Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.
Topics: HOA records request, A.R.S. 33-1258, Rehearing, Civil Penalty, Possession of Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020064-REL Decision – 823263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:33 (108.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL
Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The case, No. 20F-H2020064-REL, culminated in a reversal of an initial ruling, finding the Respondent in violation of Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1258 for failing to provide association records within the statutory timeframe.
The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, resulted in a denial of the petition. The Respondent successfully argued that it could not produce the requested documents because they were not in its possession, largely due to a dispute with a former management company. However, a rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered new evidence.
The rehearing on March 4, 2021, established that the Respondent, through its management company Associa Arizona, was in possession of key requested documents—specifically bank statements and signed contracts—at the time of the initial request. Evidence revealed the bank statements were held at a central corporate office in Texas and were not retrieved, while signed contracts had not been forwarded to the management company by board members. The Administrative Law Judge found this directly contradicted the Respondent’s initial defense.
As a result, the Administrative Law Judge reversed the earlier decision, ordering the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and imposing a $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case underscores an association’s responsibility to produce all records in its possession, regardless of physical location within the corporate structure, and affirms the court’s authority to levy penalties for violations.
——————————————————————————–
1. Case Overview
• Case Number: 20F-H2020064-REL
• Petitioner: Nancy L. Babington
• Respondent: Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
• Core Allegation: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, which mandates that a condominium owners’ association must make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.
• Hearings Conducted:
◦ Initial Hearing: August 28, 2020
◦ Rehearing: March 4, 2021
• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer
2. Chronology of the Dispute
The dispute originated from difficulties following a change in the Respondent’s management company and subsequent records requests by the Petitioner.
• June-July 2019: The previous management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminated its agreement with the Respondent. A “financial disagreement” led to CMC withholding records, complicating the transition.
• Post-July 2019: Respondent hired Associa Arizona as its new management company. Associa and the Respondent’s counsel attempted to obtain the withheld records from CMC.
• April 29, 2020: After previous attempts to get information, Petitioner Nancy L. Babington sent a formal email to Associa and the Respondent’s Board of Directors. In the email, she stated:
• May 1, 2020: Linda Parker, Director of Client Services with Associa, replied, stating the request was not specific and asked the Petitioner to identify the exact records needed.
• May 1, 2020: The Petitioner responded with a detailed list of nine specific items:
1. All bank statements with copies of cancelled checks since Sept 1, 2019.
2. Any and all financial statements since Sept 1, 2019.
3. Any and all 1099s issued for 2019.
4. Any and all Executive Session meeting minutes conducted in 2020 (excluding statutory exemptions).
5. Any and all contracts signed in 2020.
6. Any and all outstanding invoices with a due date over 45 days.
7. Any documentation regarding the legality of the $204.75 maintenance fee.
8. Any proof of Stephen Silberschlag’s liability insurance.
9. Any landscaping plans.
• May 4, 2020: Ms. Parker from Associa responded that the company could only provide records within its possession.
• May 15, 2020: Following another email from the Petitioner, Ms. Parker stated that Associa had scheduled a meeting with the board on May 20 to discuss the request further.
• May 28, 2020: Having not received any of the requested documents, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
3. The Initial Hearing and Decision (August – September 2020)
The first hearing focused on whether the Respondent had violated the statute by failing to produce the documents.
• The Respondent argued that it was unable to provide documents that were not in its possession.
• Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that issues with the former management company (CMC) meant neither the Respondent nor Associa had possession of many necessary documents.
• Specifically, he stated that without previous financial documents and starting balances from CMC, the association was unable to create current financial statements.
• The Respondent maintained it was under no statutory obligation to create documents to fulfill the Petitioner’s request.
• The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
• The finding was based on the Respondent’s argument that it did not possess the requested documents at the time of the request.
• On September 17, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.
4. The Rehearing and Reversal (March 2021)
Following the initial decision, the case was reopened based on new evidence presented by the Petitioner.
• After the September 2020 decision, the Respondent provided some of the requested documents to the Petitioner.
• Upon reviewing these documents, the Petitioner realized that the Respondent had, in fact, been in possession of several key records prior to her May 1, 2020 request.
• She filed a Rehearing Request with the Department of Real Estate, citing “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” The request was granted.
The rehearing revealed crucial details about the location and accessibility of the requested records.
Record Type
Petitioner’s Evidence
Respondent’s Testimony/Explanation
Bank Statements
The documents received post-hearing showed that bank statements had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019.
Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that statements for all HOAs were sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. She admitted she did not contact the Texas office to obtain the statements for the Petitioner’s request. Counsel for the Respondent conceded the statements in Texas were in the possession of Associa.
Contracts
Petitioner presented two contracts signed by Board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, prior to her request.
Ms. Shanley admitted the two signed contracts existed but stated that the Board of Directors members had not provided them to Associa.
1099 Forms
Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s.
Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.
• The documents were not in the “immediate possession” of the local Associa office.
• The matter was now moot because the Petitioner had received all requested documents.
• A civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.
• The evidence presented at the rehearing was “directly contradictory” to the representations made by the Respondent at the initial hearing.
• The Petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide documents (bank statements and contracts) that were in its possession.
• The ALJ rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a penalty for established violations, and “nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”
5. Final Order and Penalties
The Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 24, 2021, reversed the initial finding and imposed penalties on the Respondent.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within 30 days.
2. Respondent must pay to the Department of Real Estate a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500.00 within 30 days.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL
Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Nancy L. Babington and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, a separate answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms and entities involved in the proceedings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the Petitioner’s central allegation?
2. What specific Arizona statute was the Respondent accused of violating, and what does this law generally require?
3. What was the Respondent’s main defense during the initial hearing on August 28, 2020, for not providing the requested records?
4. What was the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge in the first decision, issued on September 17, 2020?
5. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully file for a rehearing of her case?
6. What new evidence regarding bank statements was presented by the Petitioner at the March 4, 2021, rehearing?
7. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the bank statements and signed contracts in response to the initial request?
8. What was the final outcome of the rehearing, and how did it contradict the initial decision?
9. What two financial penalties were imposed upon the Respondent in the final order of March 24, 2021?
10. What was the Respondent’s argument against the imposition of a civil penalty, and why did the Administrative Law Judge reject it?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Nancy L. Babington, a property owner, and Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, a condominium owners association. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to provide association records she formally requested, in violation of Arizona law.
2. The Respondent was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member and to provide copies of requested records within ten business days.
3. During the initial hearing, the Respondent’s main defense was that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. The Respondent claimed its former management company, CMC, was withholding records and that without starting balances, it could not create new financial documents.
4. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition in the first decision. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute because the Respondent did not possess the documents and was not required to create them.
5. The Petitioner was granted a rehearing based on the discovery of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the first decision, the Respondent provided documents that proved it had, in fact, been in possession of some of the requested records prior to her request.
6. At the rehearing, the Petitioner testified that after receiving the documents, she realized bank statements had been sent to Associa’s central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. This demonstrated that the records were in the management company’s possession when she made her request.
7. Associa’s representative testified that bank statements went to a central office in Texas and were not forwarded to the local office because financial packets could not be prepared without starting balances from the previous management company. Regarding the contracts, Associa claimed that the Board of Directors members who signed them had not provided the contracts to Associa.
8. The final outcome of the rehearing was a ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The judge found that evidence presented at the rehearing directly contradicted the Respondent’s earlier claims, establishing that the Respondent did possess bank statements and contracts and had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).
9. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
10. The Respondent argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the box on the petition form. The judge rejected this, stating that the plain language of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 allows the judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and this authority is not limited by the remedies requested by a petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for analytical and in-depth responses. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the concept of “possession” of records as it evolved from the first hearing to the second. How did the Respondent’s initial interpretation of “immediate possession” differ from the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the records held by Associa’s Texas office?
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain specifically how the Petitioner failed to meet this standard in the first hearing but succeeded in the second, citing the key pieces of evidence that shifted the outcome.
3. Evaluate the role and responsibilities of the management company, Associa Arizona, in this dispute. To what extent were its internal procedures and actions (or inactions) the primary cause of the Respondent’s violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258?
4. Trace the timeline of communication between Nancy Babington and Associa Arizona from April 29, 2020, to May 15, 2020. Analyze how the responses from Associa may have contributed to the perception that the Respondent was refusing to provide information, ultimately leading to the petition being filed.
5. The Administrative Law Judge has the statutory authority to levy a civil penalty for each violation found. Based on the facts of this case, including the Respondent’s representations at the first hearing and the contradictory evidence presented at the second, construct an argument justifying the imposition of the $2,500 civil penalty.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
The Arizona Revised Statute cited as giving the Arizona Department of Real Estate jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a condominium owners association.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute at the core of the dispute. It requires that an association’s financial and other records be made “reasonably available” for examination and that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official from the Office of Administrative Hearings (Tammy L. Eigenheer in this case) responsible for conducting the hearings, weighing evidence, and issuing a legally binding decision and order.
Associa Arizona
The management company hired by the Respondent to handle its operations after the termination of the previous management agreement. It was the primary point of contact for the Petitioner’s records request.
Civil Penalty
A monetary fine levied by the Administrative Law Judge for a violation of the law. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was ordered to be paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)
The Respondent’s former management company. CMC terminated its agreement with the Respondent and was withholding association records due to a financial disagreement, which was a key part of the Respondent’s defense in the initial hearing.
Department of Real Estate (Department)
The Arizona state agency with which the Petitioner filed her petition and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.
A legal argument made by the Respondent’s counsel during the rehearing. Counsel asserted that the matter was moot (no longer relevant or in dispute) because, by the time of the rehearing, the Petitioner had received all the documents she requested.
Newly Discovered Material Evidence
The legal basis upon which the Petitioner was granted a rehearing. It refers to significant evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing despite reasonable diligence.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Nancy L. Babington, a condominium owner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”
Rehearing
A second hearing granted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to re-examine a case, which was held on March 4, 2021, after the Petitioner presented newly discovered evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL
Select all sources
823263.pdf
866802.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
2 sources
These two sources are Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between Nancy L. Babington, a homeowner, and the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, her condominium owners association, regarding the provision of association records under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258. The first document details the initial hearing, held in August 2020, where the judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that the association was not in violation because it lacked possession of the requested documents due to issues with its former management company. The second document outlines the rehearing, granted due to newly discovered evidence suggesting the association or its new management company, Associa Arizona, actually possessed some records, such as bank statements and contracts, despite earlier claims. Based on the rehearing’s findings, the judge determined the association violated the statute by not providing the records within the ten-day requirement and ordered the association to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee and pay a civil penalty.
