Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 27, 2021 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Charles P Mandela	Counsel	—
Respondent	Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
CC&R Article X
CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)

Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.

Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

The Sun Groves Homeowners Association v. David L & Makenzie Lockhart

Posted on February 10, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed as the Respondents stipulated they violated the CC&R Article 10.11.1 concerning parking, and were ordered to pay the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fees.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Sun Groves Homeowners Association	Counsel	Robert H. Willis, Esq.
Respondent	David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart	Counsel	Andrew Ellis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed as the Respondents stipulated they violated the CC&R Article 10.11.1 concerning parking, and were ordered to pay the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fees.

Why this result: Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of parking restrictions

Respondents stipulated that they were in violation of the SGHA CC&R’s regarding parking restrictions.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondents assessed the cost of Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Stipulation, CC&R Violation, Parking

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120019-REL Decision – 854057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:30:59 (84.7 KB)

21F-H2120019-REL Decision – 854057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:42 (84.7 KB)

The administrative legal case hearing, *The Sun Groves Homeowners Association (SGHA) v. David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart*, was held on February 9, 2021, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The proceeding was overseen by Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Jurisdiction

The Petitioner, Sun Groves Homeowners Association, is a planned community organization. Respondents, David L. and Stephanie J. Lockhart, are homeowners and members of SGHA. The case was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), which, along with the OAH, is authorized by A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) to hear petitions regarding violations of planned community documents.

Main Issue and Legal Points

SGHA filed a complaint alleging that the Lockharts were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s. This specific article restricts the parking of private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks, requiring them to be parked within a garage, in a private driveway, or in Board-designated areas. The most critical legal point of the hearing was that the Respondents stipulated (agreed) that they were in violation of Article 10.11.1 of the CC&R’s. The Respondents also stipulated that SGHA was the prevailing party in the matter.

Final Decision and Outcome

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the tribunal issued a Conclusion of Law finding that the Respondents had violated Article 10.11.1 of the SGHA CC&R’s. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioners’ petition. As the prevailing party, SGHA was awarded costs, and the Lockharts were ordered to pay Petitioner’s filing fees in the amount of $500.00. The Order became binding unless a request for rehearing was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Appeals
Deadlines
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2120019-REL
Case Title: The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart
Decision Date: 2021-02-10
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA restrict parking on the street or in front of my house?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs specifically restrict parking to garages or driveways.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ upheld a CC&R provision that prohibited parking private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks anywhere on the property or adjacent roadways, except within a garage or private driveway.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 10.11.1

Topic Tags

Parking
CC&Rs
Restrictions

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Topic Tags

Jurisdiction
ADRE
Process

Question

Is the Administrative Law Judge's decision final?

Short Answer

Yes, the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Detailed Answer

The decision issued by the ALJ is legally binding on both the homeowner and the HOA unless a request for a rehearing is successfully granted.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Topic Tags

Legal Status
Appeals
Binding Order

Question

How much time do I have to appeal or request a rehearing?

Short Answer

You must file a request for rehearing within 30 days of the service of the order.

Detailed Answer

If a party wishes to challenge the decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

Appeals
Deadlines
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2120019-REL
Case Title: The Sun Groves Homeowners Association vs. David L & Makenzie Lockhart
Decision Date: 2021-02-10
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert H. Willis (attorney)
Burdman Willis, PLLC

Respondent Side

David L. Lockhart (respondent)
Stephanie J. Lockhart (respondent)
Proper co-Respondent in this matter
Makenzie Lockhart (listed respondent)
Respondent’s daughter
Andrew Ellis (attorney)

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Erik R. Pierce v. Sierra Morado Community Association

Posted on February 9, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020053-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-02-10
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	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.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Erik R. Pierce	Counsel	James C. Frisch
Respondent	Sierra Morado Community Association	Counsel	Nicholas C.S. Nogami and Heather M. Hampstead

Alleged Violations

Article 11, Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

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 2026-04-26T09:52:48 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:52:51 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:52:54 (119.9 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850237.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:29 (43.0 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 850239.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:31 (7.1 KB)

20F-H2020053-REL Decision – 853778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:32 (119.9 KB)

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: 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.

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
c. serrano (clerk)
Signed document transmission

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on August 17, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020059-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael J. Stoltenberg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:27 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T10:34:33 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 855028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:32 (139.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:36 (124.1 KB)

20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.

The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Personnel

Name/Entity

Affiliation / Title

Petitioner

Michael J. Stoltenberg

Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ

Respondent

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

Respondent Counsel

Nicole Payne, Esq.

Legal Representative

Respondent Witness

Diana Crites

Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)

Respondent Witness

Rian Baas

Owner, Mowtown Landscape (HOA Landscaping Contractor)

Presiding Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Case Details

Details

Initial Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL

Initial Hearing

August 3, 2020

Initial Decision

August 17, 2020

Rehearing Case No.

20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Rehearing

February 2, 2021

Rehearing Decision

February 12, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:

• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”

• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:

◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.

◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.

◦ Staining of walking paths.

◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.

• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.

• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.

• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.

• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.

• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:

◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.

◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”

◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.

• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).

• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.

• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.

• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.

Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)

After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”

• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.

• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”

• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:

◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”

◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.

◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”

• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

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

2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?

3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?

4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?

5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?

6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?

8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?

10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.

3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.

4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.

5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”

6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.

7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.

8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.

9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.

1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.

2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?

3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?

4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?

5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.

Concierge Landscape Services

A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Xeriscape

A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.