Case Summary
| Case ID | 12F-H1213013-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | Office of Administrative Hearings |
| Decision Date | 2013-04-15 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Brian Brendan Tully |
| Outcome | The ALJ dismissed the petition. The Petitioners failed to establish that they complied with the certified mail requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1803(C), which meant the HOA was not liable for a violation of § 33-1803(D). Additionally, the evidence showed Petitioners violated the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1221(2) by altering common elements without written permission. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Edward J. McConnell and Judith S. McConnell | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
Outcome Summary
The ALJ dismissed the petition. The Petitioners failed to establish that they complied with the certified mail requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1803(C), which meant the HOA was not liable for a violation of § 33-1803(D). Additionally, the evidence showed Petitioners violated the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1221(2) by altering common elements without written permission.
Why this result: Failure to satisfy burden of proof regarding certified mail service; confirmation of unauthorized alteration of common elements.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide statutory response to violation notice
Petitioners alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) by delaying the denial of their shade structure request and failing to provide required information. The dispute arose after Petitioners installed a shade structure on common elements without prior written approval.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(C)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
- A.R.S. § 33-1221(2)
- A.R.S. § 33-1252
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
12F-H1213013-BFS Decision – 334072.pdf
12F-H1213013-BFS Decision – 339518.pdf
12F-H1213013-BFS Decision – 334072.pdf
12F-H1213013-BFS Decision – 339518.pdf
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: McConnell v. Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between homeowners Edward J. and Judith S. McConnell (Petitioners) and the Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group (Respondent), an unincorporated condominium association in Sun City, Arizona. The central conflict arose from the Petitioners’ unauthorized installation of an Alumawood™ shade structure on common elements following the trimming of a Palo Verde tree that previously provided shade to their unit.
Following an evidentiary hearing held on March 26, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Brendan Tully determined that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Petitioners violated association rules and state statutes by erecting a structure on common elements without written board approval or the required 80% membership conveyance. Conversely, the Petitioners' claims of statutory violations by the Board were dismissed due to procedural failures on the part of the Petitioners. On May 21, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative action.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Compliance with Governing Documents and Architectural Control
The core of the dispute involves the interpretation of Rules & Regulations, Article 2.04 and CC&Rs Paragraph 11. These provisions strictly mandate that no exterior additions or alterations to buildings or structures may be commenced until plans are submitted to and approved in writing by the Board of Management.
- The Petitioners' Argument: They contended that since the Board’s initial response on September 17, 2012, "neither approved nor denied" their request, the subsequent installation was not a clear violation.
- The Legal Finding: The ALJ concluded that the absence of an explicit denial does not constitute a "de facto" approval. Because written approval was never granted, the installation of the shade structure on October 24, 2012, was a direct violation of Section 2.04.
2. Jurisdiction over Common Elements
A critical factor in the ruling was the location of the shade structure. The evidence established that the structure was erected outside the condominium unit in the "common elements."
- Defining Common Elements: Under Paragraph 10 of the CC&Rs, common elements include land not specifically conveyed with individual units, trees, and pavements. In this case, common elements extended from the exterior of the units to the sidewalk.
- Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1252 & § 33-1221): Arizona law prohibits members from changing the appearance of common elements without written permission. Furthermore, erecting a permanent structure on common elements requires a conveyance of that portion of the elements by at least 80% of the association's members. The Petitioners did not seek or obtain this conveyance.
3. Procedural Technicalities and Statutory Interpretation
The Petitioners alleged that the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) by failing to provide a timely and detailed response to their inquiries.
- The Certified Mail Requirement: Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(C) and (D), the association's obligation to provide a detailed written explanation (including the specific rule violated and the observer of the violation) is triggered only after the member sends a response to a violation notice via certified mail.
- The Ruling: Because the Petitioners failed to prove they sent their November 18, 2012, response by certified mail, the Board was not legally held to the ten-day response requirement or the specific disclosure mandates of the statute.
4. Administrative Outcomes and Limitations
While the Petitioners lost their case, the Board was also denied its request for an order requiring the immediate removal of the structure.
- Reasoning: The ALJ noted that the Respondent (the Board) had not filed its own petition with the Department seeking removal. The hearing was limited to the issues raised in the Petitioners’ filing; therefore, the ALJ lacked the authority to grant the Board affirmative relief for removal in this specific proceeding.
