the HOA as mandated by the governing documents.
B. Respondents: Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
• Initial Ignorance: Respondents claimed they were initially unaware of the HOA approval requirements.
• Attempted Compliance: They argued that once notified, they followed the association’s guidance, met with the Board, and sought approval.
• Vague Denial: Respondents stated they did not understand the meaning of the denial reason, “Fails aesthetics of surrounding community,” or how the addition specifically violated community rules.
• Lack of Due Process: They argued they did not receive a letter indicating an appeal process was available and therefore felt they had not received a final “denial.”
• Demolition Delay: While not disputing the existence of the demolition agreement, Respondents cited COVID-19 issues and safety concerns for their at-risk family as reasons for requesting more time.
• Final Appeal: At the hearing, Respondents reversed their position on the agreement and requested to be allowed to keep the addition.
IV. Analysis of Governing Documents
The decision centered on specific provisions within the Foothills Club West governing documents, which constitute the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.3 (Architectural Approval): This section was central to the case. It states in pertinent part:
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.4 (Obligation to Obtain Approval): This provision explicitly sets forth a homeowner’s obligation to secure approval from the Architectural Committee.
• CC&R Article 9, Section 9.5 (Exterior Appearance): This section clarifies that while the HOA cannot limit interior remodeling, it retains jurisdiction over any changes that are “visible from outside such [home] … or affects the exterior appearance of such [home].”
• Amended Architectural Guidelines (2013): These guidelines reinforce the CC&Rs, specifying that a homeowner’s plans must be submitted for approval through the Architectural Committee on a case-by-case basis.
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s conclusions of law provided a clear framework for the final order.
A. Burden of Proof
The ALJ established that in this proceeding, the petitioner (Foothills HOA) bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondents had violated the governing documents. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
B. Core Conclusion on Violations
The ALJ found that the HOA had successfully met its burden of proof. The central conclusion of law states:
“The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Foothills has demonstrated Respondents’ violation of the community governing documents, as stated in CC&R Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5, because Respondents began to construct a modification, the Addition, to their existing home prior to obtaining approval from Foothills Architectural Committee and, further, Respondents continued to construct the Addition despite receiving a denial of approval from Foothills Architectural Committee.”
This finding affirmed that the Respondents committed two distinct violations: starting work without approval and continuing work after being explicitly denied approval.
VI. Final Order and Implications
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the ALJ issued a decisive order.
• Order:
• Binding Nature: The decision notes that the order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is requested. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120004-REL
Study Guide: Foothills Club West HOA v. Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 21F-H2120004-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the document.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the single issue raised in the petition filed by Foothills Club West Homeowners Association?
3. According to the Petition, which specific articles and sections of the governing documents did the Respondents allegedly violate?
4. What action did the City of Phoenix take on November 7, 2018, regarding the Respondents’ construction project?
5. What reasons did the Foothills Architectural Committee provide for denying the Respondents’ application on February 22, 2019?
6. Prior to the hearing, what agreement did the parties reach in an attempt to resolve the dispute?
7. What was the Respondents’ primary argument for their actions and for their failure to comply with the association’s denial?
8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bore the burden of meeting it?
9. Explain the difference between the City of Phoenix’s approval and the Foothills Architectural Committee’s approval, as argued by the Petitioner.
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association (“Foothills”). The Respondent is the Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust. Their relationship is that of a homeowners’ association and a member homeowner residing within the planned community for 22 years.
2. The single issue raised was that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized and unapproved second-story addition to their property. The construction was completed even after the Foothills Architectural Committee had issued a denial of the project.
3. Foothills alleged that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs Article 7, Section 7.3, and Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. These articles pertain to the rights and obligations of the association and the architectural standards requiring prior approval for modifications.
4. On November 7, 2018, the City of Phoenix issued a stop-work order for the Respondents’ construction project. The order noted that the work being performed required a permit, which had not yet been obtained.
5. The Foothills Architectural Committee denied the application because it needed copies of the City permit, the plans were incomplete, and there was no documentation on the roof line or roofing materials. Furthermore, the denial stated that the project “Fails aesthetics of surrounding community.”
6. The parties came to an agreement wherein the Respondents would complete the demolition of the second-story addition. In exchange, Foothills agreed to waive the penalties that had been imposed on the Respondents for the violation.
7. The Respondents argued that they initially did not know what was required and that they cooperated with the association’s Board once notified. They claimed they did not understand what “Fails aesthetics” meant, did not receive a letter about an appeal process, and therefore did not feel they had received a final “denial.”
8. The legal standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Foothills, bore the burden of proving the Respondents’ violation by this standard.
9. Foothills argued that approval from the City of Phoenix and approval from the association’s Architectural Committee were two different and separate matters. Even though the Respondents eventually received a City permit and a Certificate of Occupancy, this did not override the CC&R requirement to first obtain approval from Foothills.
10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Respondents’ appeal be dismissed. The Judge deemed Foothills the prevailing party with regard to its petition, finding that Foothills had demonstrated the Respondents’ violation of the community’s governing documents.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an essay-style answer for each, drawing evidence and support directly from the provided legal decision.
1. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner (Foothills) and the Respondents at the hearing. Discuss the key evidence and claims each party used to support their position and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s case more persuasive.
