Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Posted on September 20, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-09-20
Administrative Law Judge	Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Lisa Marx	Counsel	—
Respondent	Tara Condominium Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248 (A), (D), (E), and (F); and Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the 'Records' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1258), resulting in a $500.00 filing fee reimbursement. Respondent prevailed on the 'Example 13' issue (A.R.S. § 33-1248 and CC&Rs § 9(E)).

Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain her burden regarding the Open Meeting Law allegations, finding that TARA conducted meetings in compliance and the specific volunteer work referenced was not statutorily or contractually required to be placed on an agenda for formal action.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Access Violation

TARA failed to timely provide access to TARA HOA records it possessed, violating the ten business day fulfillment requirement for examination requests.

Orders: TARA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Open Meeting Law Violation (Example 13)

Petitioner alleged open meeting violations concerning volunteer work and projects not placed on agendas or formally voted upon by the board (Example 13).

Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed as to alleged violations of A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), (D), (E), and (F) and/or Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(D)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(E)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(F)
Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Open Meeting Law, Partial Victory, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Condominium Association

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Tara CC&Rs Section 9(E)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212274.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:34 (70.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1212281.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:41 (12.4 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1216809.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:49 (50.9 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1225818.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:58 (168.1 KB)

24F-H054-REL Decision – 1226250.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:12:08 (41.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 24F-H054-REL

Briefing Document: Marx v. Tara Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative case Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association (No. 24F-H054-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The dispute centers on two primary allegations brought by homeowner and former board member Lisa Marx against the Tara Condominium Association (TARA): (1) violations of Arizona state law regarding access to association records, and (2) violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law.

The case culminated in a split decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). TARA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide timely access to its financial and other records as requested by the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to prove her second claim that TARA violated the open meeting provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1248 when board members and volunteers performed maintenance and repair projects on common areas without formal agenda items and board votes.

Consequently, the ALJ sustained the petition on the records violation and dismissed it on the open meeting violation. TARA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Marx $500, representing the filing fee for the single issue on which she prevailed. A subsequent request for rehearing filed by Ms. Marx was procedurally rejected for being submitted to the incorrect agency.

Case Background and Procedural History

Parties and Context

• Petitioner: Lisa Marx, a homeowner in the Tara Condominium Association and a former board member who served in various capacities, including Secretary, Chairperson, and Vice-Chairperson, from 2021 until her resignation in January 2024.

• Respondent: Tara Condominium Association (TARA), a 50-unit nonprofit management association, represented at the hearing by its Chairman, Mark Gottmann.

The dispute arose following a change in board leadership in early 2024, with Ms. Marx alleging the new board was operating without transparency and in violation of state statutes and the association’s governing documents.

Chronology of Key Events

Jan 2024

Lisa Marx resigns from the TARA board two weeks after being elected for a fourth term.

Feb 1, 2024

Mark Gottmann assumes the role of Chairman of the Board.

Feb–Apr 2024

Marx makes a series of five requests for association records, which are either partially or fully denied by the TARA board.

May 29, 2024

Marx files an HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging two categories of violations and paying a 1,000filingfee(500 per issue).

Aug 8, 2024

TARA files an Amended Response, admitting to several of the alleged violations, offering to reimburse Marx’s $1,000 filing fee, and requesting that the hearing be vacated.

Aug 8, 2024

Marx files a reply rejecting the offer, stating that the “numerous” issues required “a ruling that is binding and definite” to “hopefully prevent further violations.”

Aug 16, 2024

The ALJ issues an order requiring Marx to narrow her petition to two specific issues, categorizing the five records-request instances as one “records” issue and requiring her to select one of the thirteen alleged open-meeting violations.

Aug 19, 2024

Marx selects “Example 13” from her petition as her second issue.

Aug 29, 2024

An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.

Sep 20, 2024

The ALJ issues a final decision.

Sep 23, 2024

The ALJ issues a Minute Entry rejecting a request for rehearing filed by Marx, as it was sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings instead of the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Analysis of Disputed Issues and Testimony

The hearing focused on two central issues as narrowed by the ALJ’s order.