How did newly discovered evidence lead to reversal of the initial legal decision?
What were the specific consequences for the respondent following the administrative rehearing?
How did the interpretation of statutory record possession requirements change between hearings?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Nancy L. Babington(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at initial hearing
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at rehearing
Scott B. Carpenter(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Represented Respondent at rehearing
Debbie Schumacher(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Marty Shuford(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Joseph Silberschlag(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Secretary; testified
Angelina Rajenovich(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Dermot Brown(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Lori Nusbaum(board member) Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
Linda Parker(HOA staff) Associa Arizona Director of Client Services for property manager
Evelyn Shanley(HOA staff) Associa Arizona Community Director for property manager; testified at rehearing
Laura Smith(HOA staff) Associa Arizona
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(staff) Signed order transmission
Other Participants
Stephen Silberschlag(unknown) Subject of Petitioner's record request
Following a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to timely provide records it possessed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to make association financial and other records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested records (including bank statements and contracts) following a formal request on May 1, 2020. The Administrative Law Judge, in the rehearing, found that the evidence showed Respondent was in possession of bank statements and two signed contracts at the time of the request, contradicting prior testimony, thereby establishing a violation of the statute.
Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee reimbursement and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate, both payments due within 30 days.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:16 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Condominium Association violated its governing documents or state statute regarding record inspection, specifically because the Association did not possess and was not required to create a Membership Register containing unit owners' email addresses.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the provisions of CC&Rs Section 11.4.8, Bylaws Section 10.3, or A.R.S. § 33-1158 (or § 33-1258) because the requested record (a Membership Register containing email addresses) did not exist, and the Association was not obligated to create it.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to provide access to the membership register (Owner Roster with emails)
Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated governing documents and statute by refusing access to the membership register containing email addresses. Respondent argued email addresses were protected 'personal records' under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to prove a violation because the requested document (a Membership Register containing emails) did not exist, and Respondent had no obligation to create it.
Orders: The petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records inspection, membership roster, email addresses, HOA records, condominium association, A.R.S. 33-1258
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)
A.R.S. § 33-1158
CC&Rs 11.4.8
Bylaws 10.3
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020055-REL Decision – 807817.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:44 (107.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020055-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in the case of Robert Tomisak versus the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Case No. 20F-H2020055-REL), heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, alleged that the Association violated its governing documents and Arizona state law by refusing his request for an owner roster that included member email addresses. The Association countered that email addresses constitute protected personal information and, more critically, that a membership register containing such information no longer exists.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition. The decision did not hinge on whether email addresses are “personal records” under the law. Instead, the ruling was based on the factual determination that the Association cannot be compelled to produce a document that it does not maintain. Since the Association had ceased including email addresses in its Membership Register in 2018, the judge concluded that the petitioner had no right to a non-existent record and had failed to meet the burden of proof required to show a violation.
I. Case Overview
Case Name
Robert Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
Case Number
20F-H2020055-REL
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Petitioner
Robert Tomisak, Owner of Unit 1902 (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association (Represented by Property Manager Terri Troy)
Hearing Date
July 9, 2020
Decision Date
July 17, 2020
II. Petitioner’s Allegations
On April 15, 2020, Robert Tomisak filed a single-issue petition alleging that the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association had violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law. The core of the complaint was the Association’s refusal to fulfill his March 11, 2020, email request “to provide access to the membership register” containing owner email addresses.
Mr. Tomisak specifically cited violations of the following provisions:
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Article 11, Section 4.8
• Bylaws: Article 10.3
• Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): § 33-1258
III. Respondent’s Position and Defense
The Association, through its property management company AS&A Property Management, Inc., and represented by Property Manager Terri Troy, denied all allegations. The defense rested on two key arguments:
1. Privacy Exemption: The Association contended that members’ email addresses are “personal records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4), which protects the “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
2. Non-Existence of the Record: Ms. Troy testified that while the Association would readily provide the official Membership Register (containing names and addresses), this document no longer includes email addresses. This practice of excluding emails from the register began in 2018.
IV. Key Evidence and Testimony
The March 11, 2020 Email Exchange
The dispute originated with a direct email exchange between the petitioner and the property manager.
• Petitioner’s Request (7:33 a.m.): Mr. Tomisak sent an email with the subject line “Owner Roster” stating:
• Respondent’s Denial (8:23 a.m.): Ms. Troy responded with a direct refusal, citing the statutory exemption for personal information:
Hearing Testimony
During the July 9, 2020 hearing, both parties presented their arguments:
• Robert Tomisak (Petitioner): Acknowledged that he already had access to member mailing addresses but specifically required their email addresses. He argued that email addresses are not “personal information” and cited “the internet” and “California case law” as authority for this position.
• Terri Troy (Respondent): Reiterated the Association’s willingness to provide the existing Membership Register, which contains names, addresses, and unit numbers. She explained that email addresses had been removed from this register starting in 2018 and that her refusal was based on the belief that emails are protected “personal records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4).
The Administrative Law Judge noted that neither party cited “any relevant or persuasive legal authority” to formally define “personal records” as used in the statute.
V. Legal Framework and Governing Documents
The case centered on the interpretation of three key provisions granting members access to Association records.
Document
Section
Key Provision
11.4.8
“The Association shall make available to Owners… current copies of the Declaration, Articles, Bylaws, rules of the Association and the books, records, and financial statements of the Association.”
Bylaws
“The membership register… shall be made available for inspection and copying by Members of the Association… for a purpose reasonably related to their interests as Members…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(A)
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
A.R.S.
§ 33-1258(B)(4)
“Books and records… may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…”
VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Order
Burden of Proof
The judge established that the petitioner, Mr. Tomisak, bore the burden of proof to demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had committed the alleged violations. A preponderance of evidence is defined as that which is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Central Conclusion
The judge’s ruling was not based on the privacy argument regarding whether email addresses are “personal records.” Instead, the decision was grounded in a more fundamental point of fact regarding the existence of the requested document. The judge’s decisive conclusion of law stated:
While Petitioner has the right to enforce the requirements of the above provisions, Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
Final Ruling
Based on this central finding, the judge held that Mr. Tomisak failed to meet his burden of proof and did not establish that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, its Bylaws, or A.R.S. § 33-1158.
IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that the petition is dismissed. The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of its service.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020055-REL
Study Guide: Tomisak v. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020055-REL, involving Petitioner Robert Tomisak and Respondent Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to test and deepen understanding of the case.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?
2. What specific document and data did the petitioner request from the respondent in his email dated March 11, 2020?
3. On what legal grounds did the respondent deny the petitioner’s request? Cite the specific statutory provision they referenced.
4. Identify the three governing documents or statutes that the petitioner alleged the respondent had violated.
5. What information was the respondent, through its property manager Terri Troy, willing to provide to the petitioner?
6. What was the central reason cited by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law” for dismissing the petition?
7. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.
8. What authority did the petitioner cite during the hearing to support his argument that email addresses do not constitute “personal information”?
9. According to Property Manager Terri Troy’s testimony, when and why did the content of the Membership Register change?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on July 17, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The petitioner was Robert Tomisak, who owns condominium unit 1902 in the Arrowhead Lakes development. The respondent was the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, of which the petitioner is a member.
2. The petitioner requested an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” He specifically wanted a membership list that included the email addresses of the other condominium owners.
3. The respondent denied the request based on A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4). They argued that this provision allows an association to withhold the “personal records of an individual member,” and they considered email addresses to fall under this category.
4. The petitioner alleged the respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Article 11, Section 4.8; its Bylaws, Article 10.3; and Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258.
5. The respondent was willing to provide the Membership Register, which included the names, unit numbers, and mailing addresses of the members. However, this register did not contain email addresses.
6. The judge dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have the right to a record that does not exist—namely, a Membership Register containing email addresses. The judge concluded there was no requirement in the governing provisions for the respondent to create such a document.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the trier of fact to be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Robert Tomisak, bore the burden of establishing his claim by this standard.
8. During the hearing, the petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority for the proposition that email addresses were not considered personal information.
9. Terri Troy testified that the Membership Register previously contained email addresses but that this practice was stopped beginning in 2018. The change was made based on the association’s belief that email addresses were the “personal records” of the owners.
10. The final order stated that no action was required of the respondent and that the petition was dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case document to formulate a detailed and well-supported argument.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict in this case. Discuss the petitioner’s interpretation of a member’s right to access records under the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1258 versus the respondent’s interpretation, focusing on the exemption for “personal records.”
2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the petitioner and the respondent during the July 9, 2020 hearing. Explain why the judge ultimately found that the petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the finding that the respondent was not obligated to create a document that did not exist. Discuss the significance of this finding. How might the case outcome have differed if the Membership Register still actively contained member email addresses at the time of the request?
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this administrative hearing. Explain why this burden fell upon the petitioner and how the failure to meet this evidentiary standard was a determinative factor in the dismissal of the petition.
5. Examine the roles and interaction of the governing documents (CC&Rs, Bylaws) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258) in this dispute. Which provisions offered the petitioner the right to inspect records, and which specific clause provided the strongest defense for the respondent?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates associations make financial and other records “reasonably available” to members, while also providing exceptions for withholding certain information, such as “personal, health or financial records of an individual member.”
Association
The Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association, a condominium unit owners’ association responsible for managing the Arrowhead Lakes development.
Bylaws
The rules governing the internal operations of the association. Section 10.3 is referenced, which grants members the right to inspect the “membership register” and other books and records.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the primary governing legal documents for the condominium development. Section 11.4.8 is referenced, which requires the association to make its books and records available to owners.
Membership Register
A formal list of the members of the association. The respondent’s register included names and addresses with unit numbers but, as of 2018, no longer included email addresses.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner and member of the association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020055-REL
He Sued His Condo Association for an Email List. The Judge’s Reason for Saying No Will Surprise You.
If you live in a condominium or a community governed by a homeowners’ association, you’ve likely wondered what official records you’re entitled to see. From financial statements to meeting minutes, these documents are the backbone of a transparent community. But what happens when the information you want isn’t in a format the association readily provides?
This was the central conflict for Robert Tomisak, a condominium owner in Glendale, Arizona. At 7:33 a.m. on March 11, 2020, he sent an email to his association requesting an electronic copy of the “Owner’s Roster with emails.” Less than an hour later, at 8:23 a.m., the property manager refused. Believing he was legally entitled to the list, Mr. Tomisak sued. When the case went before an administrative law judge, the final decision hinged on a simple but powerful distinction that most people would never see coming. This case reveals some surprising truths about our rights to information and how they are applied in the real world.
