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
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.
Key Issues & Findings
Association financial and other records; applicability
Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (60.9 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (88.6 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:16 (757.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:
• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.
• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.
• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)
On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:
1. Bank account signature cards.
2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.
Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.
Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258
The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:
• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.
• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:
1. Privileged attorney-client communication.
2. Pending litigation.
3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.
4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.
• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.
The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”
Factual Findings and Evidence Presented
Records Provided by the Association
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:
• All bank statements
• Account opening documentation
• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations
• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account
• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting
• The association’s insurance certificate
• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group
Witness Testimony
A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.
• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.
• Respondent’s Witnesses:
◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.
◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.
• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.
• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.
• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”
• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.
Procedural History and Final Outcome
c. Dec. 20, 2016
John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar. 7, 2017
An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Mar. 21, 2017
The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.
Mar. 29, 2017
ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Mar. 30, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.
The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.
Study Guide – 17F-H1716021-REL
Study Guide:Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716021-REL. It covers the key parties, legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, John Sellers, against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association?
2. Identify the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) that formed the basis of the legal dispute and summarize its primary requirement for homeowners’ associations.
3. What specific documents or information did John Sellers request that the association refused to provide?
4. In its defense, what was the association’s stated reason for not producing the requested items?
5. List the documents that the association did provide to the Petitioner prior to the hearing.
6. Who testified on behalf of the Respondent association at the March 7, 2017 hearing?
7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between “information” and “documents” in her legal conclusions?
8. What is the “burden of proof” in this case, and which party was responsible for meeting it?
9. What was the final outcome of the petition as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?
10. According to the ALJ’s decision, what is the plain meaning and purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner, John Sellers, alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The specific violation was the association’s refusal to provide him with certain records related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha.
2. The statute at the center of the dispute was A.R.S. § 33-1258, titled “Association financial and other records.” This statute generally requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
3. John Sellers requested bank account signature cards for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. He also requested read-only user names and passwords for online access to that same account.
4. The association denied the request because it asserted that the requested documents and information either did not exist or were not included in the association’s records. It was testified that the signature cards were held by the bank, Mutual of Omaha, as their custodian.
5. The association provided copies of all bank statements, account opening documentation, direct debit authorization forms, the Board’s resolution to open the account, agreements between its management company (Trestle) and the bank, its insurance certificate, and its management contract with Trestle.
6. Three witnesses testified for the Respondent: Alan Simpson (Vice President of the Board), Marc Kaplan (President of the Board), and Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group).
7. The ALJ concluded that the requested user names and passwords constituted “information,” not a “document” as covered by the statute. She further reasoned that neither the signature cards nor the online credentials related to the actual expenditure of funds, but rather to the mechanisms for disbursement, and were maintained by the bank, not the association.
8. The burden of proof rested on the Petitioner, John Sellers, to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order denying the Petitioner’s petition. This decision was then adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, formally denying the petition and making the decision binding on the parties.
10. The ALJ determined the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is that associations must provide members with access to documents that allow them to ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments. The judge noted that arguments for different types of access (e.g., electronic vs. paper) are policy arguments that should be addressed to the Legislature.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts, legal reasoning, and conclusions presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of “financial and other records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258. How did this interpretation, particularly the distinction between disbursement mechanisms and actual expenditures, lead to the denial of John Sellers’ petition?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioner, according to the ALJ’s findings, failed to meet this standard.
3. Trace the procedural timeline of the case from the initial petition filed around December 20, 2016, to the Final Order dated March 30, 2017. Identify the key legal bodies involved (Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Real Estate) and their respective roles in the process.
4. Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that federal banking statutes and regulations intended to fight terrorism necessitated the existence and disclosure of the requested records. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the court?
5. Examine the exceptions to disclosure outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B). Although not the central issue in the final decision, explain how these exceptions frame the limits of a homeowner’s right to association records.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions or recommended orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case, part of the Uniform Condominium Act. It governs a homeowner association’s duty to make its “financial and other records” available for examination by members.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Commissioner
The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as documents and testimony) before a judge or hearing officer. The hearing in this case was held on March 7, 2017.
Final Order
A binding decision issued by an administrative agency that concludes a case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on March 30, 2017, denying the petition.