Issue 1: Access to Association Records (A.R.S. § 33-1258)

This issue consolidated five instances across multiple dates where Marx alleged she was improperly denied access to or provision of TARA’s records.

Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):

• Marx testified that she made multiple written requests for documents including vouchers, contracts, financial reports (General Ledger, AP Distribution), architectural change forms, and violation letters.

• The board’s responses were statutorily invalid. For example, a February 22, 2024 response stated: “A member of the Association is entitled to see reasonable financial information only. A member does not have a right to see contracts entered into by the Board nor information concerning specific members. We respectfully refuse your request…” Another denial was based on her being “no longer a board member.”

• Marx argued this refusal to provide records blocks transparency, creates distrust, and prevents homeowners from ensuring the governing documents are being enforced impartially. She asserted that all requested documents, such as financial records and contracts related to common areas, are records homeowners are entitled to examine.

Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):

• Mark Gottmann testified that the board was new and that any mistakes were made out of “enthusiasm” and a desire to better the community, not malicious intent.

• He stated the board acted on advice from outside sources, including a trade association, which led them to believe they were “over-providing” documents compared to their CC&Rs, which only mandate semi-annual financial statements.

• TARA experienced delays in receiving financial reports from its management company, Colby, after it was acquired by another entity, which in turn delayed distribution to homeowners.

• Gottmann argued that some requested documents did not exist (e.g., contracts for volunteer work), while others were justifiably withheld because they contained private information about individual homeowners (e.g., violation letters, architectural change forms).

Issue 2: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1248)

This issue centered on “Example 13” of the petition, which alleged the board undertook several projects without adhering to open meeting requirements.

Petitioner’s Position (Lisa Marx):

• Marx alleged that several projects were performed on common property without being included on a meeting agenda and without a formal vote by the board in an open meeting. These projects included:

◦ Board members spraying weeds.

◦ Board members digging up grass around trees and laying mulch.

◦ A board member refinishing wood shutters.

• She argued these actions violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and TARA’s own CC&Rs (Section 9(E)), which states, “A majority vote of the Managers shall entitle the Board to carry out action on behalf of the owners of the units.”

• The failure to discuss these items in an open meeting denied members the right to provide input before the board took action on community property.

Respondent’s Position (Tara Condominium Association):

• Gottmann characterized the projects as ongoing operational responsibilities and good-faith efforts by volunteers to save the association money.

• The weed spraying was described as an “experiment” at no cost to TARA. The mulching was done with donated materials in response to a homeowner’s suggestion. The shutter repair was done by volunteers for a nominal cost of less than $150 for materials, which was within the monthly maintenance budget.

• He argued these were not formal actions requiring a board vote but were undertaken with an “enthusiasm and desire to make our community a better place.” TARA’s CC&Rs (Section 12, Part D) grant the board the power “to use and expend the assessments collected to maintain, care for, and preserve the common elements.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on September 20, 2024, delivered a split verdict, finding for each party on one of the two core issues.

Finding on Records Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1258):

• Verdict: TARA violated the statute.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that TARA failed to provide access to records it possessed within the statutorily required ten-day timeframe. While TARA had a potential defense for delays related to its management company and a valid reason to withhold records containing personal information of other members, the overall evidence demonstrated a failure to comply with the law.

• Outcome: The petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Finding on Open Meeting Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1248):

• Verdict: TARA did not violate the statute.

• Reasoning: The ALJ found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The evidence showed that TARA conducted its formal meetings in compliance with open meeting laws, providing notice and agendas. The ALJ concluded there was “no evidence in the hearing record that… those work circumstances… were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board.”

• Outcome: The respondent was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.

Final Order

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued the following orders:

1. Petitioner’s Petition is sustained as to the TARA violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 (Records).

2. Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed as to the alleged violations by TARA of A.R.S. § 33-1248 (Open Meetings).

3. TARA is ordered to reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00, representing the filing fee for the single successful claim.

