Case Summary
| Case ID | 13F-H1314009-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2014-05-16 |
| Administrative Law Judge | M. Douglas |
| Outcome | The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Krystine P. Strike | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Las Torres Homeowners Association | Counsel | Mark K. Sahl, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1221, A.R.S. § 33-1218
Outcome Summary
The Respondent (HOA) was deemed the prevailing party and the matter was dismissed. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's claim regarding the unauthorized concrete slab in the common area was barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the slab had been in existence since 1998 and the Petitioner had owned her unit since 2007, filing the petition in 2013.
Why this result: Statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) expired.
Key Issues & Findings
Unauthorized alteration of common area
Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by allowing a neighbor to maintain and use a concrete slab in the common area as a private patio without proper consent or authorization.
Orders: The matter is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf
13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf
13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 394719.pdf
13F-H1314009-BFS Decision – 399395.pdf
Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association: Administrative Law Judge Decision and Analysis
Executive Summary
This briefing document summarizes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the matter of Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314009-BFS). The dispute centered on a concrete slab constructed in a common area at Las Torres, a homeowners' association in Carefree, Arizona. Petitioner Krystine P. Strike alleged that the association violated state statutes by allowing a neighbor to use the common area as a private patio, thereby infringing on her privacy rights and improperly altering common elements.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the concrete slab was indeed located in a common area, it had been in existence since 1998—long before the Petitioner purchased her unit in 2007. Ultimately, the ALJ ruled that the Petitioner’s claims were time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The matter was dismissed on May 16, 2014, and the decision was certified as final on June 24, 2014.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Classification of Common Elements
A primary point of contention in the case was the legal classification of the concrete slab and the land it occupied. The Petitioner argued that the association violated statutes regarding the reallocation of common elements.
- General Common Element vs. Limited Common Element: The Respondent (Las Torres) argued that the area was a "General Common Element" as defined in the Association's Declaration. This distinction is critical because A.R.S. § 33-1218 primarily concerns "Limited Common Elements"—areas assigned for the exclusive use of one or more (but fewer than all) units.
- Use and Exclusivity: The Association maintained that the neighbor in unit 604 did not have exclusive rights to the area. Testimony revealed that the Association had repeatedly ordered the owner of unit 604 to remove furniture from the slab when not in use, reinforcing that the area remained common property rather than a private patio.
2. Statutory Violations and Jurisdiction
The Petitioner alleged violations of two specific Arizona Revised Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 33-1218: Regarding the allocation and alteration of limited common elements.
- A.R.S. § 33-1221: Regarding improvements or alterations to units and the requirement for written permission to change the appearance of common elements.
The Association countered that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked the jurisdiction to grant the specific relief requested by the Petitioner—the restoration of the common area to its unaltered state. Such a request constitutes injunctive relief, which the Association argued was outside the Department’s statutory authority under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02.
3. Statute of Limitations and the "Code of Conduct"
The most significant legal hurdle for the Petitioner was the timing of the filing. Under A.R.S. § 12-541, actions regarding liabilities created by statute must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.
- Accrual of Action: The ALJ found that the slab existed when the Petitioner moved in (2007), but she did not file her petition until 2013, approximately six years later.
- Board Member Restrictions: The Petitioner attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations by testifying that her former role on the Board of Directors and a signed "Code of Conduct" prevented her from filing unilateral actions against the Association. She resigned in April 2013 and filed shortly thereafter. However, the ALJ did not find this argument sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
4. Historical Precedent and Documentation
The case highlighted the challenges of HOA governance over long periods.
- Legacy Construction: The slab was built in 1998 by previous owners of units 603 and 604 with "tacit approval" from the Association and inspection by the City of Carefree.
- Record Keeping: Testimony from Board member Pamela A. Dixon revealed that the Association had purged old records from the 1990s, meaning there was no formal written record of the original Board's approval for the slab.
Important Quotes with Context
Petitioner’s Allegation
"The association (Las Torres) has allowed an owner to alter the common area between units by placing a concrete slab, filling it with furniture, and using as her patio… The HOA did [not] consider my privacy rights. I want the common area restored to its unaltered state."