Homeowners’ Association
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, John Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, establishing that a claim is “more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Trestle Management Group (“Trestle”)
The property management company for the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Vice President of Trestle, Marc Vasquez, testified at the hearing.
Uniform Condominium Act
The section of Arizona law (Chapter 9 of Title 33, Arizona Revised Statutes) that governs condominiums. A.R.S. § 33-1258 is part of this act.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716021-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
17F-H1716021-REL
3 sources
These sources document the administrative legal proceedings of a dispute between John Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue of the case, No. 17F-H1716021-REL, was the Association’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide bank account signature cards and read-only user credentials for online access to their bank account. The initial order, dated March 7, 2017, held the record open to allow both parties to submit legal memoranda concerning the scope of corporate records required under the statute. The subsequent Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the requested items were not considered financial records the association was legally required to create, maintain, or disclose. Finally, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ Decision as a Final Order on March 30, 2017.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.
Key Issues & Findings
Association financial and other records; applicability
Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:59 (60.9 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:02 (88.6 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:05 (757.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:
• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.
• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.
• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)
On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:
1. Bank account signature cards.
2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.
Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.
Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258
The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:
• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.
• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:
1. Privileged attorney-client communication.
2. Pending litigation.
3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.
4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.
• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.
The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”
Factual Findings and Evidence Presented
Records Provided by the Association
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:
• All bank statements
• Account opening documentation
• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations
• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account
• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting
• The association’s insurance certificate
• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group
Witness Testimony
A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.
• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.
• Respondent’s Witnesses:
◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.
◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.
• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.
• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.
• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”
• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.
Procedural History and Final Outcome
c. Dec. 20, 2016
John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar. 7, 2017
An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Mar. 21, 2017
The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.
Mar. 29, 2017
ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Mar. 30, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.
The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.
Study Guide – 17F-H1716021-REL
Study Guide:Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Case No. 17F-H1716021-REL. It covers the key parties, legal arguments, statutory interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner, John Sellers, against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association?
2. Identify the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) that formed the basis of the legal dispute and summarize its primary requirement for homeowners’ associations.
3. What specific documents or information did John Sellers request that the association refused to provide?
4. In its defense, what was the association’s stated reason for not producing the requested items?
5. List the documents that the association did provide to the Petitioner prior to the hearing.
6. Who testified on behalf of the Respondent association at the March 7, 2017 hearing?
7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between “information” and “documents” in her legal conclusions?
8. What is the “burden of proof” in this case, and which party was responsible for meeting it?
9. What was the final outcome of the petition as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?
10. According to the ALJ’s decision, what is the plain meaning and purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner, John Sellers, alleged that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258. The specific violation was the association’s refusal to provide him with certain records related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha.
2. The statute at the center of the dispute was A.R.S. § 33-1258, titled “Association financial and other records.” This statute generally requires that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
3. John Sellers requested bank account signature cards for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. He also requested read-only user names and passwords for online access to that same account.
4. The association denied the request because it asserted that the requested documents and information either did not exist or were not included in the association’s records. It was testified that the signature cards were held by the bank, Mutual of Omaha, as their custodian.
5. The association provided copies of all bank statements, account opening documentation, direct debit authorization forms, the Board’s resolution to open the account, agreements between its management company (Trestle) and the bank, its insurance certificate, and its management contract with Trestle.
6. Three witnesses testified for the Respondent: Alan Simpson (Vice President of the Board), Marc Kaplan (President of the Board), and Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group).
7. The ALJ concluded that the requested user names and passwords constituted “information,” not a “document” as covered by the statute. She further reasoned that neither the signature cards nor the online credentials related to the actual expenditure of funds, but rather to the mechanisms for disbursement, and were maintained by the bank, not the association.
8. The burden of proof rested on the Petitioner, John Sellers, to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
9. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order denying the Petitioner’s petition. This decision was then adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, formally denying the petition and making the decision binding on the parties.
10. The ALJ determined the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is that associations must provide members with access to documents that allow them to ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments. The judge noted that arguments for different types of access (e.g., electronic vs. paper) are policy arguments that should be addressed to the Legislature.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based on the facts, legal reasoning, and conclusions presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of “financial and other records” under A.R.S. § 33-1258. How did this interpretation, particularly the distinction between disbursement mechanisms and actual expenditures, lead to the denial of John Sellers’ petition?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioner, according to the ALJ’s findings, failed to meet this standard.