Study Guide – 24F-H054-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H054-REL”, “case_title”: “Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominium Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-09-20”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to provide financial records because they are waiting to receive them from their third-party management company?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is responsible for providing access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe, regardless of management company delays.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that waiting for a management company to provide monthly reports does not excuse the association from its statutory obligation to make records reasonably available within 10 business days. Even if the HOA acts in good faith while waiting for a vendor, failure to provide existing records violates the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA has a defense, although unsupported, regarding the time frame only as to the financial documents for which TARA was waiting from its management company. … Overall, as to A.R.S. § 33-1258, there is no evidence that, within the ten day time frame, TARA provided access to the TARA HOA records it did have and which were required to have been provided to Petitioner; therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “management company” ] }, { “question”: “Does a group of board members or volunteers doing unpaid maintenance work require an open meeting and a formal vote?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. If the work is volunteer-based and doesn’t require a specific contract or expenditure necessitating a vote under the CC&Rs or statutes, it may not trigger open meeting requirements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that volunteer work performed by board members (like weeding or painting) to save money did not constitute ‘formal action’ that required placement on an agenda or a formal vote in an open meeting, provided no statute or governing document specifically required it.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the hearing record that, prior to the volunteer work described in Example 13, that those work circumstances, or any projected volunteer work circumstances, were required by statute or the CC&Rs to be placed on a TARA agenda for discussion and/or for ‘formal action’ by the Board at the TARA monthly meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1248”, “topic_tags”: [ “open meetings”, “volunteer work”, “board authority” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA withhold violation letters or architectural change forms concerning other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if those documents contain personal information about specific members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that HOAs can refuse to provide records related to specific units, such as violation notices or contracts containing personal data, under the statutory exception for personal, health, or financial records of individual members.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4) provides an exception to the requirement to provide records for ‘personal, health or financial records of an individual member’ … In this case, because some of the requested ‘repair’ contract information for repairs at certain addresses may have contained personal information of another member, TARA was likely within its statutory authority to refuse to provide that particular information.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “privacy”, “violation letters”, “records request” ] }, { “question”: “Can the board deny my records request because I am no longer a board member?”, “short_answer”: “No. The right to examine records belongs to all members of the association.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the HOA in violation when it declined to provide information on the grounds that the requester was ‘no longer a Board member.’ The statute requires records be made available to ‘any member.'”, “alj_quote”: “TARA declined to provide such, stating that Petitioner was no longer a Board member. … TARA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding provision of access to TARA HOA records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “homeowner rights”, “records access”, “board membership” ] }, { “question”: “If I file a petition with two issues and only win one, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “You may receive a partial reimbursement. The tribunal may order the HOA to reimburse the portion of the fee related to the successful claim.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the petitioner paid 1,000fortwoissues(500 per issue). Since the petitioner prevailed on the records issue but failed on the open meeting issue, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse only $500.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that TARA reimburse Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. … The Administrative Law Judge concludes TARA is the prevailing party regarding the ‘Example 13’ issue and Petitioner bears the filing fee on this issue.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “dispute resolution”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Does being a ‘new board’ or ‘learning the ropes’ excuse the HOA from following state laws?”, “short_answer”: “No. Ignorance of the law or being a new board is not a valid defense for violating statutes.”, “detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued they were a new board acting in the best interest of the community and learning better governing practices. The ALJ acknowledged this explanation but still ruled that the failure to provide records was a violation of state statute.”, “alj_quote”: “TARA explained that the Board was a new Board and, believing it was acting in the Board’s best interest, was in the process of learning the procedures for better governing practices. … the Administrative Law Judge concludes that TARA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1258”, “topic_tags”: [ “board duties”, “legal compliance”, “defenses” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 24F-H054-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lisa Marx (petitioner)
Tara Condominium Association (Homeowner)
Also former HOA Secretary, Vice-Chairperson, and Chairperson.
Brenda Spielder (observer)
Tara Condominium Association (Member)
Attended hearing with Petitioner.
Cynthia Poland (observer)
Tara Condominium Association (Member)
Attended hearing with Petitioner.