— Krystine P. Strike, Petition for Hearing
Context: This quote establishes the core of the Petitioner's complaint: that the HOA's failure to enforce common area boundaries resulted in a private encroachment that affected her property rights and privacy.
Respondent’s Defense
"The area at issue is not a limited common element. The common area between Petitioner’s unit and her neighbor’s unit is simply a General Common Element… Petitioner’s neighbor does not have exclusive use to this area."
— Las Torres Homeowners Association, Answer to Petition
Context: This forms the basis of the HOA's legal defense, arguing that the statutes cited by the Petitioner regarding "limited common elements" were inapplicable because the area remained open to the general community.
Administrative Law Judge’s Finding
"Because Ms. Strike’s petition was not filed within one year of the accrual of Ms. Strike’s cause of action, it is time-barred."
— M. Douglas, Administrative Law Judge
Context: This was the dispositive conclusion of the case. Regardless of the merits of the encroachment claim, the delay in filing (six years after purchasing the unit) invalidated the legal standing of the petition.
Actionable Insights
Based on the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, the following insights are relevant for homeowners and associations:
| Category | Insight |
|---|---|
| Timeliness of Claims | Potential litigants must file complaints within one year of discovering a statutory violation. Waiting several years, even for reasons of professional conduct (such as being a Board member), likely results in the claim being time-barred. |
| Common Area Enforcement | Associations should maintain clear distinctions between General Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. Allowing furniture or personal property to remain in general common areas can create the appearance of a private patio, leading to disputes between neighbors. |
| Record Retention | The lack of records from the 1990s complicated the Association's ability to prove formal approval. HOAs should maintain permanent records of any permanent structural changes or approvals involving common elements to prevent future litigation. |
| Notice of Violation | The Association’s practice of issuing multiple, documented violation letters (e.g., Nov 2013, Jan 2014, Feb 2014, April 2014) served as evidence that they were actively attempting to manage the use of the common area, even if the structure itself was permanent. |
| Jurisdictional Awareness | Parties should be aware that administrative hearings through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have specific jurisdictional limits. Requests for injunctive relief, such as the physical removal of a concrete structure, may require a different legal venue. |
Study Guide: Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal case Krystine P. Strike v. Las Torres Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314009-BFS). It examines the legal disputes regarding common area encroachments, the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) governing condominiums, and the application of statutes of limitations in administrative hearings.
I. Case Overview and Key Concepts
Background of the Dispute
The case centers on a dispute within the Las Torres Homeowners Association in Carefree, Arizona. Krystine P. Strike (Petitioner) alleged that the association allowed the owner of an adjacent unit (Unit 604) to improperly use a concrete slab in a common area as a private patio.
The concrete slab in question was constructed in 1998 by a previous owner who owned both units 603 and 604. It was built with the tacit approval of the HOA and inspected by the City of Carefree. Ms. Strike purchased Unit 603 in 2007, nine years after the slab was installed.
Primary Legal Allegations
The Petitioner alleged violations of two specific Arizona statutes:
- A.R.S. § 33-1218: Governing the allocation and alteration of limited common elements.
- A.R.S. § 33-1221: Governing improvements and alterations to units and the appearance of common elements.
The Petitioner sought the restoration of the common area to its "unaltered state," effectively requesting the removal of the concrete slab.
Defense and Findings
The Respondent (Las Torres HOA) argued that:
- The statutes cited were inapplicable because the area was a General Common Element, not a Limited Common Element.
- The neighbor did not have exclusive use of the area.
- The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (ordering the removal of the slab).
- The claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
Final Ruling
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the matter. The primary reason for dismissal was the Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541), as the Petitioner waited approximately six years after moving into her unit to file the petition, exceeding the one-year legal limit for actions based on a liability created by statute.
II. Referenced Provisions of Law
The following table outlines the statutes central to the proceedings:
| Statute | Core Provision |
|---|---|
| A.R.S. § 12-541 | Establishes a one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a liability created by statute. |
| A.R.S. § 33-1218 | Mandates that the allocation of limited common elements (patios, balconies, etc.) cannot be altered without the consent of affected unit owners. |
| A.R.S. § 33-1221 | Prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without written permission from the association. |
| A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 | Permits homeowners to file petitions with the Department regarding violations of community documents or statutes. |
| A.A.C. R2-19-119 | Establishes that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the claim, using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. |
III. Short-Answer Practice Questions
- Who originally constructed the concrete slab at the center of the dispute, and when?