2. Explain the distinct roles and jurisdictions of the Homeowners Association’s Architectural Committee and the City of Phoenix regarding the Respondents’ construction project. Why was obtaining a City permit and a Certificate of Occupancy insufficient for the Respondents to proceed without violating the community’s governing documents?
3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 21F-H2120004-REL, from the filing of the initial petition to the final order. Discuss key filings, motions, and deadlines mentioned in the document, including the Respondents’ attempt to consolidate another case.
4. Discuss the significance of the “contract” between the parties, as defined in footnote 15. How do the CC&Rs and the amended Architectural Guidelines function as this contract, and which specific sections were central to the judge’s conclusion that a violation occurred?
5. Evaluate the Respondents’ attempt to justify their failure to demolish the addition as per their agreement with Foothills, citing COVID-19 issues. How did their request at the hearing to keep the addition conflict with their prior agreement, and what does this reveal about their position in the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues decisions.
Architectural Committee
A committee appointed by the Foothills HOA, as established by CC&R Article 9, with the authority to review, approve, or disapprove plans for construction, modifications, and additions to properties within the community.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing documents that form a binding contract between the homeowners association and the property owners, outlining their rights and obligations.
Disclosure
The formal process by which parties in a legal case provide evidence, exhibits, and information to each other before a hearing. The deadline for disclosure in this case was September 29, 2020.
Governing Documents
The set of rules for the planned community, including the CC&Rs and the amended Architectural Guidelines, which have the same force and effect as association rules.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal proceeding by filing a petition. In this case, the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association.
Petition
The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to initiate a hearing concerning violations of community governing documents. In this case, it was a “single-issue petition.”
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust.
Tribunal
The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, the state agency authorized by statute to hear and decide contested matters referred to it, such as this dispute.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120004-REL
Select all sources
839537.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120004-REL
1 source
This text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association and the Subrahmanyam & Sudhakar Living Trust. The Petitioner, the Foothills Club West Homeowners Association, filed a petition alleging that the Respondents constructed an unauthorized second-story addition to their property in violation of the association’s governing documents, specifically the CC&Rs Article 9, Sections 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Respondents violated these community documents by beginning construction prior to obtaining approval from the Foothills Architectural Committee and continuing the work despite receiving a denial. The judge ultimately concluded that Foothills was the prevailing party and dismissed the Respondents’ appeal, effectively upholding the violation finding.
What are the specific governing document violations alleged and proven against the homeowners?
How did the legal and administrative process address the unauthorized construction dispute?
What was the final resolution ordered regarding the unapproved second-story home addition?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Halk(HOA attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC Represented Petitioner Foothills Club West Homeowners Association
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC Counsel for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Mary T. Hone(Respondent attorney) Mary T. Hone, PLLC Counsel for Respondent Trustees Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar
Subrahmanyam Sudhakar(respondent) Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust Trustee of the Respondent Living Trust
Sheila Sudhakar(respondent) Subrahmanyam & Sheila Sudhakar Living Trust Trustee of the Respondent Living Trust
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
AHansen(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
djones(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
DGardner(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
ncano(Agency Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of electronic transmission of Order
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
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. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:44 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
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. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:16 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with the required election materials and documentation from the October 2018 elections, violating statutory requirements for retention and availability of these materials for owner inspection.
Orders: Respondent ordered to supply Petitioner with the relevant documents, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C), within ten (10) days of the Order.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
Open meetings; exceptions
Respondent postponed its required yearly 2019 meeting until January 2020, resulting in a failure to hold a unit owners' association meeting in 2019 as required by statute.
Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
Selection
Respondent's board of directors declared write-in ballots invalid for the November 20, 2019, election. Since the Bylaws were silent on prohibiting write-in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:15 (108.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019033-REL
Briefing Document: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Donna M. Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019033-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge found entirely in favor of the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, concluding that the Respondent, Country Hills West Condominium Association (“the Association”), committed multiple violations of Arizona state statutes and its own governing documents.
The core violations upheld by the court are:
1. Failure to Hold a Required Annual Meeting: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold its required annual meeting within the 2019 calendar year, repeatedly postponing it until January 2020.
2. Failure to Provide Election Records: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with complete election materials for inspection, including ballots, envelopes, and sign-in sheets from the October 2018 election.
3. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots: The Association violated Article 3, Section 2 of its Bylaws by unilaterally prohibiting write-in ballots for the 2019 election, despite its governing documents being silent on the issue.
As a result, the Association was ordered to provide the requested documents to the Petitioner within ten days and to reimburse her $1,500 filing fee within thirty days. The decision underscores the legal obligation of homeowners’ associations to adhere strictly to statutory requirements for meetings, elections, and record transparency.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by homeowner Donna M. Bischoff with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 11, 2019.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Donna M Bischoff, Petitioner, v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent
Case Number
20F-H2019033-REL
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Hearing Date
March 10, 2020
Decision Date
March 30, 2020
Petitioner Representative
Donna M. Bischoff (on her own behalf)
Respondent Representative
Doug Meyer, President and Director
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
The Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, asserted that the Country Hills West Condominium Association committed violations of state law and its own governing documents. The specific allegations were:
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B): Failure to hold the mandatory annual unit owners’ association meeting within the 2019 calendar year.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C): Failure to make election materials, including ballots and related items, available for inspection by a unit owner.
• Violation of Bylaws Article 3, Section 2: Improperly invalidating election ballots by prohibiting write-in candidates without any authority from the governing documents.