Important Quotes with Context
| Quote | Context |
|---|---|
| "The response letter we received from the board dated September 17, 2012 neither denied nor approved our request." | Petitioners' Argument: Used to justify proceeding with construction despite the lack of formal written permission. |
| "Respondent’s Board expressed its 'misgivings regarding the . . . proposal for an Alumawood™ shade structure . . .' and requested that Petitioners 'explore other options less obtrusive.'" | Board's Initial Response: Evidence that the Board did not grant approval and explicitly asked the owners to seek alternatives. |
| "No building shall be constructed on any part of the common elements." | CC&Rs Paragraph 10: The foundational restriction that prohibited the Petitioners from placing a structure on the land surrounding their unit. |
| "Since Petitioners did not establish that their response had been sent to Respondent by certified mail, it is concluded that Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)." | Legal Conclusion: Highlights the impact of procedural strictness in Arizona homeowners association law. |
Actionable Insights
For Homeowners
- Verification of Property Boundaries: Homeowners must explicitly confirm where their individual unit ends and "common elements" begin before planning any exterior improvements.
- Written Approval is Non-Negotiable: Under standard HOA/Condominium CC&Rs, the absence of a "no" is not a "yes." Construction should never commence without an affirmative written approval from the Board or Architectural Committee.
- Strict Statutory Adherence: When disputing a violation notice, homeowners must use certified mail as required by A.R.S. § 33-1803 to preserve their rights and trigger the association's statutory obligations.
For Association Boards
- Clear Communication: While "expressing misgivings" was sufficient to show non-approval in this case, explicit denials coupled with references to specific rules (like Section 2.04) provide stronger protection against claims of ambiguity.
- Filing Cross-Petitions: If an association wants an administrative order to compel a homeowner to take action (like removing a structure), it must file its own petition or cross-petition rather than simply requesting it in an answering brief.
- Common Element Protection: Boards must be aware that any conveyance of common elements for private use (like a permanent shade structure) typically requires a high threshold of membership approval (80% in this jurisdiction).
Procedural History
- Petition Filed: December 20, 2012
- Hearing Date: March 26, 2013
- ALJ Decision Transmitted: April 15, 2013
- Final Certification: May 21, 2013 (Certified by Cliff J. Vanell, Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, after the Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety took no action to modify the decision).
Study Guide: McConnell v. Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Edward J. and Judith S. McConnell and the Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group. It explores the legal complexities of homeowner association (HOA) governance, architectural control, and the statutory requirements governing disputes within a condominium association.
Key Case Overview
The case centers on a dispute regarding the unauthorized installation of a shade structure in the common elements of a 24-unit condominium association in Sun City, Arizona.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Petitioners | Edward J. and Judith S. McConnell |
| Respondent | Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group (Unincorporated Association) |
| Case Number | 12F-H1213013-BFS |
| Presiding Judge | Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully |
| Primary Issue | Alleged violation of Rules and Regulations Article 2.04 regarding architectural approval. |
Core Themes and Legal Principles
1. Architectural Control and Approval Processes
The governing documents of the association, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Rules and Regulations, mandate that no exterior additions or alterations can be made without prior written approval from the Board of Management.
- Article 2.04: Requires plans and specifications (nature, shape, height, location, and cost) to be submitted and approved in writing before construction begins.
- CC&R Paragraph 11: Emphasizes that design and location must be in "conformity and harmony" with existing structures.
2. Common Elements vs. Individual Units
The definition and use of "common elements" are central to this dispute.
- Definition: Land not specifically conveyed with individual units, including trees, pavements, streets, and utility lines. It also includes the exterior of condominium units up to the sidewalk.
- Restriction: No buildings shall be constructed on any part of the common elements.
- Conveyance: Under A.R.S. § 33-1252(A), a portion of the common elements cannot be conveyed or subjected to a security interest without the agreement of at least 80% of the association members.
3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards
In administrative hearings of this nature, the petitioner bears the burden of proof.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard used to determine if a contention is "more probably true than not."
- A.R.S. § 33-1221(2): Explicitly prohibits members from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without written permission.
4. Statutory Notification Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1803)
The case highlights specific procedural requirements for communications between members and associations regarding violations:
- A member must send a written response to a violation notice via certified mail within ten business days.
- The association must then respond within ten business days of receiving that certified mail with specific information, including the person who observed the violation and the process to contest the notice.