1. Takeaway #1: Your right is to inspectexistingrecords, not to have new ones created for you.
The core of the judge’s decision came down to a simple, factual matter. While Mr. Tomisak had a legal right to inspect association records, the specific document he requested—a Membership Register that included email addresses—did not actually exist.
According to testimony from property manager Terri Troy, the association was perfectly willing to provide the official Membership Register, which contained owner names and mailing addresses. However, she clarified that the association had stopped including email addresses in that specific record back in 2018. The judge found this fact to be decisive. While the petitioner had the right to access existing records, the association had no legal duty to create a new one for him. The judge’s “Conclusions of Law” put it in unambiguous terms:
Petitioner does not have the right to a record that does not exist, i.e., a Membership Register containing email addresses. Further, there is no requirement in the above provisions that Respondent has an obligation to create such a document.
This is a counter-intuitive but crucial distinction. Many people assume that if an organization possesses individual pieces of data (like names in one file and emails in another), they are obligated to compile that data into the format you request. This ruling clarifies that the legal obligation is to provide access to records as they are currently maintained, not to perform data-compilation tasks on demand. For association boards, this is a critical clarification of their duties; for homeowners, it’s a lesson in the power of a precise request.
2. Takeaway #2: The legal definition of “personal records” can be surprisingly ambiguous.
The central argument between the two parties revolved around privacy. Mr. Tomisak requested the email list citing an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) that grants members access to association records. In response, Ms. Troy denied the request by citing a specific exemption in that same law—A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)(4)—which allows an association to withhold “personal… records of an individual member.” Ms. Troy believed email addresses fell under this category; Mr. Tomisak argued they did not.
Crucially, Mr. Tomisak acknowledged during the hearing that he already had access to the mailing addresses for all units. His demand was not about the fundamental ability to communicate with his neighbors, but about the specific method. This reframes the dispute away from pure access-to-information and toward convenience and the definition of privacy.
However, when it came time to define “personal records,” both sides faltered. The petitioner cited “the internet” and “California case law” as his authority—a common mistake litigants make, as vague or non-binding sources hold little weight with a judge focused on specific state statutes. The judge noted that “Neither party cited to any relevant or persuasive legal authority to establish the definition of ‘personal records’ as referenced in the relevant statute.” This failure by both parties essentially forced the judge’s hand, allowing her to bypass the murky privacy debate and settle the case on the much clearer, indisputable fact that the requested record did not exist.
3. Takeaway #3: Even with clear rules, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
On paper, the rules seemed to be in the petitioner’s favor. Section 11.4.8 of the community’s CC&Rs, Section 10.3 of its Bylaws, and the state statute A.R.S. § 33-1258 all grant members the right to inspect association records. So why did he lose?
The answer lies in the legal concept of the “burden of proof.” According to the hearing decision, the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not. In this case, because the petitioner could not prove that the specific document he wanted—a Membership Register containing emails—actually existed, he failed to meet this burden. He could not convince the judge that the association had violated its duties because the duty he claimed they violated (providing a non-existent record) was not one they actually had. This serves as a practical lesson for any homeowner: having a right on paper is not enough; you must be able to prove that the specific right was violated with convincing evidence.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Specificity
The case of Tomisak vs. Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association is a masterclass in how legal rights and obligations are often more specific and literal than we assume. The final decision wasn’t based on broad principles of privacy versus access, but on the simple, verifiable fact that a non-existent document cannot be produced.
The judge’s final order was to dismiss the petition, requiring no action from the condo association. This case forces every resident and board member to ask a crucial question: Are you fighting over a principle, or are you making a specific request for a real, existing document? In the eyes of the law, only one of those will win you the day.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Tomisak(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also testified
Respondent Side
Terri Troy(property manager) Arrowhead Lakes Condominium Association / AS&A Property Management, Inc. Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
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
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Counsel
Maria Kupillas
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:46 (115.9 KB)
19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:49 (47.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL
Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.
The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.
The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:
• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.
• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.
• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.
• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.
As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)
◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018
• Decision Date: December 17, 2018
• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.
II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events
1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.
2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:
◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo
◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo
◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo
3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.
4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.
5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.
6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.
7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.
8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.
9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.
10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.
11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.
III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:
• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.
• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.
• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.
Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)
The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.
• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.
• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.
• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.
Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)
The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.
• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.
• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”
• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.
Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)
The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.
• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.
• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.
V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents
Reference
Provision Summary
Relevance to Case
A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)
Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.
The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)
Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.
The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)
Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.
The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.
CC&R Section 7.21
Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.
The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.
CC&R Section 7.3
Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.
The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.
Leasing Policy
States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.
The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.
VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes
• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.
• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918013-REL
Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.
3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?
4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?
5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?
6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?
7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?
8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?
9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?
10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.
3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.
4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.
5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.
6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.
7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.
8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.
9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.
10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.
2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?
3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.
4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?
5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Name
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.
Amenity
A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.
Barrie Shepley
The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).
George E. Lord
The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.
Itinerant population
A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.
Notice of Violations
A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.
Subletting
The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918013-REL
The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit
A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.
For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.
Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround
The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.
The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.
First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.
Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.
The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:
However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.
Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.
Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights
Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.
This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.
Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.
Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.
Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think
Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:
“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”
Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.
This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.
Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense
The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.
This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
George E. Lord(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Maria Kupillas(respondent attorney) Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
Danielle Morris(community manager) The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Counsel
Maria Kupillas
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, and CC&Rs
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1242, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, or the association's CC&Rs.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any statute or covenant alleged. The core findings supported the HOA's position that the lessee was engaging in prohibited business activity and subletting, and that the charged attorney fees were permissible.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violations concerning notice procedures, leasing restrictions, prohibited business use, and excessive fees.
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1242 by failing to include proper citations in violation notices, violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and CC&Rs by imposing illegal restrictions on occupancy dates and prohibiting tenant guests, and violated fee limits under A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) by charging $250 in attorney fees.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: condominium, HOA dispute, leasing restrictions, short-term rental, business use, notice procedure, attorney fees
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 7.21
CC&Rs Section 7.3
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677039.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (115.9 KB)
19F-H1918013-REL Decision – 677040.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:32 (47.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918013-REL
Briefing Document: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918013-REL, involving Petitioner George E. Lord and Respondent The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association. The judge ultimately dismissed all claims brought by the Petitioner, ruling that the Association acted within the bounds of Arizona statutes and its governing documents.
The core of the dispute centered on Mr. Lord’s leasing of three condominium units to an individual, Barrie Shepley, who used the properties to house participants for his commercial fitness training camps. The Association contended this arrangement constituted a prohibited short-term sublease and an improper business use of the units, leading them to suspend amenity access for the occupants.
The judge’s decision affirmed the Association’s position on all counts. Key takeaways include:
• Substance Over Form: The judge concluded that despite the absence of a formal sublease agreement, the nature of the arrangement—specifically a camp pricing structure that varied based on the number of occupants per condo—was effectively a sublet designed to house an “itinerant population,” contrary to the “spirit and purpose” of the community’s rules.
• Business Use Violation: The operation was found to be a business activity that violated the CC&Rs by requiring persons (camp participants) to come to the residential units.
• Procedural Compliance: The Association’s violation notices were deemed compliant with Arizona law. The judge noted that the statute only requires a detailed citation of the violated rule after the owner responds to the initial notice, which the Petitioner failed to do.
• Legality of Fees: A $250 charge levied by the Association’s counsel was determined to be a permissible charge for attorney’s fees related to potential collection, not an illegal penalty for leasing information as the Petitioner alleged.
As a result of these findings, the Petitioner’s request for relief was denied, and the petition was dismissed in its entirety.
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: George E. Lord (unit owner)
◦ Respondent: The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
• Case Number: 19F-H1918013-REL
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Date: November 26, 2018
• Decision Date: December 17, 2018
• Final Disposition: The petition filed by George E. Lord was dismissed.
II. Factual Background and Timeline of Events
1. Lease Agreements: On or about December 4, 2017, Petitioner George Lord, through his management company, leased two units at The Boulders to Barrie Shepley for a term from March 7, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A third unit was subsequently leased to Mr. Shepley on or about January 15, 2018.
2. Commercial Use: Mr. Shepley operated a Canadian fitness business, “Personal Best,” which offered training camps in Tucson. Accommodations at The Boulders were included in the camp packages. The price for a camp varied based on occupancy:
◦ $950.00 each for four campers in a condo
◦ $1075.00 each for three campers in a condo
◦ $1299.00 each for two campers in a condo
3. Occupancy Begins: On March 7, 2018, guests of Mr. Shepley (camp participants) began arriving to occupy the three leased units.
4. Association Intervention: On March 9, 2018, Community Manager Danielle Morris emailed Mr. Lord, stating the Association’s belief that he was in violation of the CC&Rs by allowing subleasing for periods less than the 30-day minimum. Ms. Morris informed him that amenity access cards for the three units were deactivated.
5. Dispute Escalation: Mr. Lord contended that the occupants were merely “guests” of Mr. Shepley, not subletters. Ms. Morris countered that the Association required the names of all occupants and the duration of their stays, and that each occupant must stay for a minimum of 30 days.
6. Information Provided: On March 13, 2018, Mr. Lord provided the names of the occupants and their dates of occupancy, requesting that amenities be restored.
7. Violation Reiterated: On March 16, 2018, Ms. Morris stated the violation was ongoing, as occupants staying from March 7 to March 31 did not meet the 30-day minimum stay requirement.
8. Formal Notice of Violation: On March 18, 2018, Mr. Lord received formal Notices of Violations for the three units. The notices stated that amenity access was suspended because the HOA was not provided with the names of adult occupants and their timeframes. The notice warned that a $300 fine could be applied. Mr. Lord did not respond to these notices.
9. Attorney Involvement: On March 22, 2018, Mr. Lord received a letter from the Association’s legal counsel outlining its legal position and noting an amount due of $250 for attorney’s fees already incurred.
10. Lease Cancellation & Financial Loss: On April 2, 2018, Mr. Shepley cancelled the remainder of the leases due to the lack of amenities for his guests. Mr. Lord asserted a resulting financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018.
11. Petition Filing: On August 31, 2018, Mr. Lord filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association violated state statutes and its own CC&Rs.
III. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Lord’s petition was based on three primary allegations against the Association:
• Allegation 1: Defective Violation Notice (A.R.S. § 33-1242): The Petitioner argued that the Notices of Violations were legally deficient because they failed to cite the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.
• Allegation 2: Unlawful Occupancy Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 & CC&Rs): The Petitioner asserted that the Association overstepped its authority by demanding that each occupant, whom he characterized as a “guest” of the primary lessee, must stay for a minimum of 30 days. He argued the 30-day minimum lease term applied only to the primary lease with Mr. Shepley, not to the occupants.
• Allegation 3: Improper Fees (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)): The Petitioner claimed that the $250 charge from the Association’s attorney constituted an illegal fee, penalty, or charge related to providing leasing information, which he argued was prohibited by statute.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for any of his allegations and dismissed the petition. The judge’s reasoning is detailed below.
Finding 1: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 (Violation Notice)
The judge determined that the Association’s initial Notices of Violations were legally sufficient.
• Legal Reasoning: A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) requires an association to cite the specific provision of the condominium documents that has been violated. However, this obligation is only triggered after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail.
• Factual Basis: The Petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the formal Notices of Violations he received.
• Conclusion: Because the Petitioner did not take the legally required step to trigger the Association’s duty to provide a specific citation, the Association did not violate the statute.
Finding 2: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 or CC&Rs (Leasing Rules)
The judge concluded that the Association was justified in its actions regarding the occupancy of the units.
• The Arrangement was a “Form” of Subletting: The judge ruled against the Petitioner’s argument that the occupants were merely “guests.” The fact that the price of the fitness camp changed based on how many people shared a unit was seen as evidence that Mr. Shepley was, in effect, subletting the units for his business.
• Prohibited Business Activity: The judge found that Mr. Shepley was operating a business from the units in a manner prohibited by Section 7.3 of the CC&Rs, which disallows business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.”
• Spirit of the Law: The decision acknowledged that the specific facts of the case “falls between the cracks of the specific language of the statutes and the regulations.” However, the judge emphasized that the Association’s actions were consistent with the broader intent of its rules, stating, “given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.”
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated leasing statutes or its own CC&Rs.
Finding 3: No Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E) (Fees)
The judge found that the $250 charge was not an illegal penalty.
• Nature of the Charge: The evidence showed that no fines for the lease policy violation had actually been assessed. The $250 charge was explicitly for attorney’s fees related to the potential collection of assessments.
• Legal Reasoning: The judge stated, “Nothing in the cited statute or the CC&Rs prohibits such a charge being implemented.” The fee was not a penalty for “incomplete or late information” as covered by the statute, but a charge for legal costs incurred by the Association.
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to establish a violation regarding the assessed fees.
V. Referenced Statutes and Governing Documents
Reference
Provision Summary
Relevance to Case
A.R.S. § 33-1242(B)&(C)
Outlines the process for a unit owner to respond to a violation notice and the association’s subsequent duty to provide specific details of the violation.
The judge found no violation because the Petitioner did not follow the procedure to trigger the association’s duty.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(C)
Limits the information an association can require about a tenant to names, contact info for adults, lease period, and vehicle information.
The Petitioner’s case rested on interpreting this statute; the judge found the Association’s inquiries justified by the unique circumstances.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E)
Prohibits an association from imposing fees greater than $15 for incomplete or late leasing information.
The Petitioner argued the $250 attorney fee violated this, but the judge found it was a permissible charge for legal costs, not a penalty.
CC&R Section 7.21
Requires leases to be in writing, for a term of not less than 30 days, and requires owners to provide lessee names and lease dates.
The Association argued the arrangement violated the 30-day minimum stay rule for occupants, which the judge upheld in spirit.
CC&R Section 7.3
Prohibits business activities within a unit that involve persons coming to the unit.
The judge found Mr. Shepley’s fitness camp, which housed participants in the units, was a clear violation of this provision.
Leasing Policy
States a $300 fine may be imposed for violations of the 30-day minimum lease policy.
The Notice of Violation referenced this potential fine, though it was never actually assessed.
VI. Final Order and Procedural Notes
• Order: Based on the above findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed.
• Binding Nature: The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
• Related Filings: On the same day the decision was issued, December 17, 2018, the court also issued a separate “Order Vacating Hearing,” likely a procedural filing to cancel a future hearing that was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the case.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918013-REL
Study Guide: Lord v. The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918013-REL, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The case involves a dispute between a condominium unit owner, George E. Lord, and his condominium association, The Boulders at La Reserve, concerning leasing policies, occupant regulations, and alleged statutory violations.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. Describe the business arrangement that Barrie Shepley, the petitioner’s lessee, was operating from the leased condominium units.
3. What was the first official action the Condominium Association’s management took in response to the arrival of Barrie Shepley’s guests, and what was their stated reason?
4. According to the Association, what two specific provisions of the governing documents were being violated by the petitioner and his lessee?
5. What was the petitioner’s central argument for why the occupants of the units were not in violation of the Association’s 30-day minimum stay requirement?
6. On what procedural grounds did the petitioner, George Lord, claim that the Association’s “Notice of Violations” was itself a violation of Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242)?
7. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule that the Association did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1242?
8. How did the judge interpret the fact that the price for Barrie Shepley’s fitness camps varied based on the number of people sharing a condo?
9. What financial loss did the petitioner claim to have suffered, and what was the direct cause of this loss?
10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were George E. Lord, the petitioner and owner of multiple condominium units, and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association, the respondent and governing body for the community. The case was adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
2. Barrie Shepley operated a fitness business called “Personal Best” that offered training camps in the Tucson area. The price for these camps included accommodations at The Boulders, with the cost per person varying based on how many campers shared a condominium unit.
3. The Association’s first action was to deactivate the amenity access cards for the three units leased by Shepley. Danielle Morris, the Community Manager, stated this was due to a belief that the petitioner’s lessee was subleasing the units for periods of less than the 30-day minimum in violation of the CC&Rs.
4. The Association alleged violations of the CC&Rs related to subleasing for less than the 30-day minimum timeframe. The formal Notices of Violations also cited the failure to provide the names of all adult occupants and the timeframes of their stays to the HOA.
5. The petitioner argued that because his lessee, Mr. Shepley, was not charging a specific rental fee to the occupants, they were merely “guests” and not sub-lessees. Therefore, the 30-day minimum stay requirement applicable to leases did not apply to them.
6. The petitioner alleged that the Association’s failure to include a citation to the specific statute or CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated in the initial Notice of Violations was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1242.
7. The judge ruled against the petitioner because A.R.S. § 33-1242 only requires an association to provide the specific provision violated after the unit owner sends a written response to the initial notice by certified mail. The petitioner admitted that he did not respond to the Notices of Violations.
8. The judge found that the tiered pricing structure supported the conclusion that Mr. Shepley was, “in a form, subletting the units.” The fact that the camp price decreased as more people shared a unit indicated that the occupants were paying for their accommodations, not simply staying as guests.
9. The petitioner asserted a financial loss of $6,900 in rental fees for April 2018. This loss was directly caused by Barrie Shepley canceling the remainder of his leases due to the lack of amenities for his occupants.
10. The Administrative Law Judge’s final order was that the Petition filed by George E. Lord be dismissed. This decision was binding unless a rehearing was granted.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts, arguments, and legal interpretations from the case file.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for concluding that Barrie Shepley was “in a form, subletting” the units. Discuss the evidence cited and the concept of the “spirit and purpose” of the rules versus their literal interpretation.
2. Examine the procedural misstep made by the petitioner, George Lord, after receiving the Notices of Violations. How did this action directly impact the judge’s ruling on his claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1242?
3. Discuss the conflict between a unit owner’s right to lease their property and a condominium association’s right to enforce its governing documents, using the specific provisions of the CC&Rs (Sections 7.21 and 7.3) and state law (A.R.S. § 33-1260.01) as examples from the case.
4. Explain the distinction the judge made between the $300 potential fine mentioned in the Notice of Violations and the $250 attorney’s fee charged to the petitioner. How did this distinction relate to A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(E), and why was the Association’s action deemed permissible?
5. Evaluate the concept of an “itinerant population” as mentioned by the judge. How did Barrie Shepley’s business model contribute to this concern for the Association, and how did it ultimately weigh into the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Name
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings on disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified body of laws for the state of Arizona. The petitioner alleged violations of specific statutes within this code, namely A.R.S. § 33-1242 and § 33-1260.01.
A.R.S. § 33-1242
A state law governing the process for notifying a unit owner of a violation of condominium documents and the procedures for the owner to respond and contest the notice.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01
A state law that places limitations on what information an association can require from a unit owner regarding a tenant and caps certain fees or penalties for incomplete information at $15.
Amenity
A feature or facility of a property that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. In this case, access to amenities was controlled by key cards, which the Association deactivated.
Barrie Shepley
The individual who leased three condominium units from the petitioner. He operated a fitness business, “Personal Best,” and used the units to house clients attending his training camps.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or condominium. The Association alleged Shepley’s use of the units violated Sections 7.21 (leasing limitations) and 7.3 (business use limitations).
George E. Lord
The Petitioner in the case. He was the owner of multiple condominium units at The Boulders at La Reserve and filed the petition against the Association.
Itinerant population
A term used by the judge to describe a population of short-term, transient occupants. The judge concluded that the purpose of the Association’s rules was, in part, to prevent this type of occupancy.
Notice of Violations
A formal written document sent by the Association to the petitioner informing him of alleged violations of the governing documents and outlining potential consequences, such as fines.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, George E. Lord.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means that the petitioner had the burden of showing that the facts they sought to prove were “more probable than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association.
Subletting
The practice of a tenant leasing a rented property to a third party. The Association contended Shepley was subletting the units to his campers, while the petitioner argued they were merely guests.
The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
The Respondent in the case. The homeowners’ association (HOA) responsible for governing the condominium community in Oro Valley, Arizona.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918013-REL
The $6,900 ‘Guest’ Mistake: 3 Hard Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit
A $6,900 loss in rental income and a losing legal battle with his HOA—all because of a dispute over the definition of a “guest.” This case between owner George Lord and The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association is a masterclass in how quickly and completely an owner can lose when they misinterpret the rules and underestimate an association’s power.
For any homeowner or landlord, this dispute provides three crucial lessons distilled from the administrative court’s decision. Understanding these precedents is essential before you ever find yourself at odds with your own HOA.