3. Trace the procedural timeline of the case from the initial petition filed around December 20, 2016, to the Final Order dated March 30, 2017. Identify the key legal bodies involved (Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Real Estate) and their respective roles in the process.
4. Evaluate the Petitioner’s argument that federal banking statutes and regulations intended to fight terrorism necessitated the existence and disclosure of the requested records. Why was this argument ultimately unpersuasive to the court?
5. Examine the exceptions to disclosure outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1258(B). Although not the central issue in the final decision, explain how these exceptions frame the limits of a homeowner’s right to association records.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions or recommended orders. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1258
The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case, part of the Uniform Condominium Act. It governs a homeowner association’s duty to make its “financial and other records” available for examination by members.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Commissioner
The head of a government department. In this case, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, adopted the ALJ’s decision and issued the Final Order.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as documents and testimony) before a judge or hearing officer. The hearing in this case was held on March 7, 2017.
Final Order
A binding decision issued by an administrative agency that concludes a case. In this matter, the Final Order was issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on March 30, 2017, denying the petition.
Homeowners’ Association
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, John Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, establishing that a claim is “more probably true than not.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Trestle Management Group (“Trestle”)
The property management company for the Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The Vice President of Trestle, Marc Vasquez, testified at the hearing.
Uniform Condominium Act
The section of Arizona law (Chapter 9 of Title 33, Arizona Revised Statutes) that governs condominiums. A.R.S. § 33-1258 is part of this act.
Blog Post – 17F-H1716021-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
17F-H1716021-REL
3 sources
These sources document the administrative legal proceedings of a dispute between John Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue of the case, No. 17F-H1716021-REL, was the Association’s alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide bank account signature cards and read-only user credentials for online access to their bank account. The initial order, dated March 7, 2017, held the record open to allow both parties to submit legal memoranda concerning the scope of corporate records required under the statute. The subsequent Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding that the requested items were not considered financial records the association was legally required to create, maintain, or disclose. Finally, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ Decision as a Final Order on March 30, 2017.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.
Key Issues & Findings
Association financial and other records; applicability
Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:15 (60.9 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:16 (88.6 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:17 (757.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:
• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.
• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.
• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)
On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:
1. Bank account signature cards.
2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.
Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.
Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258
The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:
• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.
• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:
1. Privileged attorney-client communication.
2. Pending litigation.
3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.
4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.
• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.
The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”
Factual Findings and Evidence Presented
Records Provided by the Association
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:
• All bank statements
• Account opening documentation
• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations
• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account
• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting
• The association’s insurance certificate
• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group
Witness Testimony
A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.
• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.
• Respondent’s Witnesses:
◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.
◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.
• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.
• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.
• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”
• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.
Procedural History and Final Outcome
c. Dec. 20, 2016
John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar. 7, 2017
An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Mar. 21, 2017
The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.
Mar. 29, 2017
ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Mar. 30, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.
The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA complied with A.R.S. § 33-1258 by providing documents related to expenditures, and was not required to provide bank signature cards or read-only online access credentials.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 because the statute does not require the association to provide records (like signature cards or usernames/passwords) which are not financial records showing actual expenditures and are often held by the financial institution.
Key Issues & Findings
Association financial and other records; applicability
Petitioner, a member of the HOA, alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing access to bank account signature cards and read-only user names/passwords. The ALJ found that these items were not 'financial and other records' that the association was statutorily required to provide, as they related to mechanisms for disbursement rather than actual expenditure, and would be maintained by the bank, not the association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied and dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, Condominium Act, Access to Records, Financial Records, Bank Records
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 549566.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:27 (60.9 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 554490.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:28 (88.6 KB)
17F-H1716021-REL Decision – 558591.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:28 (757.3 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716021-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association. The core of the dispute was Petitioner John Sellers’s allegation that the Respondent, Rancho Madera Condominium Association, violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1258 by refusing to produce specific records: bank account signature cards and read-only online banking credentials for the association’s account with Mutual of Omaha.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately recommended the petition be denied, a decision that was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The ruling hinged on a narrow interpretation of the statute. The ALJ concluded that the requested items were not “financial and other records of the association” as required by law. Key findings supporting this conclusion were:
• Custody: The signature cards, if they exist, are records held by the bank (Mutual of Omaha), not the association.