Short-Answer Practice Questions
- What event prompted the Petitioners to request a shade structure?
The trimming of a Palo Verde tree in the common elements that previously provided shade to the Petitioners’ kitchen and breakfast room.
- On what date did the Petitioners install the shade structure?
October 24, 2012.
- What was the Board’s initial response to the Petitioners’ September 12 request?
A letter dated September 17, 2012, expressing "misgivings" and requesting that the Petitioners explore less obtrusive options.
- According to the ALJ, why did the Respondent not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)?
Because the Petitioners failed to prove they sent their response to the Board's violation notice via certified mail, which is a statutory prerequisite for triggering the association's response requirements.
- What percentage of association members must approve the conveyance of common elements?
At least 80%.
- Why was the Respondent’s request to have the shade structure removed denied by the ALJ?
The Respondent had not filed its own petition with the Department seeking an order for removal; the hearing was limited to the single issue raised by the Petitioners.
- What was the final outcome of the Petition?
The Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal of the petition because the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof.
Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- The Ambiguity of Informal Communication: Analyze the Petitioners' claim that the Board's September 17 letter was neither a denial nor an approval. Discuss how the lack of a formal "Yes" or "No" contributed to the escalation of the conflict and the legal implications of proceeding with construction during a period of perceived ambiguity.
- Common Elements and Property Rights: Explore the definition of "common elements" provided in the CC&Rs. Contrast the individual homeowner's right to property enjoyment (e.g., seeking shade) with the collective ownership rights of the 24-unit association. How does A.R.S. § 33-1252 protect the collective interest?
- Procedural Compliance in HOA Disputes: Evaluate the importance of A.R.S. § 33-1803(C) and (D). Why does the law mandate specific methods of communication (like certified mail)? Discuss how a failure to adhere to these procedural "technicalities" can determine the outcome of a legal dispute regardless of the underlying facts.
Glossary of Important Terms
- Alumawood™: A specific brand or type of material used for shade structures, characterized in this case as an exterior addition.
- Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The legal documents that lay out the rules for a real estate development and the responsibilities of the homeowners' association.
- Common Elements: Areas of a condominium project intended for the use and enjoyment of all owners, rather than being owned by a single individual unit owner.
- Conveyance: The legal process of transferring property or rights from one party to another.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard of proof that is met when the evidence shows that the fact sought to be proved is more likely than not.
- Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group).
- Unincorporated Association: A group of individuals who act together for a common purpose without a formal corporate charter, such as the condominium group in this case.
- Violation Notice: A formal communication from an HOA Board informing a member that a condition of their property violates the community documents.
The Shade Structure Saga: Lessons in HOA Compliance and Common Elements
Introduction: A Cautionary Tale of Condominium Living
In many Arizona communities, the desert sun makes shade a precious commodity. For Edward and Judith McConnell, residents of the Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group in Sun City, the quest for relief began when a Palo Verde tree in the common area—which previously shaded their kitchen and breakfast room—was trimmed back significantly due to unhealthy limbs. Seeking to reclaim their cool interior, the McConnells decided to install a permanent Alumawood™ shade structure.
What followed was a nearly year-long legal dispute (spanning August 2012 to May 2013) that reached the Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 12F-H1213013-BFS). This case serves as a high-stakes cautionary tale, illustrating the emotional and financial drain that occurs when homeowners bypass Governing Documents. For the McConnells, the conflict involved multiple filings with state agencies and a formal evidentiary hearing, all over a structure that lacked the one thing every HOA project requires: a formal "yes."
The Timeline of a Dispute
The conflict between the McConnells and their association provides a clear map of how compliance failures escalate into legal battles:
- August 2012: A common-area Palo Verde tree is trimmed, removing natural shade from the Petitioners' unit.
- September 12, 2012: The Petitioners submit a written request for an Alumawood™ shade structure. During this exchange, Board member Ronald Wayne McIntyre testified that Mr. McConnell stated they would build the structure "with or without the Board's approval."
- September 17, 2012: The Board responds in writing, expressing "misgivings" and asking the Petitioners to "explore other options less obtrusive."
- October 24, 2012: Despite the lack of approval, the Petitioners proceed with the installation.
- November 14, 2012: The Board issues a formal denial and orders the structure dismantled, citing a violation of Section 2.04 of the Rules and Regulations.