Lesson 1: The “Spirit of the Rule” Can Outweigh Your Clever Workaround
The dispute began when the property owner, Mr. Lord, leased three condos to Barrie Shepley, who ran fitness training camps. Mr. Shepley then used the condos to house his camp attendees, often for periods shorter than the HOA’s 30-day minimum lease term.
The owner argued his arrangement complied with the rules. He claimed his tenant, Mr. Shepley, was not subleasing the units; the attendees were merely “guests,” and therefore not subject to the 30-day minimum. It was a clever workaround, but it fell apart under scrutiny for two distinct reasons.
First, the judge looked past the “guest” label to the financial substance of the arrangement. A key piece of evidence was the camp’s pricing: the cost changed based on how many campers shared a condo ($950 each for four campers vs. $1299 each for two). The judge saw this as clear proof that housing was being paid for, making it a form of subletting.
Second, the judge found that the arrangement constituted a prohibited business activity. The association’s CC&Rs (Section 7.3) explicitly forbade any business activity that “involve[s] persons coming to the Unit.” Since the fitness camp required attendees to come to the condos for lodging, it was a direct violation. The judge’s decision was therefore not just based on a subjective interpretation, but was also grounded in a concrete rule violation.
The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to make its ruling, a point powerfully summarized in the final decision:
However, given the totality of the circumstances, the spirit and purpose of the applicable rules is to allow an association to know who is in the community and to prevent an itinerant population.
Pro Tip: Before implementing a workaround, ask yourself: “Does this honor the community’s stated goal?” If the answer is no, you’re on thin ice, even if you think you’ve found a loophole.
Lesson 2: You Must Follow Procedure to the Letter, Or You Forfeit Your Rights
Confident in his “guest” interpretation, the homeowner made his next critical error by underestimating the importance of legal procedure. He argued that the HOA’s initial “Notice of Violations” was invalid because it failed to cite the specific CC&R provision that had allegedly been violated.
This argument was swiftly dismissed due to a simple but fatal mistake: the owner never sent a formal written response to the notice by certified mail.
Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1242), an owner’s formal written response via certified mail triggers the HOA’s obligation to provide the specific provision that was violated. Without that trigger, the HOA’s duty to explain further is never activated. The homeowner failed to pull the trigger. Because he did not follow this exact procedure, his claim was thrown out, and the HOA had no further legal obligation to detail its case.
Analyst’s Takeaway: In a legal dispute, communication that isn’t sent via the officially mandated channel (like certified mail) is legally equivalent to communication that never happened.
Lesson 3: The HOA’s Legal Fees Can Hit Your Wallet Sooner Than You Think
Early in the dispute, the owner received a letter from the HOA’s legal counsel. The letter outlined the association’s position and included a charge for $250.00. This was not a fine for the violation. It was a fee for the lawyer’s time, as explained in the letter:
“As you know, the Association is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from you, including $250.00 already incurred for the preparation of this letter.”
Many governing documents contain clauses that allow an HOA to recover its “costs of enforcement.” This letter was an enforcement action, and the legal fee was the cost. The judge found that nothing in the law or CC&Rs prohibited the HOA from immediately passing this expense to the owner.
This initial charge was a precursor to a much larger financial blow. As an enforcement tool for the violations discussed in Lesson 1, the HOA suspended the tenants’ access to community amenities. This pressure tactic worked perfectly. The tenant, Mr. Shepley, cancelled his leases due to the lack of amenity access, leading to the owner’s stated loss of $6,900 in rental fees.
Pro Tip: Assume your HOA’s first legal letter starts a running tab. Budget for legal costs from day one of a formal dispute, not just for potential fines.
Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense
The case of Lord vs. The Boulders at La Reserve establishes three clear precedents for owners: a rule’s intent can supersede its literal interpretation, procedural shortcuts void your rights, and the financial clock starts ticking the moment an HOA retains counsel.
This case is a firm reminder of an HOA’s power to enforce its rules, but it also highlights the owner’s responsibility to understand them. It begs the question: In our own communities, are we fully aware of the rules we’ve agreed to live by?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
George E. Lord(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Maria Kupillas(respondent attorney) Law offices of Farley, Choate & Bergin
Danielle Morris(community manager) The Boulders at La Reserve Condominium Association
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.
Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.
The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.
◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.
• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.
• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.
• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.
Background and Timeline of the Dispute
The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).
• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):
◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.
◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.
◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.
◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.
• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:
◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.
◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.
◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.
• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.
• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.
• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.
• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.
• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.
Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)
The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”
• Specific Violations Alleged:
◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.
◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.
◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.
• Evidence Presented at Hearing:
◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.
◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).
◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.
◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.
Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)
The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.
• Core Arguments:
◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.
◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.
◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.
• Actions Taken by MCIII:
◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.
◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.
◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.
◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.
◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.
Governing Rules and CC&Rs
The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.
Document
Article/Rule
Provision
Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)
Rule 3
Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.12
Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.13
States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.14
Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.
• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.
• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.
◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.
◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”
◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.
◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.
• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918004-REL
Study Guide: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918004-REL, concerning a dispute over the enforcement of parking regulations. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues John W. Gray alleged in his petition filed with the Department on July 30, 2018?
3. According to the MCIII rules in effect at the time of the complaint, what were the primary restrictions placed on vehicle ownership and parking for residents?
4. Describe the key evidence the Petitioner presented at the hearing to substantiate his claims of widespread parking rule violations.
5. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not enforcing the more restrictive parking rules that were in place at the time of the complaint?
6. How did the new rules, adopted on October 23, 2018, change the association’s approach to vehicle limits and garage use?
7. Explain the significance of the inoperable red truck to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
8. What was the required standard of proof for the Petitioner in this case, and did the judge determine that he met it?
9. Prior to the hearing, what specific enforcement actions did MCIII take in response to the Petitioner’s documented complaints?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was MCIII required to do?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were John W. Gray, the Petitioner, who was a condominium owner in the MCIII development, and the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the Respondent and the governing unit owners’ association for the development. Mr. Gray initiated the legal action against the association for allegedly failing to enforce its rules.
2. The Petitioner’s two main allegations were that the association had failed to provide him with a copy of its management company agreement and that it refused to enforce its parking rules. He specifically alleged multiple units were violating rules regarding the number of vehicles and the presence of inoperable vehicles.
3. The rules in effect at the time of the complaint limited owners to a maximum of two cars per unit. The rules also “assigned” the garage as the designated parking spot for the first car and explicitly banned “inoperable” vehicles from the property.
4. The Petitioner presented credible evidence including photographs from multiple exhibits (6-16) showing numerous violations. He also testified based on his personal observations, identified specific units with three cars using garages for storage, and provided vehicle registration information obtained through a private investigator.
5. The Respondent defended its lack of enforcement by arguing that the existing restrictive rules were “almost impossible” to enforce without constant surveillance. The Community Manager also testified that she had received no prior complaints about parking from other residents.
6. The new rules, adopted October 23, 2018, removed the limit on the number of cars permitted per unit. However, they instituted a new requirement that owners must park their vehicles in their respective garages before using any common area parking spaces.
7. The inoperable red truck was significant because it had been parked in the same spot for over a year, serving as undisputed evidence of a long-standing violation. The judge noted that MCIII’s single letter to the owner, sent long after the violation began, demonstrated a clear failure to enforce its rules regarding inoperable vehicles.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that his contentions were more probably true than not. The judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof.
9. MCIII’s primary enforcement actions were to place the issue on its July 24, 2018, Board meeting agenda and to send one letter on July 23, 2018, to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck. The record also shows MCIII had previously enforced parking rules against the Petitioner himself by having his truck towed from a fire lane.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the case. The judge further ordered that MCIII must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts and arguments presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that revising the parking rules made the Petitioner’s complaints “moot.” Based on the judge’s decision, evaluate the strength of this defense and explain why it was ultimately unsuccessful.
2. Discuss the concept of a condominium association’s duty to enforce its own rules and CC&Rs, using the specific examples of MCIII’s actions (and inactions) from the case. How did the association’s selective enforcement—such as towing the Petitioner’s vehicle but not others—factor into the case’s context?
3. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Which party presented a more compelling case, and why? Support your analysis by citing specific exhibits, testimony, and documented observations mentioned in the decision.
4. Explore the timeline of events from the Petitioner’s first complaint in May 2018 to the judge’s decision in November 2018. How does this timeline illustrate the dispute’s escalation and the association’s response strategy?
5. The Administrative Law Judge found that MCIII’s argument of the rules being “unenforceable” was not a viable defense. What practical enforcement actions, short of 24/7 surveillance, could the association have taken according to the information provided in the hearing record?
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, it was Kay Abramsohn.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community like a condominium. MCIII’s CC&Rs were effective January 12, 1999.
Common Elements
Also referred to as the “Common Area,” these are parts of the condominium property, such as the parking lot, available for use by all unit owners.
Community Manager
An employee of the management company (Curtiss Management) hired by the association to handle its affairs. In this case, the manager was Andrea Lacombe.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal legal proceeding where parties present evidence (exhibits) and testimony to prove their case before a judge or hearing officer.
Inoperable Vehicle
A vehicle that cannot be operated. Both the old and new MCIII rules, as well as CC&R 4.14, prohibited storing such vehicles on the property outside of an enclosed garage.
A term used to describe an issue that is no longer in dispute or of practical significance. MCIII argued that its new rules made the Petitioner’s issues moot.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, John W. Gray.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The plat for MCIII showed there were 36 parking spaces in the lot.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true; it is a superior evidentiary weight that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal case. The judge deemed the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918004-REL
He Fought the HOA Over Parking—and Won. Here Are the 5 Surprising Lessons from His Battle.
Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of HOA Parking
For anyone living in a condo, townhome, or planned community, the daily dance of parking is a familiar routine. It’s a world of limited spaces, confusing rules about guest parking, and the constant fear of a warning sticker or, worse, a tow truck. This shared frustration often simmers just below the surface of community life, where the rules established by a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel arbitrary and inconsistently applied.
This post breaks down a real-life administrative court case where one resident, John W. Gray, took on his Condominium Association for its complete failure to enforce its own parking rules. Without getting lost in legal jargon, we will explore how a single, determined individual was able to hold his HOA accountable. This wasn’t just a simple disagreement; it was a formal challenge that went before a judge.
The official court decision in Gray’s favor offers powerful and surprising lessons for any homeowner, renter, or board member. This David vs. Goliath story is more than just a victory for one resident; it’s a practical guide filled with takeaways on how to effectively address community disputes and understand the true responsibilities of an HOA.