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish these violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
III. Core Issues and Factual Findings
The hearing established several key facts that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. The testimony from both Ms. Bischoff and the Association’s President, Doug Meyer, was central to these findings.
A. Failure to Hold the 2019 Annual Meeting
• Timeline of Events: The Association’s required annual meeting for 2019 was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019. It was subsequently postponed three times: first to December 19, 2019; then to December 30, 2019; and ultimately held on January 24, 2020.
• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer testified that the postponements were necessary because write-in candidates appeared on the ballot, which the board had prohibited. He stated that the board “needed time to reprint the ballot and mail them out.”
• Conclusion of Law: The evidence was undisputed that no annual meeting took place during the 2019 calendar year. The Judge concluded that by postponing the meeting into the following year, the Association was in direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that “A meeting of the unit owners’ association shall be held at least once each year.”
B. Denial of Access to Election Records
• Petitioner’s Request: In October 2018, Ms. Bischoff requested to see the election results from the October 2018 meeting, specifically seeking to know which units had voted.
• Respondent’s Response: The Association initially did not provide the results. A few weeks prior to the March 2020 hearing, it supplied Ms. Bischoff with vote tallies and a list of unit members who voted. However, it failed to provide the full scope of required materials.
• Missing Documentation: The Association did not provide the “ballots, envelopes, related materials, and sign-in sheets” as mandated by statute for inspection.
• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer argued that no election actually occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting because there was no quorum. He further made the admission that the Association had not achieved a quorum for any meeting in the preceding 20 years. He claimed that without an election, there was no obligation to publish ballots.
• Conclusion of Law: The Judge found that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). The statute requires that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… and made available for unit owner inspection for at least one year.” The partial and delayed provision of records was insufficient to meet this legal requirement.
C. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots
• The Dispute: The November 20, 2019, meeting was cancelled because some ballots contained write-in candidates. The board of directors informed members that write-in ballots were prohibited and would be “thrown out.”
• Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. Bischoff argued that the board could not “choose how to interpret a silent document.” She pointed out that the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation do not prohibit write-in ballots and that the same board had allowed them in a 2017 election.
• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the Bylaws were silent on the issue but stated the Association needed to “figure out how to handle” them. A membership meeting to discuss the issue was held on December 30, 2019, but failed to achieve a quorum.
• Conclusion of Law: The Judge determined that the Association violated its own Bylaws. The decision states, “absent any clear language in the A.R.S. or the Bylaws prohibiting write in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.” The board’s unilateral prohibition was therefore found to be improper.
IV. Legal Conclusions and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge upheld the petition on all issues, finding that the Petitioner had successfully proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Final Order:
Based on the foregoing conclusions, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Petition filed by Donna M. Bischoff is upheld on all issues.
2. The Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
3. The Respondent must supply the Petitioner with the relevant election documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) within ten (10) days of the Order.
4. The Respondent must pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the Order.
5. No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
The Order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019033-REL
Study Guide: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2019033-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and a condominium association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the source document.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties in the legal dispute, and what were their roles?
2. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, allege against the Respondent?
3. Why was the 2019 yearly meeting for the Country Hills West Condominium Association repeatedly rescheduled?
4. What was the Respondent’s position on the validity of write-in ballots for the November 20, 2019, election?
5. What information did the Petitioner request from the October 2018 election, and what was the initial response?
6. What is the definition of “quorum” according to the association’s Bylaws, and why was it significant in this case?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet in this hearing?
8. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) regarding association meetings?
9. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) regarding election materials?
10. What were the key components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and the Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the homeowner who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the homeowners association accused of violations.
2. The Petitioner alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1250(C) and § 33-1248(B), as well as Article 3, Section 2 of the association’s Bylaws. These allegations related to the handling of yearly meetings and elections.
3. The 2019 yearly meeting was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019, but was rescheduled three times, ultimately taking place in January 2020. The first cancellation was because some ballots contained write-in candidates, which the board deemed prohibited.
4. The Respondent’s representative, Doug Meyer, testified that members were informed that write-in ballots were not valid for the November 20, 2019, election. He stated that any ballots with write-in candidates would have been thrown out.
5. The Petitioner requested to see the election results from the October 2018 election, specifically wanting to know which units voted. While she was eventually given the voting tallies, the Respondent did not initially provide the requested results.
6. Quorum is defined in Article 4, Section 3 of the Bylaws. It was significant because the Respondent’s president, Mr. Meyer, acknowledged that the association had not achieved a quorum for its meetings in the last 20 years, and thus no election occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting.
7. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
8. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold a required yearly meeting within the calendar year of 2019. The evidence showed that the meeting scheduled for 2019 was postponed until January 2020.
9. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with all required election materials from the 2018 election. While vote tallies were eventually provided, the statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related materials be retained and made available for inspection for at least one year.
10. The Administrative Law Judge’s Order upheld the Petition on all issues, deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, and required the Respondent to supply the relevant documents within 10 days. The Order also mandated that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 within 30 days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Use the information presented in the source document to construct a comprehensive argument for each prompt.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s handling of the write-in ballot issue for the 2019 election. Discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for their actions as presented in the hearing, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled that their prohibition of these ballots was a violation of the Bylaws.
2. Explain the concept of “quorum” as it relates to this case. How did the association’s failure to achieve a quorum for 20 years impact its governance, specifically regarding the 2018 meeting and the Respondent’s obligation to produce election records?