- Answer: The previous owners of Units 603 and 604 constructed the slab in 1998.
- What was the Respondent’s primary argument regarding the classification of the common area?
- Answer: The Respondent argued the area was a "General Common Element" rather than a "Limited Common Element," meaning no specific owner had exclusive use or a specific allocation to it under A.R.S. § 33-1218.
- Why did Ms. Strike argue that the statute of limitations should not apply to her?
- Answer: She claimed that as a former member of the Board of Directors, she had signed a Code of Conduct that prevented her from filing unilateral actions against the association while serving.
- How did the ALJ define "Preponderion of the Evidence"?
- Answer: It is the standard of proof where the finder of fact is persuaded that a proposition is "more likely true than not."
- What action did the HOA take regarding the neighbor's use of the slab in 2013 and 2014?
- Answer: The HOA issued four letters (November 2013, January 2014, February 2014, and April 2014) asking the owner of Unit 604 to remove her patio furniture from the common area when not in use.
- What was the final outcome of the ALJ's Recommended Order?
- Answer: The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party, and the matter was dismissed.
IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- The Impact of the Statute of Limitations: Analyze the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the case based on A.R.S. § 12-541. Discuss why the law imposes a one-year limit on statutory claims and how the timeline of Ms. Strike’s residency (2007–2013) influenced the "accrual" of the cause of action.
- General vs. Limited Common Elements: Compare and contrast "General Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" based on the arguments presented in the case. How does the classification of an area change the legal requirements for consent and allocation under A.R.S. § 33-1218?
- Administrative Jurisdiction and Relief: The Respondent argued that the Department lacked jurisdiction to grant the "injunctive relief" requested by the Petitioner (restoring the area to its unaltered state). Discuss the limitations of administrative hearings compared to superior courts regarding the power to order the physical removal of structures.
V. Glossary of Important Terms
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing and issues findings of fact and recommended orders.
- A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
- Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden was on the Petitioner.
- Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final administrative decision of an agency (e.g., the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety) if no other action is taken within a specific timeframe.
- Common Element: Portions of a condominium or planned community owned by all members or the association, rather than an individual unit owner.
- General Common Element: An area within the association that is not assigned to a specific unit and is available for use by all, as defined by the association's Declaration.
- Injunctive Relief: A legal remedy that requires a party to do, or refrain from doing, a specific act (such as removing a concrete slab).
- Limited Common Element: Portions of the common elements allocated by the declaration for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the units (e.g., specific patios or balconies).
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof used in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.
- Statute of Limitations: A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
The Concrete Slab Conflict: Lessons in HOA Law and Statute of Limitations
Introduction: The Common Area Conundrum
In the complex landscape of community association governance, the boundary between individual property enjoyment and collective regulatory authority is frequently a flashpoint for litigation. Disputes often emerge when long-standing physical modifications—tolerated for years—clash with modern interpretations of a declaration’s restrictive covenants. The case of Krystine P. Strike vs. Las Torres Homeowners Association serves as a definitive case study in the risks of delayed legal action. At the center of the conflict was an unapproved concrete slab in a general common area, a modification that persisted for fifteen years before triggering an administrative showdown that ultimately hinged more on timing than on the merits of the construction itself.
Case Background: The 15-Year Timeline
The history of this dispute demonstrates how historical "tacit approval" can complicate modern enforcement. The timeline of the concrete slab is as follows:
- 1998: The previous owners of Units 603 and 604 constructed a concrete slab in the common area to join their existing patios. This was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the Association.
- November 18, 1998: The City of Carefree, Arizona, inspected and approved the construction (validated via Respondent’s Exhibit 5, the City’s Inspection Card).
- 2007: Petitioner Krystine Strike purchased Unit 603, nine years after the slab’s installation.