1. The ‘It’s Too Hard to Enforce’ Excuse Doesn’t Work
The association (MCIII) built its primary defense on the argument that its own parking rules were “almost impossible” to enforce. They claimed that the two-car limit per unit was too restrictive and would require constant, 24/7 monitoring and picture-taking, which was simply not feasible.
The administrative law judge completely rejected this excuse. The core lesson from the ruling is that an HOA cannot simply choose to ignore its governing documents because enforcement is inconvenient. The judge pointed out that the association had simpler tools at its disposal, such as issuing violation notices and levying fines as outlined in their rules, but failed to take even these basic steps.
The judge’s finding offers a powerful reality check for any board that feels overwhelmed by its own regulations:
MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable is not a viable defense in this instance, as the rules contained many provisions that could have been noticed to the units regarding parking rules and their enforcement.
2. Meticulous Data is Your Strongest Weapon
John W. Gray didn’t just complain; he built an airtight case. His methodical approach to proving the association’s failure was a key factor in his success. The court record details the specific actions he took:
• He conducted personal observations and took photographs of the offending vehicles.
• He identified the specific units that had too many cars and were using their garages for storage instead of parking.
• He hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to definitively link cars to specific units.
The judge found this evidence to be “credible and convincing.” Gray’s detailed documentation painted a clear picture of the problem’s scale. According to his calculations, just 12 of the community’s 33 units were monopolizing 27 parking spaces, leaving very few for the remaining 21 units. This takeaway is clear: a well-documented, fact-based complaint is infinitely more powerful than anecdotal grievances.
3. Changing the Rules Doesn’t Erase Past Failures
In response to Gray’s formal complaint, the HOA Board took a strategic but ultimately unsuccessful step. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the Board reviewed and adopted a new set of parking rules. These new rules conveniently removed the two-car limit that the association had claimed was unenforceable.
The association then argued that this rule change made the petitioner’s original complaint “moot,” or irrelevant. They essentially claimed that since the rule he was complaining about no longer existed, there was no longer a case to be heard.
This strategy failed because the judge ruled on the HOA’s past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the complaint. This is a crucial lesson in accountability. An organization cannot escape responsibility for its prior negligence simply by changing the rules at the last minute. The failure to act had already occurred, and the consequences of that failure were the basis of the lawsuit.
4. Ignoring Small Violations Can Create a Major Crisis
Nowhere was the HOA’s failure more obvious than in the case of a single inoperable red truck. The vehicle had been parked in the same spot for over a year, in clear violation of the rules prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the property.
Despite this long-term, visible violation, the hearing record shows the HOA’s response was both delayed and minimal. They sent only one letter to the unit owner about the truck, and this action was taken “long after” the violation began and only after Gray had formally complained.
The judge’s observation on this single vehicle underscores the wider impact of the board’s inaction:
Even the clearing of just one more space would have made the tenuous parking situation better.
The red truck was a symptom of a much larger disease. The failure to address one obvious, easily-proven violation demonstrated a systemic failure to manage the community’s shared resources, which directly contributed to the parking crisis and the disproportionate use of spaces by a few residents.
5. Enforcement Must Be Fair, Not Just Convenient
Perhaps the most telling detail from the hearing record was the apparent double standard in the HOA’s enforcement actions. The record explicitly mentions only two enforcement actions the association had taken regarding parking:
• Towing the petitioner’s own truck on one occasion for parking in a fire lane.
• Sending a single, very late letter about the red truck that had been parked for over a year.
The hearing record is devastatingly clear on this point. The only enforcement actions the board could point to were punitive or reactive: towing the truck of the very resident demanding action, and sending a single, belated letter about a year-old violation after he had filed a formal complaint. This wasn’t just inconsistent enforcement; it was a textbook case of selective enforcement that targeted the complainant while ignoring the systemic problem.
For an HOA’s authority to be respected and legally defensible, its rules must be applied fairly and consistently to all residents, not just when it is convenient or aimed at a perceived nuisance.
Conclusion: A Win for the Power of One
The judge’s order was a decisive victory for resident rights, affirming that an HOA’s duty to enforce its own rules is not optional. While the association was ordered to repay his $500 filing fee, the real prize was the validation that one resident, armed with credible evidence, can successfully hold a board accountable to the entire community. This case proves that meticulous documentation, persistence, and a refusal to be ignored are the great equalizers in community governance. It makes you wonder: what ‘unenforceable’ rules in your community are just waiting for a champion to demand they be followed?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John W. Gray(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Austin Baillio(attorney) Maxwell & Morgan PC Represented Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Andrea Lacombe(community manager) Curtiss Management Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the Respondent's violations of the CC&Rs and rules concerning parking enforcement. The Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA refused to enforce parking rules regarding vehicle limits, requiring use of garages for first cars, and banning inoperable or commercial vehicles, despite written complaints. The ALJ found the HOA failed to enforce these rules or issue proper notices/fines.
Orders: MCIII ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
Briefing Document: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (Case No. 19F-H1918004-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of John W. Gray (Petitioner) versus the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII, Respondent). The central issue was MCIII’s failure to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and community rules regarding vehicle parking.
The Petitioner, Mr. Gray, presented credible and convincing evidence of widespread, ongoing parking violations by multiple residents, including exceeding vehicle limits, failing to use garages for primary parking, and the long-term storage of an inoperable vehicle in a common area parking space. The Respondent, MCIII, argued that the rules were difficult to enforce and that it had taken some action, including revising the rules shortly before the hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately rejected MCIII’s defense, concluding that the association had demonstrably failed to enforce its governing documents. The ALJ found that MCIII had viable enforcement options, such as issuing notices and fines, which it did not utilize. The final order deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party and required MCIII to reimburse his $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: John W. Gray, owner of Unit 122 in the Mesa Coronado III Condominium development.
◦ Respondent: Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the unit owners’ association for the 33-unit development.
• Adjudicating Body: The Office of Administrative Hearings, following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• Hearing Date: October 29, 2018.
• Decision Date: November 30, 2018.
• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that MCIII violated its own Rules, Regulations, and CC&Rs (specifically Articles 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14) by refusing to enforce parking rules despite receiving written complaints.
Background and Timeline of the Dispute
The conflict centered on parking within the MCIII development, which has 36 parking spaces for 33 units, with spaces being “open” and not assigned to specific units (with one exception).
• Pre-existing Rules (Adopted Jan. 2002):
◦ Owners were limited to two cars per unit.
◦ The garage was considered the “assigned” parking for the first car.
◦ Inoperable vehicles were banned from the property.
◦ A system of warnings and fines was in place for rule violations.
• May 17, 2018: Petitioner Gray submitted a formal written complaint to MCIII, identifying at least eight units in violation of parking rules. His complaint specified:
◦ Units with three cars were not using their garages for parking, instead using them for storage.
◦ An inoperable red truck had been stationary in the same parking spot for over a year.
◦ A commercial truck was present containing what he believed to be hazardous pool chemicals.
• MCIII’s Initial Response: The association acknowledged a “history” with the parking situation and stated the Board would review the rules for revision. MCIII noted it would investigate the red truck and also accused the Petitioner of regularly parking his own truck in a fire lane.
• July 16, 2018: The Petitioner sent a follow-up notification regarding the continuing violations.
• MCIII’s Second Response: The association informed the Petitioner that the issue would be on the agenda for the July 24, 2018 Board meeting and again reminded him of his own alleged fire lane parking violations.
• July 23, 2018: MCIII sent a notice to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck, informing them of the rules violation.
• July 30, 2018: The Petitioner filed his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• October 23, 2018: Days before the hearing, the MCIII Board adopted new parking rules.
Petitioner’s Case and Evidence (John W. Gray)
The Petitioner built a detailed case demonstrating a pattern of non-enforcement by MCIII. The ALJ found his evidence to be “credible and convincing.”
• Specific Violations Alleged:
◦ Excess Vehicles: Multiple units possessed more than the two-vehicle limit.
◦ Garage Misuse: Residents with multiple cars were using common area parking spaces while their garages were used for storage.
◦ Inoperable Vehicle: A red truck remained parked and inoperable in one space for over a year, in direct violation of CC&R 4.14.
• Evidence Presented at Hearing:
◦ Photographs: A series of exhibits (6 through 16) contained photographs documenting the various offending vehicles.
◦ Private Investigation: The Petitioner hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to link specific vehicles to their owners and units (Exhibit 17).
◦ Quantitative Analysis: The Petitioner calculated that just 12 units were occupying 27 common area parking spaces, leaving very few spaces for the remaining 21 units.
◦ Written Correspondence: Copies of his complaints to MCIII were submitted, demonstrating that the association was put on notice of the violations.
Respondent’s Defense and Actions (MCIII)
The association’s defense centered on the difficulty of enforcement and subsequent actions taken after the Petitioner’s complaint.
• Core Arguments:
◦ Unenforceability: MCIII asserted that it was “almost impossible” to enforce the existing restrictive rules, as it would require constant 24/7 monitoring.
◦ Lack of Prior Complaints: The Respondent claimed it had received no complaints about parking prior to Mr. Gray’s.
◦ Issue is Moot: MCIII argued that its recent revision of the parking rules rendered the Petitioner’s complaint moot.
• Actions Taken by MCIII:
◦ Rule Revision: At the October 23, 2018 Board meeting, MCIII adopted new rules that eliminated the two-car limit but maintained the requirement for residents to use their garage first before occupying common area spaces. The ban on inoperable and commercial vehicles was also kept.
◦ Enforcement Against Petitioner: The Respondent noted that it had previously taken enforcement action by having the Petitioner’s own truck towed for parking in a fire lane.
◦ Notice Regarding Red Truck: MCIII provided evidence that it sent one letter on July 23, 2018, regarding the inoperable red truck.
◦ Towing Contract: The association stated it had recently contracted with Shaffer Towing for towing services.
◦ Community Manager Patrols: The “Community Manager,” Andrea Lacombe, testified that she drove through the property approximately twice a month looking for violations.
Governing Rules and CC&Rs
The decision rested on the specific language of the association’s governing documents in effect at the time of the complaint.
Document
Article/Rule
Provision
Rules & Regulations (Jan 2002)
Rule 3
Limits owners to two cars per unit and “assigns” the garage as parking for the first car.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.12
Prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles, RVs, boats, trailers, etc., on any part of the condominium outside of an enclosed garage.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.13
States that no parking space may be used for storage or any purpose other than parking of Family Vehicles. Grants the Board the right to assign spaces.