3. Describe in detail the specific violations of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that the Country Hills West Condominium Association was found to have committed. For each statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)), detail the legal requirement and explain how the Respondent’s actions failed to meet that standard.
4. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Using testimony and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof for her allegations.
5. Outline the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Beyond the simple outcome, explain the significance of each component of the order, including the validation of the petition, the designation of a “prevailing party,” the directive to supply documents, and the financial remedy awarded.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Antara Nath Rivera.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency with which a homeowner or planned community organization can file a petition for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statutes cited were A.R.S. §§ 33-1250(C) and 33-1248(B).
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of an organization, such as a homeowners association. In this case, the Bylaws of Country Hills West Association, Inc. were a key document.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state agency where petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate are heard before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Donna M. Bischoff.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Quorum
The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. The Respondent had not achieved quorum for 20 years.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or a legal action is brought. In this case, Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019033-REL
Select all sources
778923.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2019033-REL
1 source
This source is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The document details the hearing held on March 10, 2020, where the Petitioner alleged the Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the association’s Bylaws. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed violations related to the failure to hold a required yearly meeting in 2019, the failure to provide election materials for inspection, and the improper prohibition of write-in ballots where the Bylaws were silent. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately upheld the Petition on all issues, finding the Respondent in violation, and ordered the Association to provide the requested documents and pay the Petitioner’s $1,500.00 filing fee.
What were the specific legal violations found against the Condominium Association regarding meetings and documents?
How did the lack of clarity in the Bylaws regarding write-in ballots impact the association’s actions?
What was the ultimate outcome of this administrative hearing, including the ordered remedies for the petitioner?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Donna M Bischoff(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Doug Meyer(president, director, witness) Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Antara Nath Rivera(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Decision transmitted electronically to Commissioner
The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with the required election materials and documentation from the October 2018 elections, violating statutory requirements for retention and availability of these materials for owner inspection.
Orders: Respondent ordered to supply Petitioner with the relevant documents, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C), within ten (10) days of the Order.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
Open meetings; exceptions
Respondent postponed its required yearly 2019 meeting until January 2020, resulting in a failure to hold a unit owners' association meeting in 2019 as required by statute.
Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.
Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
Selection
Respondent's board of directors declared write-in ballots invalid for the November 20, 2019, election. Since the Bylaws were silent on prohibiting write-in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:47 (108.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019033-REL
Briefing Document: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Donna M. Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019033-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge found entirely in favor of the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, concluding that the Respondent, Country Hills West Condominium Association (“the Association”), committed multiple violations of Arizona state statutes and its own governing documents.
The core violations upheld by the court are:
1. Failure to Hold a Required Annual Meeting: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold its required annual meeting within the 2019 calendar year, repeatedly postponing it until January 2020.
2. Failure to Provide Election Records: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with complete election materials for inspection, including ballots, envelopes, and sign-in sheets from the October 2018 election.
3. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots: The Association violated Article 3, Section 2 of its Bylaws by unilaterally prohibiting write-in ballots for the 2019 election, despite its governing documents being silent on the issue.
As a result, the Association was ordered to provide the requested documents to the Petitioner within ten days and to reimburse her $1,500 filing fee within thirty days. The decision underscores the legal obligation of homeowners’ associations to adhere strictly to statutory requirements for meetings, elections, and record transparency.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by homeowner Donna M. Bischoff with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 11, 2019.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Donna M Bischoff, Petitioner, v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent
Case Number
20F-H2019033-REL
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Hearing Date
March 10, 2020
Decision Date
March 30, 2020
Petitioner Representative
Donna M. Bischoff (on her own behalf)
Respondent Representative
Doug Meyer, President and Director
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
The Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, asserted that the Country Hills West Condominium Association committed violations of state law and its own governing documents. The specific allegations were:
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B): Failure to hold the mandatory annual unit owners’ association meeting within the 2019 calendar year.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C): Failure to make election materials, including ballots and related items, available for inspection by a unit owner.
• Violation of Bylaws Article 3, Section 2: Improperly invalidating election ballots by prohibiting write-in candidates without any authority from the governing documents.
The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish these violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
III. Core Issues and Factual Findings
The hearing established several key facts that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. The testimony from both Ms. Bischoff and the Association’s President, Doug Meyer, was central to these findings.
A. Failure to Hold the 2019 Annual Meeting
• Timeline of Events: The Association’s required annual meeting for 2019 was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019. It was subsequently postponed three times: first to December 19, 2019; then to December 30, 2019; and ultimately held on January 24, 2020.
• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer testified that the postponements were necessary because write-in candidates appeared on the ballot, which the board had prohibited. He stated that the board “needed time to reprint the ballot and mail them out.”
• Conclusion of Law: The evidence was undisputed that no annual meeting took place during the 2019 calendar year. The Judge concluded that by postponing the meeting into the following year, the Association was in direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that “A meeting of the unit owners’ association shall be held at least once each year.”
B. Denial of Access to Election Records
• Petitioner’s Request: In October 2018, Ms. Bischoff requested to see the election results from the October 2018 meeting, specifically seeking to know which units had voted.
• Respondent’s Response: The Association initially did not provide the results. A few weeks prior to the March 2020 hearing, it supplied Ms. Bischoff with vote tallies and a list of unit members who voted. However, it failed to provide the full scope of required materials.
