Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
| Case ID |
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2019-05-10 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Tammy L. Eigenheer |
| Outcome |
loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$0.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
John A Sellers |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Rancho Madera Condominium Association |
Counsel |
Edward D. O'Brien, Edith I. Rudder |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by establishing that the Respondent HOA violated its CC&Rs. The governing documents grant the HOA the right, but not the obligation, to enforce maintenance duties specifically assigned to Unit Owners concerning the drainage easement.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA was found to have a right to enforce maintenance of the drainage easement, but not a mandatory obligation to do so under the terms of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to enforce unit owner maintenance obligations regarding stormwater drainage easement
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to enforce unit owner responsibility to keep the stormwater drainage area free of obstructions like vegetation and fencing materials, potentially causing a risk of flooding to his unit.
Orders: The petition was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs assign Unit Owners the responsibility to clear the drainage area and grant the HOA the right, but not an obligation, to enforce this maintenance.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Drainage Easement, Enforcement Obligation, Condominium Unit Owner
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
- Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Decision Documents
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG Decision – 706533.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:29 (42.2 KB)
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG Decision – 707530.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:29 (111.5 KB)
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918010-REL/667122.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:43 (50.0 KB)
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918010-REL/678371.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:45 (129.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Dispute Analysis: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of a dispute between homeowner John A. Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was Mr. Sellers’ allegation that the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, thereby creating a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.
The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in a process that included an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding decision. In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge ruled against the Petitioner.
The initial decision, issued in December 2018, concluded that Mr. Sellers failed to provide sufficient evidence that the materials in the channel actually impeded water flow or posed an unreasonable flood risk. The ruling highlighted that the channel had functioned as intended since 2012 without any flooding incidents. Following a rehearing in April 2019, the second and final decision in May 2019 reinforced this conclusion. It further clarified a crucial distinction in the CC&Rs: while the Association possesses the right to enforce maintenance rules upon homeowners, the governing documents do not impose an explicit obligation to do so proactively before any damage has occurred. The responsibility for maintaining the drainage area rests with the individual unit owners, and the Association’s primary duty is to repair damages after the fact, billing the responsible owner. The petition was ultimately dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This case documents a formal complaint filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, which was resolved through the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918010-REL
• Petitioner: John A. Sellers, owner of Unit 12 in Rancho Madera
• Respondent: Rancho Madera Condominium Association, a 46-unit development in Cave Creek, Arizona.
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Key Chronology of Events
Aug 23, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Oct 23, 2018
An OAH order vacates the initial hearing after the Petitioner indicates a wish to withdraw the petition.
Nov 5, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing convenes, indicating the withdrawal was rescinded.
Dec 12, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing concludes.
Dec 26, 2018
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky issues a decision denying the petition.
Feb 1, 2019
Petitioner files a Rehearing Request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Feb 22, 2019
The Commissioner grants the Rehearing Request.
Apr 15, 2019
The rehearing convenes and concludes before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
May 7, 2019
OAH issues an order striking a supplemental, post-hearing filing by the Petitioner from the record.
May 10, 2019
Judge Eigenheer issues a final Administrative Law Judge Decision, again dismissing the petition.
——————————————————————————–
II. Petitioner’s Core Allegation
Mr. Sellers’ petition was based on a single issue: the alleged violation of Section 3.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs.
• The Violation: The Petitioner claimed the Association failed in its duty to require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions from a shared stormwater channel.
• The Obstructions: The materials of concern included “large succulents, shrubs, and cacti” growing in the drainage area’s rip-rap, as well as chicken wire that at least one owner had installed to contain a pet.
• The Perceived Risk: Mr. Sellers testified that these items “could catch storm debris and cause the drainage channel to become clogged,” leading to a risk of flooding for his Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains and flooding in other parts of Cave Creek as evidence of the potential danger.
• Financial Impact Claim: The Petitioner was undergoing a contentious divorce, and Unit 12, as a community asset, was for sale under a court order. He asserted that the unresolved drainage issue and his required disclosure of the dispute had reduced the unit’s market price by $40,000.
——————————————————————————–
III. Respondent’s Position and Actions
The Rancho Madera Condominium Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, denied any violation of the CC&Rs and presented a multi-faceted defense.