CC&Rs (Jan 1999)
Art. 4.14
Prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles on any portion of the condominium other than within enclosed garages. Grants the Board the right to have violating vehicles towed.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ sided with the Petitioner, finding that MCIII had failed in its duty to enforce its own rules.
• Rejection of MCIII’s Defense: The ALJ determined that MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable was “not a viable defense.” The decision explicitly stated that the association could have used provisions for notification and fines to enforce the rules but failed to do so.
• Evidence of Non-Enforcement: The hearing record demonstrated a clear failure by MCIII to act.
◦ The evidence was “undisputed” that the inoperable red truck had been in violation for over a year, yet MCIII only sent a single notice long after the complaint was filed.
◦ The ALJ noted that clearing even that one space would have improved the “tenuous parking situation.”
◦ The record contained no indication that MCIII had ever enforced the rules regarding the number of vehicles or the mandatory use of garages for primary parking.
◦ The only enforcement action cited, other than the single letter, was the towing of the Petitioner’s own vehicle.
• Conclusion of Law: Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that “MCIII failed to enforce CC&Rs and rules and regulations regarding parking.” The revision of the rules just before the hearing did not negate the past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s complaint.
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with two key provisions:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, John W. Gray, is officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.
2. Reimbursement: MCIII is ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918004-REL
Study Guide: Gray v. Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918004-REL, concerning a dispute over the enforcement of parking regulations. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What were the two main issues John W. Gray alleged in his petition filed with the Department on July 30, 2018?
3. According to the MCIII rules in effect at the time of the complaint, what were the primary restrictions placed on vehicle ownership and parking for residents?
4. Describe the key evidence the Petitioner presented at the hearing to substantiate his claims of widespread parking rule violations.
5. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not enforcing the more restrictive parking rules that were in place at the time of the complaint?
6. How did the new rules, adopted on October 23, 2018, change the association’s approach to vehicle limits and garage use?
7. Explain the significance of the inoperable red truck to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.
8. What was the required standard of proof for the Petitioner in this case, and did the judge determine that he met it?
9. Prior to the hearing, what specific enforcement actions did MCIII take in response to the Petitioner’s documented complaints?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was MCIII required to do?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were John W. Gray, the Petitioner, who was a condominium owner in the MCIII development, and the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association (MCIII), the Respondent and the governing unit owners’ association for the development. Mr. Gray initiated the legal action against the association for allegedly failing to enforce its rules.
2. The Petitioner’s two main allegations were that the association had failed to provide him with a copy of its management company agreement and that it refused to enforce its parking rules. He specifically alleged multiple units were violating rules regarding the number of vehicles and the presence of inoperable vehicles.
3. The rules in effect at the time of the complaint limited owners to a maximum of two cars per unit. The rules also “assigned” the garage as the designated parking spot for the first car and explicitly banned “inoperable” vehicles from the property.
4. The Petitioner presented credible evidence including photographs from multiple exhibits (6-16) showing numerous violations. He also testified based on his personal observations, identified specific units with three cars using garages for storage, and provided vehicle registration information obtained through a private investigator.
5. The Respondent defended its lack of enforcement by arguing that the existing restrictive rules were “almost impossible” to enforce without constant surveillance. The Community Manager also testified that she had received no prior complaints about parking from other residents.
6. The new rules, adopted October 23, 2018, removed the limit on the number of cars permitted per unit. However, they instituted a new requirement that owners must park their vehicles in their respective garages before using any common area parking spaces.
7. The inoperable red truck was significant because it had been parked in the same spot for over a year, serving as undisputed evidence of a long-standing violation. The judge noted that MCIII’s single letter to the owner, sent long after the violation began, demonstrated a clear failure to enforce its rules regarding inoperable vehicles.
8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that his contentions were more probably true than not. The judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof.
9. MCIII’s primary enforcement actions were to place the issue on its July 24, 2018, Board meeting agenda and to send one letter on July 23, 2018, to the owner of the unit associated with the inoperable red truck. The record also shows MCIII had previously enforced parking rules against the Petitioner himself by having his truck towed from a fire lane.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the case. The judge further ordered that MCIII must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the order.
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts and arguments presented in the source document.
1. Analyze the Respondent’s argument that revising the parking rules made the Petitioner’s complaints “moot.” Based on the judge’s decision, evaluate the strength of this defense and explain why it was ultimately unsuccessful.
2. Discuss the concept of a condominium association’s duty to enforce its own rules and CC&Rs, using the specific examples of MCIII’s actions (and inactions) from the case. How did the association’s selective enforcement—such as towing the Petitioner’s vehicle but not others—factor into the case’s context?
3. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Which party presented a more compelling case, and why? Support your analysis by citing specific exhibits, testimony, and documented observations mentioned in the decision.
4. Explore the timeline of events from the Petitioner’s first complaint in May 2018 to the judge’s decision in November 2018. How does this timeline illustrate the dispute’s escalation and the association’s response strategy?
5. The Administrative Law Judge found that MCIII’s argument of the rules being “unenforceable” was not a viable defense. What practical enforcement actions, short of 24/7 surveillance, could the association have taken according to the information provided in the hearing record?
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision. In this case, it was Kay Abramsohn.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community like a condominium. MCIII’s CC&Rs were effective January 12, 1999.
Common Elements
Also referred to as the “Common Area,” these are parts of the condominium property, such as the parking lot, available for use by all unit owners.
Community Manager
An employee of the management company (Curtiss Management) hired by the association to handle its affairs. In this case, the manager was Andrea Lacombe.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal legal proceeding where parties present evidence (exhibits) and testimony to prove their case before a judge or hearing officer.
Inoperable Vehicle
A vehicle that cannot be operated. Both the old and new MCIII rules, as well as CC&R 4.14, prohibited storing such vehicles on the property outside of an enclosed garage.
A term used to describe an issue that is no longer in dispute or of practical significance. MCIII argued that its new rules made the Petitioner’s issues moot.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, John W. Gray.
A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. The plat for MCIII showed there were 36 parking spaces in the lot.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case. It is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true; it is a superior evidentiary weight that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Prevailing Party
The party who is found to have won the legal case. The judge deemed the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed; the defending party. In this case, the Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918004-REL
He Fought the HOA Over Parking—and Won. Here Are the 5 Surprising Lessons from His Battle.
Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of HOA Parking
For anyone living in a condo, townhome, or planned community, the daily dance of parking is a familiar routine. It’s a world of limited spaces, confusing rules about guest parking, and the constant fear of a warning sticker or, worse, a tow truck. This shared frustration often simmers just below the surface of community life, where the rules established by a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel arbitrary and inconsistently applied.
This post breaks down a real-life administrative court case where one resident, John W. Gray, took on his Condominium Association for its complete failure to enforce its own parking rules. Without getting lost in legal jargon, we will explore how a single, determined individual was able to hold his HOA accountable. This wasn’t just a simple disagreement; it was a formal challenge that went before a judge.
The official court decision in Gray’s favor offers powerful and surprising lessons for any homeowner, renter, or board member. This David vs. Goliath story is more than just a victory for one resident; it’s a practical guide filled with takeaways on how to effectively address community disputes and understand the true responsibilities of an HOA.
1. The ‘It’s Too Hard to Enforce’ Excuse Doesn’t Work
The association (MCIII) built its primary defense on the argument that its own parking rules were “almost impossible” to enforce. They claimed that the two-car limit per unit was too restrictive and would require constant, 24/7 monitoring and picture-taking, which was simply not feasible.
The administrative law judge completely rejected this excuse. The core lesson from the ruling is that an HOA cannot simply choose to ignore its governing documents because enforcement is inconvenient. The judge pointed out that the association had simpler tools at its disposal, such as issuing violation notices and levying fines as outlined in their rules, but failed to take even these basic steps.
The judge’s finding offers a powerful reality check for any board that feels overwhelmed by its own regulations:
MCIII’s argument that the rules were unenforceable is not a viable defense in this instance, as the rules contained many provisions that could have been noticed to the units regarding parking rules and their enforcement.
2. Meticulous Data is Your Strongest Weapon
John W. Gray didn’t just complain; he built an airtight case. His methodical approach to proving the association’s failure was a key factor in his success. The court record details the specific actions he took:
• He conducted personal observations and took photographs of the offending vehicles.
• He identified the specific units that had too many cars and were using their garages for storage instead of parking.
• He hired a private investigator to obtain vehicle registration information to definitively link cars to specific units.
The judge found this evidence to be “credible and convincing.” Gray’s detailed documentation painted a clear picture of the problem’s scale. According to his calculations, just 12 of the community’s 33 units were monopolizing 27 parking spaces, leaving very few for the remaining 21 units. This takeaway is clear: a well-documented, fact-based complaint is infinitely more powerful than anecdotal grievances.
3. Changing the Rules Doesn’t Erase Past Failures
In response to Gray’s formal complaint, the HOA Board took a strategic but ultimately unsuccessful step. Just days before the scheduled hearing, the Board reviewed and adopted a new set of parking rules. These new rules conveniently removed the two-car limit that the association had claimed was unenforceable.
The association then argued that this rule change made the petitioner’s original complaint “moot,” or irrelevant. They essentially claimed that since the rule he was complaining about no longer existed, there was no longer a case to be heard.
This strategy failed because the judge ruled on the HOA’s past failure to enforce the rules that were in effect at the time of the complaint. This is a crucial lesson in accountability. An organization cannot escape responsibility for its prior negligence simply by changing the rules at the last minute. The failure to act had already occurred, and the consequences of that failure were the basis of the lawsuit.
4. Ignoring Small Violations Can Create a Major Crisis
Nowhere was the HOA’s failure more obvious than in the case of a single inoperable red truck. The vehicle had been parked in the same spot for over a year, in clear violation of the rules prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the property.
Despite this long-term, visible violation, the hearing record shows the HOA’s response was both delayed and minimal. They sent only one letter to the unit owner about the truck, and this action was taken “long after” the violation began and only after Gray had formally complained.
The judge’s observation on this single vehicle underscores the wider impact of the board’s inaction:
Even the clearing of just one more space would have made the tenuous parking situation better.
The red truck was a symptom of a much larger disease. The failure to address one obvious, easily-proven violation demonstrated a systemic failure to manage the community’s shared resources, which directly contributed to the parking crisis and the disproportionate use of spaces by a few residents.
5. Enforcement Must Be Fair, Not Just Convenient
Perhaps the most telling detail from the hearing record was the apparent double standard in the HOA’s enforcement actions. The record explicitly mentions only two enforcement actions the association had taken regarding parking:
• Towing the petitioner’s own truck on one occasion for parking in a fire lane.