• Missing Documentation: The Association did not provide the “ballots, envelopes, related materials, and sign-in sheets” as mandated by statute for inspection.
• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer argued that no election actually occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting because there was no quorum. He further made the admission that the Association had not achieved a quorum for any meeting in the preceding 20 years. He claimed that without an election, there was no obligation to publish ballots.
• Conclusion of Law: The Judge found that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). The statute requires that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… and made available for unit owner inspection for at least one year.” The partial and delayed provision of records was insufficient to meet this legal requirement.
C. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots
• The Dispute: The November 20, 2019, meeting was cancelled because some ballots contained write-in candidates. The board of directors informed members that write-in ballots were prohibited and would be “thrown out.”
• Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. Bischoff argued that the board could not “choose how to interpret a silent document.” She pointed out that the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation do not prohibit write-in ballots and that the same board had allowed them in a 2017 election.
• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the Bylaws were silent on the issue but stated the Association needed to “figure out how to handle” them. A membership meeting to discuss the issue was held on December 30, 2019, but failed to achieve a quorum.
• Conclusion of Law: The Judge determined that the Association violated its own Bylaws. The decision states, “absent any clear language in the A.R.S. or the Bylaws prohibiting write in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.” The board’s unilateral prohibition was therefore found to be improper.
IV. Legal Conclusions and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge upheld the petition on all issues, finding that the Petitioner had successfully proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Final Order:
Based on the foregoing conclusions, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Petition filed by Donna M. Bischoff is upheld on all issues.
2. The Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
3. The Respondent must supply the Petitioner with the relevant election documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) within ten (10) days of the Order.
4. The Respondent must pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the Order.
5. No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
The Order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019033-REL
Study Guide: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2019033-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and a condominium association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the source document.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties in the legal dispute, and what were their roles?
2. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, allege against the Respondent?
3. Why was the 2019 yearly meeting for the Country Hills West Condominium Association repeatedly rescheduled?
4. What was the Respondent’s position on the validity of write-in ballots for the November 20, 2019, election?
5. What information did the Petitioner request from the October 2018 election, and what was the initial response?
6. What is the definition of “quorum” according to the association’s Bylaws, and why was it significant in this case?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet in this hearing?
8. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) regarding association meetings?
9. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) regarding election materials?
10. What were the key components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and the Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the homeowner who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the homeowners association accused of violations.
2. The Petitioner alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1250(C) and § 33-1248(B), as well as Article 3, Section 2 of the association’s Bylaws. These allegations related to the handling of yearly meetings and elections.
3. The 2019 yearly meeting was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019, but was rescheduled three times, ultimately taking place in January 2020. The first cancellation was because some ballots contained write-in candidates, which the board deemed prohibited.
4. The Respondent’s representative, Doug Meyer, testified that members were informed that write-in ballots were not valid for the November 20, 2019, election. He stated that any ballots with write-in candidates would have been thrown out.
5. The Petitioner requested to see the election results from the October 2018 election, specifically wanting to know which units voted. While she was eventually given the voting tallies, the Respondent did not initially provide the requested results.
6. Quorum is defined in Article 4, Section 3 of the Bylaws. It was significant because the Respondent’s president, Mr. Meyer, acknowledged that the association had not achieved a quorum for its meetings in the last 20 years, and thus no election occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting.
7. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
8. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold a required yearly meeting within the calendar year of 2019. The evidence showed that the meeting scheduled for 2019 was postponed until January 2020.
9. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with all required election materials from the 2018 election. While vote tallies were eventually provided, the statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related materials be retained and made available for inspection for at least one year.
10. The Administrative Law Judge’s Order upheld the Petition on all issues, deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, and required the Respondent to supply the relevant documents within 10 days. The Order also mandated that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 within 30 days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Use the information presented in the source document to construct a comprehensive argument for each prompt.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s handling of the write-in ballot issue for the 2019 election. Discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for their actions as presented in the hearing, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled that their prohibition of these ballots was a violation of the Bylaws.
2. Explain the concept of “quorum” as it relates to this case. How did the association’s failure to achieve a quorum for 20 years impact its governance, specifically regarding the 2018 meeting and the Respondent’s obligation to produce election records?
3. Describe in detail the specific violations of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that the Country Hills West Condominium Association was found to have committed. For each statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)), detail the legal requirement and explain how the Respondent’s actions failed to meet that standard.
4. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Using testimony and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof for her allegations.
5. Outline the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Beyond the simple outcome, explain the significance of each component of the order, including the validation of the petition, the designation of a “prevailing party,” the directive to supply documents, and the financial remedy awarded.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Antara Nath Rivera.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency with which a homeowner or planned community organization can file a petition for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statutes cited were A.R.S. §§ 33-1250(C) and 33-1248(B).
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of an organization, such as a homeowners association. In this case, the Bylaws of Country Hills West Association, Inc. were a key document.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state agency where petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate are heard before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Donna M. Bischoff.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Quorum
The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. The Respondent had not achieved quorum for 20 years.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or a legal action is brought. In this case, Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019033-REL
Select all sources
778923.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2019033-REL
1 source
This source is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The document details the hearing held on March 10, 2020, where the Petitioner alleged the Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the association’s Bylaws. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed violations related to the failure to hold a required yearly meeting in 2019, the failure to provide election materials for inspection, and the improper prohibition of write-in ballots where the Bylaws were silent. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately upheld the Petition on all issues, finding the Respondent in violation, and ordered the Association to provide the requested documents and pay the Petitioner’s $1,500.00 filing fee.