Respondent Side

Mark Gottmann (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Chairman of the Board; represented Tara at the hearing.
Chandler W. Travis (HOA attorney)
Travis Law Firm PLC
Counsel for Tara Condominium Association until August 27, 2024.
Stephanie Bushart (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Tina Marie Shepherd (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Resigned as Chairperson on January 31, 2024.
Dennis Anderson (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Involved in volunteer work (weed spraying, trench digging, shutter refinishing).
Judy Rice (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Treasurer and CPA.
Ted (board member)
Tara Condominium Association
Involved in volunteer trench work.
Nikki (volunteer)
Tara Condominium Association
Involved in volunteer shutter repair.

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Renee Snow (volunteer)
Tara Condominium Association
Volunteered for landscaping committee.

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on September 6, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	M&T Properties LLC	Counsel	Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent	Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association	Counsel	David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FXJWGa1ZgJsdQCw7AE6RR

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:47 (87.5 KB)

evidence
burden of proof
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title: M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date: 2022-09-06
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fixes a violation after I file a formal complaint, do I still win the case?

Short Answer

Yes. If the violation existed at the time the petition was filed, the homeowner can still prevail.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Admission of violation at time of filing

Topic Tags

procedure
mootness
remedies

Question

Can I bring up new issues during the hearing that I forgot to include in my written petition?

Short Answer

No. The hearing is strictly limited to the issues specifically raised in the original petition.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Scope of hearing

Topic Tags

procedure
due process
hearing scope

Question

Is the HOA Board allowed to use 'we didn't know' as a defense for violating the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No. Ignorance of the CC&R requirements is not a valid defense against a violation finding.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Board asserted they were unaware of the requirement to hire a professional manager. The ALJ noted this assertion but still found them in violation of the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Strict liability for CC&R compliance

Topic Tags

board defenses
compliance
fiduciary duty

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if the HOA admits they were wrong?

Short Answer

Yes. If the homeowner prevails on the issue, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner its $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

fees
reimbursement
costs

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a penalty if they are found guilty of a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ has the discretion to decide whether a civil penalty is appropriate based on the facts.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is proven, the judge may choose not to impose a civil penalty (fine) against the HOA, potentially if the HOA has already taken steps to correct the issue.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Judicial discretion on penalties

Topic Tags

penalties
fines
enforcement

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must show that their claim is 'more probable than not' based on the evidence provided. This is the standard burden of proof in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

evidence
burden of proof
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title: M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date: 2022-09-06
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lucas Thomas (Petitioner Representative)
M&T Properties LLC
Owner, appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Respondent Side

David Rivandi (Board Member/Respondent Representative)
Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Director, appeared on behalf of Respondent. Confirmed being on the board of directors.

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
Also referred to as Tammy Idier, Administrative Law Judge.
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
Transmitted the order.

Roberta J Stevenson-McDemott v. Four Palms Homeowners

Posted on July 8, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222033-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-07-08
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott	Counsel	—
Respondent	Four Palms Homeowners	Counsel	Araceli Rodriguez

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Financial and Other Records

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:19 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:21 (99.3 KB)

burden of proof
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title: Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date: 2022-07-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

records request
procedural requirements

Question

Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?

Short Answer

No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.

Detailed Answer

While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

homeowner rights
limitations

Question

What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?

Short Answer

Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
evidence

Question

Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.