• Lack of Historical Precedent: Mr. Kaplan, an owner since 2012, testified that water had never entered the property from the east, and Unit 12 had never sustained any damage from flooding. This held true even during a “100-year storm in 2014.” After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the drainage easement and “did not see any water in it.”
• Origin of Vegetation: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that was shown in the Petitioner’s photographic evidence.
• Proactive Communication: To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Board instructed its management company to act. Letters were sent to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the easement free of obstructions.
• Jurisdictional Confirmation: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials from the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek. Both agencies confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain map, and therefore, the Association was “solely responsible” for its maintenance and enforcement.
• Contradictory Evidence: The Association submitted a June 22, 2018 email from the Petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly contradicted the Petitioner’s claims. She wrote, “There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing.” She also referred to his claims as “nonsense.”
——————————————————————————–
IV. Analysis of Governing CC&Rs
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific sections of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The judges in both hearings analyzed these sections to determine the respective duties of the homeowners and the Association.
Section
Provision Summary
Key Language
Establishes a perpetual “Drainage Easement” over the eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18 for stormwater conveyance.
“…for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, repairing and replacing a drainage channel…”
3.10.2
Assigns the primary maintenance duty to the individual unit owners within the easement area.
“Each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit shall keep his Drainage Easement Area Free of weeds and other debris so that the stormwater can flow freely… No Improvement… shall be… allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water…”
3.10.4
Defines the Association’s role in the event of damage resulting from a unit owner’s failure to maintain the easement.
“If the failure of one Unit Owner to maintain his Drainage Easement Area… results in damage… the Association shall repair or replace such damage… and the cost… shall be paid by the Unit Owner that caused the damage…”
13.1.1
Grants the Association the power to enforce the CC&Rs.
“The Association shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants…”
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge Decisions and Rationale
The Petitioner’s case was heard twice and denied both times, with the second decision providing a definitive interpretation of the Association’s duties under the CC&Rs.
Initial Decision (December 26, 2018)
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• Rationale: The judge found a critical failure in the Petitioner’s evidence. While he successfully “established that there are some plants and chicken wire in the stormwater drainage canal,” he “did not establish that the plants or chicken wire impede the flow of water.” The Respondent, in contrast, successfully established that the channel had always “functioned as intended” and that “Unit 12 has never flooded.” The judge concluded there was “no unreasonable risk that Unit 12 will flood.”
• Order: The petition was denied.
Rehearing and Final Decision (May 10, 2019)
• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer
• Context: The rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities and legal errors in the first hearing.
• Petitioner’s Refined Argument: During the rehearing, the Petitioner argued that the Association’s right to enforce the CC&Rs (under Section 13.1.1) becomes an obligation when safety and property values are affected.
• Conclusion: The petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The final decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. The judge determined that the documents create a clear hierarchy of responsibility:
1. Unit Owners: Bear the primary responsibility for keeping the easement clear (Section 3.10.2).
2. The Association: Has a responsibility to act only after damage occurs due to an owner’s failure, at which point it must repair the damage and bill the responsible owner (Section 3.10.4).
• Final Legal Interpretation: The judge concluded, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.” The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner could not prove the Association had violated any actual obligation laid out in the governing documents. This decision was issued as final and binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL, Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal proceedings between Petitioner John A. Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. It is designed to assess comprehension of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source documents.
1. What was the central allegation John A. Sellers filed against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association on August 23, 2018?
2. Identify the specific sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that were central to the dispute.
3. Who is responsible for maintaining the Drainage Easement Area according to CC&R § 3.10.2?
4. What actions did the Association’s management company take in response to the Petitioner’s concerns?
5. What was the testimony of Jeffrey Kaplan, the Association’s President, regarding the history of flooding at Rancho Madera?
6. Why did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
7. What was the procedural outcome of Petitioner Sellers’ attempt to submit supplemental arguments after the April 15, 2019, rehearing?
8. How did Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer distinguish between a “right to enforce” and an “obligation to enforce” in her final decision?
9. What evidence did the Petitioner present to support his claim that the drainage channel was at risk of clogging?
10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision dated May 10, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner John A. Sellers alleged that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically § 3.10, by failing to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel. Sellers claimed this failure created a risk of flooding for his unit.