What were the specific legal violations found against the Condominium Association regarding meetings and documents?
How did the lack of clarity in the Bylaws regarding write-in ballots impact the association’s actions?
What was the ultimate outcome of this administrative hearing, including the ordered remedies for the petitioner?
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Donna M Bischoff(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Doug Meyer(president, director, witness) Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Antara Nath Rivera(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Decision transmitted electronically to Commissioner
CC&Rs Article VII Membership and Voting section 7.3.1 Voting Classes
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Vistoso Community Association committed a violation of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 by allowing certain owners to vote. The ALJ reasoned that the specific restriction on voting for those paying reduced assessments was inapplicable in this case.
Why this result: The restriction on voting found in Section 7.3.1 applies only when the owner is paying a reduced assessment 'pursuant to Section 8.3.' Since the reduced assessment period permitted under Section 8.3 had expired for the developer owners, they were not paying reduced assessments 'pursuant to Section 8.3,' and were therefore entitled to vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of community document regarding the voting rights of Developer Owners paying reduced assessments.
Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition alleging the Respondent HOA violated the community documents (CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1) by allowing Developer Owners (Vistoso Highlands and Pulte) to vote in an election while they were paying reduced assessments, which Petitioner argued was prohibited.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Election, Voting Rights, Reduced Assessment, Community Document Violation
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1
CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.3
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766242.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:28 (48.3 KB)
20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766243.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:31 (109.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019014-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)
Executive Summary
On January 27, 2020, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed a petition filed by Paul L. Moffett against the Vistoso Community Association. The core of the dispute was the validity of 207 votes cast by two developer-owners, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, in a Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019.
The petitioner argued that because these entities were paying reduced assessments on their lots, they were prohibited from voting under the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs). The respondent association contended that the voting prohibition was narrowly tied to a specific provision allowing reduced assessments for a limited time, a period which had long expired for both entities.
The judge ruled in favor of the Vistoso Community Association, concluding that the votes were valid. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. Although the developers were factually paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so pursuant to the specific section that triggers the voting prohibition. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments was a separate “financial concern for the association,” but it did not invalidate the votes cast in the election. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the community documents.
Case Overview
This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between petitioner Paul L. Moffett and respondent Vistoso Community Association concerning an alleged violation of community CC&Rs.
Detail
Information
Case Name
Paul L Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association
Case Number
20F-H2019014-REL
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Petition Filed
On or about September 25, 2019
Hearing Date
December 16, 2019
Decision & Order Date
January 27, 2020
Petitioner
Paul L. Moffett
Petitioner’s Counsel
Richard M. Rollman, Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Respondent
Vistoso Community Association
Respondent’s Counsel
Jason E. Smith, CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
The Core Dispute: Voter Eligibility and Reduced Assessments
Petitioner’s Allegation
On September 25, 2019, Paul L. Moffett filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the Vistoso Community Association violated its own governing documents. The specific violation cited was of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Classes) of the community’s Declaration.
The dispute centered on the Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019. In the days leading up to the election, property management solicited votes from two developer-owners:
• Vistoso Highlands: Owner of 39 lots.
• Pulte: Owner of 168 lots.
Both entities cast their total available votes—207 votes—for three candidates: Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley. Mr. Moffett’s petition argued that these 207 votes were invalid because, at the time of the election, both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments on their lots, which he contended made them ineligible to vote under the CC&Rs.
Analysis of Arguments and Key Provisions
The decision in this case rested entirely on the interpretation of two interlinked sections within the Vistoso Community Association’s Declaration.
Key Governing Document Provisions
• Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Prohibition): This section states, in pertinent part, that “a Class A Member shall not be entitled to vote with respect to any Lots, Parcels or Apartment Units in regard to which the Owner is paying only a reduced Assessment pursuant to Section 8.3.”
• Article VIII, Section 8.3 (Reduced Assessment Eligibility): This section permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment on lots for a maximum of two years after the initial Developer Owner obtains ownership from the Declarant.
Petitioner’s Position (Paul L. Moffett)
The petitioner’s argument was straightforward:
• Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments.
• Section 7.3.1 prohibits voting for members who pay reduced assessments.
• Therefore, their votes should not have been counted.
Respondent’s Position (Vistoso Community Association)
The respondent’s argument focused on the precise qualifying language in the CC&Rs:
• The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 is conditional and applies only when members are paying reduced assessments specifically “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
• The eligibility window for paying reduced assessments under Section 8.3 had expired years prior for both entities.
• Therefore, although they were factually paying reduced assessments, this was not being done under the authority or conditions of Section 8.3.
• Consequently, the voting prohibition of Section 7.3.1 was not applicable to them.
Established Findings of Fact
The evidence presented at the hearing established a clear timeline regarding the ownership of the lots and the expiration of the reduced assessment periods.
• March 20, 2007: Vistoso Highlands obtained ownership of 39 lots from the Declarant.
• March 20, 2009: The two-year maximum period for Vistoso Highlands to pay reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.
• August 21 & October 14, 2014: Pulte’s predecessor obtained ownership of 168 lots from the Declarant.