- June 2012: The owner of Unit 604 petitioned to enlarge the slab. The Board denied this expansion, asserting that the area was a General Common Element and not the private property of the owner.
- November 2013: Ms. Strike filed a formal petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, seeking the removal of the slab and restoration of the area to its original state.
General vs. Limited Common Elements: The Legal Friction
The legal dispute focused on the classification of the land under Arizona law. The Association successfully argued that the area was a "General Common Element" rather than a "Limited Common Element," meaning no single owner held exclusive rights to it—a distinction that shaped the Board's enforcement strategy.
| Legal Point | Petitioner's (Ms. Strike) Allegation | Respondent's (Las Torres HOA) Defense |
|---|---|---|
| A.R.S. § 33-1218 | The HOA allowed an owner to reallocate common area without the consent of affected owners. | This statute applies only to Limited Common Elements. The area is a General Common Element. |
| A.R.S. § 33-1221 | The neighbor altered the appearance of common elements without proper written permission. | The Association’s Declaration (Article IV) controls the use of General Common Elements. |
| Injunctive Relief | Petitioner requested the common area be "restored to its unaltered state." | The Department lacks jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02 to grant the injunctive relief (removal) requested. |
The "Statute of Limitations" Factor
The dismissal of the case hinged on the threshold issue of timeliness. Under A.R.S. § 12-541, actions based upon a liability created by statute must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that because the slab existed and was visible when Ms. Strike purchased her unit in 2007, her 2013 filing was six years overdue. Notably, the ALJ rejected the Petitioner's argument that the "Code of Conduct" she signed as a Board member—which she claimed prevented her from filing unilateral actions—effectively paused or "tolled" the statute of limitations. The ruling clarified that Board service or personal agreements do not excuse a failure to meet statutory deadlines; the claim was officially "time-barred."
HOA Enforcement and Board Responsibility
The record reveals a Board caught between the "tacit approval" granted by their 1990s predecessors and the need to curb current owner overreach. While the Association allowed the slab to remain, they actively challenged the neighbor’s attempt to claim it as private space.
Evidence of the Board’s consistent enforcement included four violation letters sent to the owner of Unit 604 demanding the removal of personal furniture from the common area:
- November 1, 2013
- January 7, 2014
- February 20, 2014
- April 21, 2014
Board members Pamela A. Dixon and Marc Vasquez testified that these actions were officially authorized. However, the Association faced significant evidentiary hurdles because records from the 1990s had been purged, leaving the Board to rely on municipal records like the City of Carefree’s 1998 inspection card to verify the slab’s history.
Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards
The Strike decision provides critical lessons for managing community property and legal disputes:
- Know Your Deadlines: In Arizona, the one-year statute of limitations is a strict barrier. If you identify a statutory violation, legal action must be initiated promptly; delays based on Board service or internal politics will not save a late claim.
- Due Diligence is Essential: Buyers must inspect common areas for modifications before closing. A modification that receives "tacit approval" from a previous Board can become a permanent fixture that a future Board cannot—or will not—remove.
- Record Keeping is a Fiduciary Duty: The purging of 1990s records nearly left the HOA without a defense. Boards must maintain permanent records of architectural approvals and common area modifications to protect the association from future litigation.
- General Common Elements are Not Private: The placement of furniture does not grant exclusive rights. Boards must be vigilant in ensuring that "General" areas remain open to all and do not gradually morph into "Limited" elements through owner encroachment.
Conclusion: Final Decision and Order
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove her case within the legally mandated timeframe. The Respondent, Las Torres Homeowners Association, was designated the prevailing party, and the matter was dismissed. This case serves as a stark reminder that in community association law, the merits of a dispute are secondary to the requirement of timely legal action.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Krystine P. Strike (petitioner)
Unit 603 Owner
Appeared on her own behalf; former Board member
Respondent Side
- Mark K. Sahl (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Attorney for Las Torres Homeowners Association - Pamela A. Dixon (witness)
Las Torres Homeowners Association
Board Member - Marc Vasquez (witness)
Las Torres Homeowners Association
Testified regarding Board meetings and violation letters
Neutral Parties
- M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge - Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on transmission of decision - Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision - Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma - Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the certification