Detailed Answer

The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

fees
copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)

Topic Tags

privacy
exemptions

Question

How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

Detailed Answer

The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

timelines
deadlines

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title: Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date: 2022-07-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott (petitioner)
Sean Embry (owner/witness)
Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Lenor Embry (owner/witness)
Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Philip Smith (owner/witness)
Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
c. serrano (clerical staff)
Transmitted document for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Araceli Rodriguez (HOA attorney)
Yuma Law Firm (inferred)
Represented Four Palms Homeowners Association
Faye Burson (board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Vice President and witness (also listed as FA Buren)
Mario Salinas (board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Treasurer and witness (also listed as Mario Selenus)
Gilbert Sto (board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
President
Lesie Blessing (board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Vice President (2016 board) and Secretary (current board)
Gail Hall (board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Fifth member
Linia Ohn (former board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Received payments in 2018 (also listed as Lenia own)
Scott Hoser (former board member)
Four Palms Homeowners HOA
Fifth member (2016 board)

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
ADRE
Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
ADRE
Transmitted decision

Other Participants

Lisa Bon (former board member/owner)
Secretary (2016 board); provided letter of support to Petitioner

Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association

Posted on September 8, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121059-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-09-08
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jeffrey D Points	Counsel	—
Respondent	Olive 66 Condominium Association	Counsel	MacKenzie Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 because evidence of improper notice was lacking and the topic discussed in executive session was likely covered by a statutory exemption.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Records

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide certain requested 2021 invoices that were in existence at the time of the request within the statutory 10-day period.

Orders: Respondent must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward. Petitioner reimbursed $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Open Board Meetings

Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the March 25, 2021, board meeting, as the issue regarding notice was not established and the topic discussed (Landscaping Bid Review) likely fell under a statutory exemption.

Orders: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium association, document request, open meeting, executive session, invoices, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:43 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:48 (117.7 KB)

Jurisdiction
Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title: Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date: 2021-09-08
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

Records Request
Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

Records Request
Invoices
Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

Open Meetings
Executive Session
Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

Penalties
Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

Remedies
Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

Evidence
Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

Jurisdiction
Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title: Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date: 2021-09-08
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jeffrey D Points (petitioner)
Appeared on their own behalf

Respondent Side

MacKenzie Hill (respondent attorney)
The Brown Law Group, PLLC
Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
Cathy Hacker (association manager)
Olive 66 Condominium Association
Provided testimony as Association Manager,
Musa (individual/contractor)
Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices; referred to as 'Musa', and 'M. Sayegh'
Lorinda Brown (individual/contractor)
Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Tim (individual)
Mentioned regarding 1099s/invoices; reportedly 'has not done any work on the property',

Sellers, John A. v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association

Posted on August 26, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919066-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-08-26
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John A Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Madera Condominium Association	Counsel	Edward D. O'Brien

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The Association provided available records, and the remaining requested items either did not exist or were properly withheld under statutory exceptions for privileged communications and pending litigation.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested documents existed or were improperly withheld. The Respondent successfully demonstrated that it had provided all non-privileged records in its possession and that specific meeting minutes and emails did not exist.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Provide Records

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide records requested on April 29, 2019, specifically emails regarding specific individuals, legal invoices, executive session minutes, and communications regarding a petition signing.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Decision Documents

19F-H1919066-REL Decision – 733561.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:35:50 (99.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association**
**Case No:** 19F-H1919066-REL
**Date of Decision:** August 26, 2019
**Administrative Law Judge:** Antara Nath Rivera

**Overview**
This case involved an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioner John Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to timely provide records requested on April 29, 2019.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner requested four specific categories of records:
1. Communications between the Association’s legal counsel (Carpenter Hazelwood), agents, and the Petitioner’s ex-wife.
2. Unredacted legal invoices for the current petition.
3. Records of Executive Sessions and minutes regarding the retention of counsel.
4. Communications and notices regarding alleged meetings where residents signed a petition against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 29, 2019, claiming the bulk of his request was denied.

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute. However, he testified that he received documents responsive to the legal invoices (Item #2) on August 2, 2019, and was satisfied with that compliance. Regarding Items #1 and #4, the Petitioner testified that he "strongly believed" the emails existed and opined that meetings must have occurred to gather 21 resident signatures, despite the Respondent claiming otherwise.