2. The central CC&R sections were § 3.10, which establishes the stormwater drainage easement; § 3.10.2, which outlines the maintenance responsibilities of Unit Owners; § 3.10.4, which details the Association’s role in repairing damages; and § 13.1.1, which grants the Association the right to enforce the CC&Rs.
3. According to CC&R § 3.10.2, each individual Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit is responsible for keeping their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The text explicitly states that no improvements, including plants, should be allowed that might impede the flow of water.
4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018. These letters reminded the owners of their responsibility to keep the easement area clear of obstructions and debris.
5. Jeffrey Kaplan testified that he bought one of the first units in 2012 and that water has never entered Rancho Madera from the east. He specifically noted that no flooding occurred even during the 100-year storm in 2014, and that after a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he inspected the easement and saw no water in it.
6. The Commissioner granted the Rehearing Request “for the reasons outlined in the Petitioners’ Rehearing Request.” The request itself alleged irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
7. After the rehearing concluded, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument. The Respondent argued this filing was untimely, and Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer ordered the filing to be stricken from the record and closed the record on May 7, 2019.
8. Judge Eigenheer’s decision concluded that while the Association has the right to enforce the CC&Rs under § 13.1.1, nothing in the documents creates an obligation for it to proactively do so regarding maintenance. The only obligation specified is to repair damage after it occurs, with the cost being billed to the responsible unit owner.
9. The Petitioner provided photographs showing large succulents, shrubs, and cacti growing in the rip rap of the Drainage Easement Area. He also showed at least one instance where chicken wire had been placed across the channel to contain a pet, testifying that these items could catch storm debris and cause a clog.
10. The final ruling, issued on May 10, 2019, was that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed essay responses to the following prompts, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents to support your analysis.
1. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 19F-H1918010-REL from the initial petition to the final order. Detail the key dates, presiding judges, significant filings, and the outcome of each stage of the proceedings.
2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judges in both the initial decision (December 26, 2018) and the rehearing decision (May 10, 2019). Compare and contrast their interpretations of the CC&Rs and the standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”
3. Evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner, John A. Sellers, and the Respondent, represented by Jeffrey Kaplan. What were the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case as detailed in the hearing summaries?
4. Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Unit Owners versus the Condominium Association as defined by CC&R Sections 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, and 13.1.1. How did the interpretation of these sections ultimately determine the outcome of the case?
5. Examine the external factors mentioned in the hearings, such as the Petitioner’s divorce, the market value of his unit, and communications with the Maricopa County Flood Control District. How did the Administrative Law Judge address these issues and determine their relevance (or irrelevance) to the central legal question?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the initial hearing and Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over the rehearing.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for the Rancho Madera condominium development.
Common Elements
Areas within the condominium development designed for common use, such as areas for stormwater conveyance mentioned in the CC&Rs.
Drainage Easement Area
The eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18, over which a perpetual non-exclusive drainage easement was created for the purpose of stormwater drainage.
Drainage Improvements
The drainage channel constructed within the Drainage Easement Area, which may consist of decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner is John A. Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent is the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of a property. The CC&Rs in this case are a form of restrictive covenant.
Unit Owner
An individual who owns a condominium unit within the development and is a member of the owners’ association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.
The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War
Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.
This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.
A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.
1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm
The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”
But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”
The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.
2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”
After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.
Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”
The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.
“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”
This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.
3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow
Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.
The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.
“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”
In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.
4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard
Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.
Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.
The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.
A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner
What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.
It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- John A Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
- Edward D. O'Brien (respondent attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
- Edith I. Rudder (respondent attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
- Jeffrey Kaplan (board president/witness)
Rancho Madera Condominium Association
President of Respondent, testified
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
ALJ for initial proceedings
- Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
ALJ for rehearing proceedings
- Judy Lowe (commissioner (ADRE))
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official orders
- AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official orders
- djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official orders
- DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official orders
- ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official orders
- c. serrano (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmittal/filing clerk
- F. Del Sol (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Transmittal/filing clerk
Other Participants
- Debborah Sellers (witness/spouse)
Petitioner's wife, testimony via email submitted by Respondent