• October 14, 2016: The two-year maximum period for these 168 lots to have reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.
• January 2, 2019: Pulte obtained ownership of the 168 lots from its predecessor.
• March 29, 2019: The Board of Directors election was held.
• Key Fact: The judge found that “For whatever reason, neither Vistoso Highlands nor Pulte had been paying the full assessment as required by the Declaration as of the date of the election.”
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the respondent’s interpretation of the governing documents, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Legal Interpretation
The ALJ concluded that the two articles could not be read in isolation. The critical legal finding was that the voting prohibition was explicitly and inextricably linked to the conditions set forth in Section 8.3.
The decision states:
“Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.”
The judge reasoned that since the eligibility period under Section 8.3 had expired in 2009 and 2016, respectively, the developers were no longer paying reduced fees “pursuant to” that section at the time of the 2019 election.
Acknowledgment of Financial Discrepancy
The ALJ acknowledged the underlying issue that the developers were not paying the full assessments they owed. However, this was deemed a separate matter from voter eligibility. The judge noted that the failure to be invoiced for and to pay the full amount “is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole,” but “that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.”
Final Order
Based on this legal interpretation, the ALJ found that the petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, failed to sustain his burden of proof to establish a violation of the community documents by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Official Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.”
• Notice: The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019014-REL
Study Guide: Moffett v. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Petitioner Paul L. Moffett and Respondent Vistoso Community Association, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on January 27, 2020. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific article and section of the community documents did the Petitioner allege was violated?
3. When was the Board of Directors election held, and what was the total number of votes cast by Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?
4. According to the community’s Declaration, under what specific condition is a Class A Member not entitled to vote?
5. What did Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allow for, and what was the maximum time limit for this provision?
6. Based on the timeline provided, when should the reduced assessment period have ended for Vistoso Highlands and for Pulte?
7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why Pulte and Vistoso Highlands should not have been allowed to vote?
8. How did the Respondent counter the Petitioner’s argument regarding the voting rights of Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the voting eligibility of Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, and what was the reasoning?
10. What was the final order in this case, and what recourse was available to the parties after the decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Paul L. Moffett, who served as the Petitioner, and the Vistoso Community Association, which was the Respondent. Moffett initiated the dispute by filing a petition against the association.
2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes” of the community documents (CC&Rs). This was the single issue presented for the hearing.
3. The Board of Directors election was held on or about March 29, 2019. In that election, Pulte and Vistoso Highlands collectively cast 207 votes for candidates Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley.
4. According to Article VII, Section 7.3.1 of the Declaration, a Class A Member is not entitled to vote with respect to any lots for which the owner is paying only a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
5. Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allowed Developer Owners to pay a reduced assessment on lots purchased from the Declarant. This provision was permitted for a maximum period of two years (24 months) after the initial Developer Owner obtained ownership.
6. The reduced assessment period for Vistoso Highlands should have terminated on March 20, 2009. For the lots owned by Pulte, the reduced assessments should have terminated on October 14, 2016.
7. The Petitioner argued that because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were, in fact, paying reduced assessments at the time of the election, they were not entitled to vote. The argument was based on the fact that they were paying reduced fees, regardless of whether they were supposed to be.
8. The Respondent argued that the voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 was not applicable. Their reasoning was that while Pulte and Vistoso Highlands were paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so “pursuant to Section 8.3” because the time limit for that provision had long expired.
9. The Judge concluded that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were entitled to vote in the election. The reasoning was that the prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to reduced assessments paid as authorized by Section 8.3; since the authorization period had passed, the prohibition no longer applied, even if they were improperly paying a lower rate.
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. After the order was served, the parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the source material to construct a thorough and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3” from Article VII, Section 7.3.1. Explain how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome and discuss the distinction made between paying a reduced assessment and paying a reduced assessment under the authority of Section 8.3.
2. Describe the timeline of property ownership and assessment obligations for both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte. Explain how the failure to adhere to the timeline for ending reduced assessments created the central conflict in this dispute.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Who held the burden, what was the standard required (preponderance of the evidence), and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden?
4. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments from Vistoso Highlands and Pulte was a “financial concern for the association as a whole.” Elaborate on the potential implications of this financial issue for the Vistoso Community Association, even though it did not affect the outcome of the election dispute.
5. Outline the procedural history of the case, starting from the filing of the petition. Include key dates, the entities involved (Petitioner, Respondent, Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings), the legal representatives, and the final step available to the parties after the judge’s order.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms and Entities
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on disputes.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency with which the Petitioner filed the initial Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.
Article VII, Section 7.3.1
The section of the Vistoso Community Association Declaration that prohibits a Class A Member from voting on lots for which they are paying a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
Article VIII, Section 8.3
The section of the Declaration that permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment for a maximum of two years after purchasing a parcel from the Declarant.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Declarant
The original entity that owned the land before selling lots to Developer Owners like Vistoso Highlands and Pulte’s predecessor.
Developer Owner
An owner, such as Vistoso Highlands or Pulte, who obtained lots from the Declarant and was eligible for reduced assessments for a limited time under Section 8.3.
Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition
The formal document filed by Paul L. Moffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on September 25, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
The state office where the formal hearing for this case was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Paul L. Moffett.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side over the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Vistoso Community Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019014-REL
The Legal Loophole That Flipped an HOA Election on Its Head
For anyone living in a planned community, the thick binder of Homeowners Association (HOA) rules is a familiar reality. These documents govern everything from mailbox colors to lawn maintenance, and their dense language can be a source of constant confusion. But beyond the day-to-day frustrations lies a deeper legal truth: the precise wording of these documents is absolute. This principle, known in contract law as strict constructionism, holds that a text’s literal meaning must be followed, even if it leads to an outcome that seems unfair.
This is the story of a homeowner who believed he had uncovered a clear-cut violation during a critical HOA election. Developers who were underpaying their dues had cast hundreds of votes, seemingly in direct contravention of the community’s own governing documents. But when the case was adjudicated, the outcome hinged on a single phrase, providing a textbook example of how strict constructionism can create a mind-bending loophole and turn a seemingly open-and-shut case completely upside down.
The Rule Seemed Simple: Pay a Discount, You Don’t Get a Vote
The petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, filed a formal complaint against the Vistoso Community Association, alleging a violation of a specific clause in the governing documents: “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes.” His case was built on what appeared to be a straightforward set of rules designed to ensure fairness.
The community’s governing documents contained two key sections:
• Article VIII, Section 8.3: This rule allowed “Developer Owners” who purchased property from the original Declarant to pay a reduced assessment. However, this discount was explicitly limited to a maximum of two years.
• Article VII, Section 7.3.1: This rule stated that any member paying a reduced assessment pursuant to Section 8.3 was not entitled to vote with respect to those properties.
On the surface, the logic was simple and equitable: if you aren’t paying your full share as authorized by the rules, you don’t get a say in the community’s governance.
The Smoking Gun: Developers Were Underpaying for Years
The petitioner presented evidence that seemed to prove his case conclusively. Two developers, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, owned a combined 207 lots. According to the two-year limit, their eligibility for reduced assessments should have ended long ago.
• Vistoso Highlands’ reduced assessment period should have terminated on March 20, 2009.
• Pulte’s predecessor’s reduced assessment period should have terminated on October 14, 2016.
However, at the time of the Board of Directors election on March 29, 2019, both developers were still paying the discounted rate—years after their eligibility had expired. Making matters worse, the evidence showed that in the days preceding the election, the property management staff had actively reached out to both developers to obtain their votes. They cast all 207 of them, which appeared to be a direct violation of the rule prohibiting voting by members paying reduced fees.
The Twist: A Single Phrase Created a Mind-Bending Loophole
This is where the case took a sharp, unexpected turn. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the case did not focus on the fact that the developers were underpaying, but on the precise legal language connecting the two rules. The dispositive element of the case was the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3.”
The ALJ noted that, “for whatever reason,” the developers had been underpaying for years. However, she reasoned that because the two-year time limit for reduced payments under Section 8.3 had long since expired, the developers were no longer paying their reduced fees “pursuant to Section 8.3.” They were, in fact, simply underpaying their dues improperly and in violation of the documents.
In essence, the developers’ long-term violation of the payment rule served as their shield against the voting penalty. By breaking the rule governing their assessment amount, they had inadvertently immunized themselves from the rule governing voting rights. The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to members who were correctly paying a reduced assessment as authorized by Section 8.3. Since their discount was no longer authorized, the voting ban no longer applied.
The ALJ summarized this stunning conclusion in the final decision:
Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.
The Verdict: A Financial Problem Doesn’t Invalidate a Vote
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and all 207 votes cast by the developers were deemed valid. The ALJ acknowledged that the developers’ failure to pay their full assessments was a serious financial issue for the association but clarified that it was a separate matter from their right to vote.
The ALJ effectively severed the financial issue from the question of voting eligibility. This separation of issues is a fundamental tenet of legal analysis, preventing one breach of contract (underpaying dues) from automatically triggering penalties associated with a completely different clause (voting rights).
While the failure to be invoiced and to pay a full assessment on the 207 parcels at issue is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole, that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.
This highlights a critical aspect of legal interpretation: issues that seem causally linked in a common-sense way can be treated as entirely distinct under a strict reading of the law.
Conclusion: The Devil is Always in the Details
This case serves as a powerful reminder that in the world of legal documents, every single word matters. It is a perfect demonstration of strict constructionism, where an outcome that seems to defy logic and fairness can be perfectly valid based on the literal, unambiguous phrasing of a rule. What appeared to be a clear prohibition on voting was undone by a loophole created by the developers’ own long-term failure to comply with assessment rules.
The outcome forces us to confront a difficult question at the heart of our legal system: When the literal interpretation of a contract conflicts with our sense of fairness, which should prevail? This case provides a clear, if unsettling, answer.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Paul L Moffett(petitioner) Appeared at hearing and testified on his own behalf
Richard M. Rollman(petitioner attorney) Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Alyssa Leverette(legal staff) Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C. Listed below Petitioner's attorney on service list
Respondent Side
Jason E. Smith(respondent attorney) CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
Kimberly Rubly(witness) Vice President of Southern Region (testified for Respondent)
Sean K. Moynihan(respondent attorney) CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC Recipient of Order
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Order
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Order
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Order
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Order
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Order
Other Participants
Sarah Nelson(board member (elected)) Vistoso Community Association Recipient of votes in disputed election
Patrick Straney(board member (elected)) Vistoso Community Association Recipient of votes in disputed election
Dennis Ottley(board member (elected)) Vistoso Community Association Recipient of votes in disputed election