- November 18, 2012: The McConnells respond, doubling down by stating their choice was "the most attractive and the least obtrusive one," despite the formal denial.
The Critical Error: The Petitioners mistook a dialogue about "misgivings" for a green light. In an HOA, proceeding with construction without an explicit, written approval is a gamble that homeowners rarely win.
Understanding "Common Elements" and Rule 2.04
A central issue in this case was the physical location of the structure. The association established that the shade structure was erected within "common elements," a legal distinction that limits homeowner autonomy.
Under Paragraph 10 of the CC&Rs, "common elements" are defined specifically as:
"…including, but not limited to, land not otherwise specifically conveyed with individual units, community and commercial facilities, if any, swimming pools, pumps, trees, pavements, streets, pipes, wires, conduits and other public utility lines."
The legal hurdles for private construction on shared ground are nearly insurmountable:
- The 80% Rule (A.R.S. § 33-1252): Because the structure was built on common elements, it was legally considered a private use of shared property. Under Arizona law, this requires a conveyance approved by at least 80% of the association members. The McConnells failed to obtain this.
- Section 2.04 Requirements: The association's rules explicitly state that no exterior additions or alterations shall be commenced until plans showing the nature, height, and location are submitted to and approved in writing by the Board.
The Legal Turning Point: The "Certified Mail" Pivot
The McConnells’ legal strategy relied on holding the Board to the strict requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803(D). They argued the Board failed to respond within 10 business days and failed to provide specific information required by law, such as the observer’s name, the date of the violation, and the contest process (paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the statute).
However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the Petitioners' entire case collapsed on a single procedural technicality. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(C), a homeowner responding to a violation notice must send their response via certified mail.
The McConnells sent a response, but they did not use certified mail. Consequently, the Board was never legally triggered to provide the detailed response required by Section (D). This "Aha!" moment in court proved that "sending a letter" is not the same as fulfilling a statutory requirement.
Consultant's Rule: The Statute is Your Script In Arizona HOA law, your rights are often tied to specific delivery methods. If the law says "certified mail," an email or standard letter—no matter how well-written—is legally invisible. Follow the statute to the letter to preserve your right to a defense.
The Judge’s Decision and Final Certification
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The evidence was clear: they had built a permanent structure on common elements without written permission or an 80% member conveyance.
The "Recommended Order" contained a final lesson in procedural irony. While the Judge dismissed the McConnells' petition, he also denied the Board’s request to force the removal of the structure. Why? Because the Board had only filed an "Answer" to the complaint rather than filing their own formal cross-petition for removal. This serves as a reminder that everyone—both homeowners and Boards—is bound by the strict procedural rules of the court.
On May 21, 2013, Director Cliff J. Vanell of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the decision as the final administrative action, officially dismissing the case.
Key Takeaways for Homeowners
- Silence is Not Consent: A Board's "misgivings" or a delay in their response is never a substitute for a written approval letter.
- Know Your Boundaries: Understand that "common elements" often include everything from the exterior paint of your unit to the ground beneath your feet. Private use of shared land is a high legal bar.
- Technicalities Matter: In legal disputes, the method of delivery (certified mail) is just as important as the facts of the case.
- Written Approval is Mandatory: Never proceed based on verbal conversations. As the McIntyre testimony showed, a "willful violation" (building with or without approval) creates a difficult narrative to overcome in court.
Conclusion
The "Shade Structure Saga" highlights the delicate balance between individual comfort and collective governance. While the McConnells simply wanted to enjoy their kitchen without the glare of the sun, their decision to ignore the technical and procedural requirements of the CC&Rs led to an exhausting and ultimately unsuccessful legal journey. In a community association, following the process is not just a suggestion—it is a prerequisite for every nail, bolt, and beam.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Edward J. McConnell (Petitioner)
Member of Respondent association - Judith S. McConnell (Petitioner)
Member of Respondent association
Respondent Side
- Kenn MacIntosh (authorized representative)
Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group
Spelled 'Ken Macintosh' in mailing list - Ronald Wayne McIntyre (board member)
Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group
Received written request from Petitioners - Jan Mayfield (Secretary)
Dew Mutual Expense Sharing Group
Listed as 'Dew Condo Group Secretary' on mailing list
Neutral Parties
- Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision - Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety
Received copy of decision - Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma on mailing list