Jeff Kaplan, President of the Respondent Association, testified that the Association had provided all documents in its possession that were not subject to statutory exceptions. His specific defenses were:
* **Items #1 and #4:** These records did not exist. Kaplan testified that no official meetings occurred on the dates alleged; rather, residents individually signed a petition because they were unhappy with the Petitioner.
* **Item #2:** Redacted invoices were provided to protect attorney-client privilege.
* **Item #3:** Redacted executive session minutes were provided, asserting that full disclosure is not required under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge placed the burden of proof on the Petitioner to demonstrate a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge dismissed the petition based on the following conclusions:

* **Non-Existence of Records:** For Items #1 and #4, the Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove the documents actually existed at the time of the request. The Judge noted that questions regarding whether the Association *should* have maintained such records under a retention policy were irrelevant to the specific statutory violation alleged.
* **Statutory Exceptions:** For Item #3, the Judge found no violation, noting the records fell under the exceptions outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B), which allows withholding records related to pending litigation or privileged communication.
* **Compliance:** The Petitioner acknowledged compliance regarding Item #2.

**Outcome**
The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1258, finding that the Association provided access to reviewable documents and even provided records beyond the scope of the request. The Petition was **dismissed**.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John A. Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; member of the Association
Margaret SwanTKO (member)
Listed in consolidated records request with John Sellers

Respondent Side

Jeff Kaplan (board president)
Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Testified on behalf of Respondent
Ed O’Brien (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Listed on distribution list

Neutral Parties

Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on distribution list

Other Participants

Mrs. D. Sellers (unknown)
Mentioned in records request regarding communications

Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on October 3, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818044-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michelle Ruffo	Counsel	—
Respondent	Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.

Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:18 (270.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818044-REL

Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.

The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.

The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.

Case Background

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation / Key Details

Petitioner

Michelle Ruffo

Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.

Respondent

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.

The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.

Adjudicator

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Witnesses

Carol Lundberg

Testified for the Petitioner.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo

Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.

Core Dispute

The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.

• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.

• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.

• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.

• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.

• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.

• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.

• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.

• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.

• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.

• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.

• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.

• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.

• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.

• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)

Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.

• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.

• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.

• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.

• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.

• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Position (The Association)

The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.

• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.

• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.

• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.

• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.

• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.

• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Relevance

Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”

The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.

§ 2.8.3

Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.

The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.

§ 13.1

Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).

§ 1.36

“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.

Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”

Key Legal Conclusions

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.

• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.

• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.

• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.

• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.

Financial Implications

The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.

• March 30, 2017: $50.00

• June 6, 2017: $200.00

• June 26, 2017: $200.00

• August 9, 2017: $200.00

• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00

• October 17, 2017: $100.00

• November 6, 2017: $100.00

As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.

Study Guide – 18F-H1818044-REL

Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?

2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?

3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?

4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?

6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.

7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?

8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?

9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.

10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.

2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.

3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.

4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.

5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.

6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.

7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.

8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.

9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.

10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.

1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.

2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?

3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.

4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?

5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.

Associa Property Management Services

The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.

Gabino Trejo

The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.

Limited Common Elements

As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.

Mark F. Williman, Esq.

An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.

Michelle Ruffo

The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.

Parking Space

As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)

The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.

Violation Enforcement Policy

The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.

Blog Post – 18F-H1818044-REL

How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons

Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune

It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?

The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.

1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless

The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.

The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.

• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.

• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.

Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:

Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.

2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines

This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.

The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.

The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.

3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer

After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.

Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.

4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense

A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.

While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.

Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It

This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.

This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michelle Ruffo (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf.
Carol Lundberg (witness)
Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
Julie Ruiz (witness)
Unit 53 Tenant
Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
Mark F. Williman (attorney)
Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
Eric J. Thomae (attorney)
Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
Brown Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (property manager)
Associa Property Management Services
Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
Gabino Trejo (property manager)
Associa Property Management Services
Current manager.
John Pohlig (unit owner)
Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
Jonathan Olcott (HOA attorney)
Mitch Treese (HOA president)
Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically.

Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on October 3, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818044-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michelle Ruffo	Counsel	—
Respondent	Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1803
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-349
CC&R § 4.7
CC&R § 2.8.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:52 (270.9 KB)