• Sending a single, very late letter about the red truck that had been parked for over a year.
The hearing record is devastatingly clear on this point. The only enforcement actions the board could point to were punitive or reactive: towing the truck of the very resident demanding action, and sending a single, belated letter about a year-old violation after he had filed a formal complaint. This wasn’t just inconsistent enforcement; it was a textbook case of selective enforcement that targeted the complainant while ignoring the systemic problem.
For an HOA’s authority to be respected and legally defensible, its rules must be applied fairly and consistently to all residents, not just when it is convenient or aimed at a perceived nuisance.
Conclusion: A Win for the Power of One
The judge’s order was a decisive victory for resident rights, affirming that an HOA’s duty to enforce its own rules is not optional. While the association was ordered to repay his $500 filing fee, the real prize was the validation that one resident, armed with credible evidence, can successfully hold a board accountable to the entire community. This case proves that meticulous documentation, persistence, and a refusal to be ignored are the great equalizers in community governance. It makes you wonder: what ‘unenforceable’ rules in your community are just waiting for a champion to demand they be followed?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John W. Gray(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Austin Baillio(attorney) Maxwell & Morgan PC Represented Mesa Coronado III Condominium Association
Andrea Lacombe(community manager) Curtiss Management Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Kay Abramsohn(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol(administrative staff) Transmitted decision electronically
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party because Respondent established a technical violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested documents within the 10-day limit. However, the Administrative Law Judge found a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide requested association records within 10 business days
Petitioner requested sign-in sheets for the January 10, 2018, and February 15, 2018, CBS HOA meetings. Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute by failing to provide the requested documents within the required 10-day timeframe, although they were ultimately provided prior to the hearing.
Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future, and pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, failure to provide documents, condominium owners association, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 642888.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:22 (74.5 KB)
18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 655537.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:25 (83.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818033-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and decision from the administrative hearing case Annette Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association (No. 18F-H1818033-REL). The core of the dispute was the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) failure to provide requested documents—specifically, meeting sign-in sheets—to a member, Annette Cohen, within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258.
At the hearing, the Respondent HOA acknowledged this “technical violation,” attributing the delay to operational difficulties arising from a recent change in management companies. The Petitioner, Ms. Cohen, argued the delay was intentional and warranted a civil penalty.
The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, found that the HOA did violate the statute. In the final order, the Judge declared Ms. Cohen the prevailing party and mandated future compliance by the HOA. While a civil penalty was deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, the Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Ms. Cohen’s $500 filing fee.
Case Overview
Entity / Individual
Petitioner
Annette Cohen
Respondent
CBS 136 Homeowners Association (CBS)
Respondent’s Counsel
Brian Ditsch, Sacks Tierney P.A.
Respondent’s Mgmt. Co.
Key Witness
Susan Rubin (PRM)
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Case Number
18F-H1818033-REL
Hearing Date
June 6, 2018
Decision Date
June 26, 2018
Chronology of the Dispute
The dispute centered on two separate sets of document requests made by Petitioner Annette Cohen.
• Request 1 (January 10 Meeting):
◦ On or about Jan. 10, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the annual meeting held on this date.
◦ Jan. 2018: The management company PRM took over management of the CBS 136 HOA.
◦ Feb. 15, 2018: After more than a month, and after two scheduled review appointments were cancelled by the management company, the sign-in sheets were finally provided to Ms. Cohen by email.
• Request 2 (February 15 Meeting):
◦ Feb. 19, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 HOA meeting. Receipt of this request was acknowledged by PRM.
◦ Feb. 21, 26, 27 & March 5, 2018: Ms. Cohen made repeated follow-up requests for the same information.
• Formal Proceedings:
◦ March 9, 2018: Ms. Cohen filed a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
◦ April 10, 2018: The Respondent HOA filed an answer denying all allegations.
◦ June 6, 2018: An administrative hearing was held. The documents had been provided to Ms. Cohen at some point prior to this hearing.
◦ June 26, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision.
Core Allegation and Legal Framework
Petitioner’s Allegation
Annette Cohen alleged that the CBS 136 Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258 by failing to provide association records for review and copying within the statutorily required timeframe.
Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
The legal basis for the petition is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1258(A), which governs a member’s right to access association records. The statute states, in relevant part:
“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member… The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”
The petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that “shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing
Once the Respondent acknowledged the delay, the hearing focused solely on determining the appropriate remedy.
Petitioner’s Position (Annette Cohen)
• Intentional Negligence: Ms. Cohen argued that the Respondent “intentionally ignored her request for the documents.”
• Request for Penalty: Based on the belief of intentional neglect, she asserted that a civil penalty was an appropriate remedy.
• Unreasonable Delay: She noted that the documents “could have easily been emailed to her within the 10 day deadline,” but that the HOA’s management company did not present this as an option until after the deadline had already passed.
Respondent’s Position (CBS 136 HOA)
• Acknowledged Violation: At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent “acknowledged that the requested documents were not provided within the 10 day timeframe set forth in statute.”
• Mitigating Circumstances: The defense centered on testimony from Susan Rubin of the management company, PRM. Ms. Rubin testified to the following:
◦ No requests are “ever purposefully ignored.”
◦ PRM had only taken over management of the HOA in January 2018.
◦ At the time of the requests, PRM was “still getting documents from the former management company.”
◦ The delay was not due to ignoring the request, but because it “took a little longer than expected to provide the documents.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order
Findings and Conclusions
• Violation Established: The Judge concluded there was “no dispute that Respondent failed to provide the requested documents within 10 days.” Therefore, the Petitioner “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”
• Rejection of Civil Penalty: Despite the Petitioner’s argument, the Administrative Law Judge did “not find such a penalty to be appropriate given the circumstances in this matter.”
Final Order
The Judge issued a three-part order binding on the parties:
1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, is “deemed the prevailing party.”
2. Future Compliance: The Respondent, CBS 136 Homeowners Association, is ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future.”
3. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 directly to her within thirty (30) days of the order.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818033-REL
Study Guide: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Please answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 18F-H1818033-REL, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific documents did the Petitioner, Annette Cohen, request from the Respondent?
3. According to the petition, what was the core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen against the Homeowners Association?
4. What was the timeline for the Respondent’s failure to produce the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 meeting?
5. How did the Respondent initially respond to the petition after it was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
6. What admission did the Respondent make at the June 6, 2018 hearing?
7. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the delay in providing the requested documents to the Petitioner?
8. What remedy did the Petitioner argue was appropriate for the violation, and on what grounds?
9. What legal standard of proof was the Petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that she met it?
10. What were the three components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Annette Cohen, who was the Petitioner, and the CBS 136 Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.
2. The Petitioner requested the sign-in sheets from two separate meetings. She requested the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 annual meeting and the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 CBS HOA meeting.
3. The core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen was that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires homeowner associations to provide requested records to members for examination or copying within a ten-business-day timeframe.
4. Ms. Cohen requested the January 10, 2018 sign-in sheets on or about that same date (January 10). She did not receive them via email until February 15, 2018, which is well beyond the ten-business-day limit stipulated by law.
5. On or about April 10, 2018, the Respondent filed an answer to the petition. In this official response, the Respondent denied all of the allegations made by the Petitioner.
6. At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent acknowledged its failure to comply with the law. The Respondent admitted that the requested documents were not provided within the 10-day timeframe set forth in the statute, constituting a technical violation.
7. The Respondent, through the testimony of Susan Rubin from its management company PRM, explained the delay was not intentional. Ms. Rubin stated that PRM had just taken over management of the HOA in January 2018 and was still in the process of getting documents from the former management company.
8. The Petitioner argued that a civil penalty was the appropriate remedy. She contended that the Respondent intentionally ignored her requests and could have easily emailed the documents within the deadline, but failed to do so until after the deadline had passed.
9. The Petitioner had the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge found that she successfully met this standard because there was no dispute that the Respondent failed to provide the documents within the required 10 days.
10. The three components of the final Order were: 1) The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, was deemed the prevailing party; 2) The Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future; and 3) The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format responses. Use the provided case documents to formulate a comprehensive analysis.
1. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the appropriate remedy for the acknowledged statutory violation. Evaluate the mitigating circumstances offered by the Respondent and discuss why the Administrative Law Judge may have found them persuasive enough to deny a civil penalty while still finding in favor of the Petitioner.
2. Discuss the legal framework governing disputes between property owners and condominium associations in Arizona as outlined in the case documents. Explain the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings, and detail the specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).
3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the judge’s decision. Explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof, particularly in light of the Respondent’s initial denial of all allegations versus its later admission at the hearing.
4. Deconstruct the final Order issued by Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer. What were the three distinct parts of the Order, and what legal and practical purpose did each part serve in resolving the dispute, compensating the Petitioner, and ensuring future compliance by the Respondent?
5. Trace the procedural history of this case, creating a timeline of key events from Ms. Cohen’s first document request to the issuance of the final Order. Discuss the significance of each step, including the multiple requests, the petition filing, the Respondent’s answer, the hearing, and the final decision.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
The official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes cited in the case. It mandates that a homeowners association must make records available for member examination within ten business days and may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to prove their assertions. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the statute.
CBS 136 Homeowners Association
The Respondent in the case; an association of condominium owners located in Sun City West, Arizona.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations.
Findings of Fact
The section of the decision that outlines the factual history and evidence presented in the case, as determined by the judge.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state office where the formal hearing on the petition was conducted.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Annette Cohen.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”
The management company that took over management of the CBS 136 Homeowners Association in January 2018.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the CBS 136 Homeowners Association.
Technical Violation
An acknowledged infringement of a rule or statute where the substance of the rule may not have been maliciously violated. The Respondent admitted to a technical violation of the 10-day timeframe for document production.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818033-REL
Select all sources
642888.pdf
655537.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1818033-REL
2 sources
Both documents are identical excerpts from an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, concerning a dispute between Annette Cohen (Petitioner) and the CBS 136 Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case, No. 18F-H1818033-REL, addressed the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested association meeting sign-in sheets within the mandated ten-day period. Though the Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute, the Administrative Law Judge determined that a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances, such as the change in management. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and the Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute in the future and reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Annette Cohen(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Brian Ditsch(respondent attorney) Sacks Tierney P.A.
Susan Rubin(witness) PRM (management company) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision notice
Other Participants
Felicia Del Sol(clerical staff) Transmitted the decision