• Nature of Request: Online user names and passwords constitute “information,” not a “document” or “record” in the statutory sense.
• Sufficient Disclosure: The association had already provided a comprehensive set of financial documents (bank statements, contracts, resolutions, etc.) sufficient for a member to ascertain whether the association was prudently managing its funds, thereby satisfying the plain-meaning purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
The petitioner’s arguments that such records must exist under federal banking regulations and that electronic access is superior to paper records were deemed policy arguments to be addressed to the legislature, not grounds for finding a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Case Name
John Sellers, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1716021-REL (also listed as DOCKET NO. 17F-H1716021-REL and CASE NO. HO 17-16/021)
On or about December 20, 2016, John Sellers, a condominium owner and member of the Rancho Madera Condominium Association, filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the association had violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by refusing to provide two specific items related to its bank account at Mutual of Omaha:
1. Bank account signature cards.
2. Read-only user names and passwords for online access to the account.
Sellers argued that these documents must exist, citing federal banking statutes and regulations intended to combat terrorism.
Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258
The case revolved around the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, “Association financial and other records.” The key provisions of this statute state:
• A. Right to Examine: “Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…”
• Timeline: An association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination and ten business days to provide copies upon request.
• Fees: An association may charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.
• B. Withholdable Records: The statute allows an association to withhold records related to:
1. Privileged attorney-client communication.
2. Pending litigation.
3. Records of board meetings not required to be open to all members.
4. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
5. Records related to job performance or complaints against employees.
• C. Legal Prohibitions: An association is not required to disclose records if doing so would violate state or federal law.
The Uniform Condominium Act, of which this statute is a part, does not provide a more specific definition of “financial and other records.”
Factual Findings and Evidence Presented
Records Provided by the Association
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent had already provided the Petitioner with a substantial volume of financial records. Emails attached to the initial petition indicated that the following documents were furnished:
• All bank statements
• Account opening documentation
• Forms for members’ direct debit authorizations
• The Board’s resolution authorizing the opening of the bank account
• Agreements between the property management company, Trestle Management Group, and Mutual of Omaha regarding fees, indemnities, and netting
• The association’s insurance certificate
• The association’s management contract with Trestle Management Group
Witness Testimony
A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, where testimony was presented by both parties.
• Petitioner’s Testimony: John Sellers testified on his own behalf and submitted ten exhibits.
• Respondent’s Witnesses:
◦ Marc Vasquez (Vice President of Trestle Management Group): Testified that all signature cards for the association’s bank accounts were held by the bank at which the accounts were opened. He stated that Mutual of Omaha was the custodian of those cards.
◦ Alan Simpson (Vice President of Respondent’s Board) & Marc Kaplan (President of Respondent’s Board): Both testified that they did not have user names and passwords for the association’s Mutual of Omaha account. They believed, however, that the association’s treasurer may have had such credentials to access the account online.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 29, 2017, denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was based on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 and the evidence presented.
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent had violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that “convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Statutory Interpretation: The ALJ determined that the “plain meaning” of A.R.S. § 33-1258 is to provide members with access to documents that allow them to “ascertain whether the association is prudently managing its members’ assessments.” The decision explicitly states that the numerous documents already provided by the Respondent fulfilled this purpose.
• Custody and Control: A central finding was that the requested items were not “records of the association.” The signature cards were records held and maintained by a third party, Mutual of Omaha. The statute does not compel an association to produce records that are not in its possession or under its control.
• Information vs. Documents: The decision drew a distinction between records and information, stating, “The user names and passwords are information, not a document.” Furthermore, it noted that these items “do not relate to Respondent’s actual expenditure of members’ assessments” but rather to the mechanisms for disbursing funds.
• Scope of the Statute: The ALJ concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not require an association to “create, maintain, or provide this information or documentation to Petitioner, either to serve his convenience or to allow him to ascertain Respondent’s or Mutual of Omaha’s compliance with federal banking statutes that are not incorporated in the Uniform Condominium Act.”
• Policy Arguments: The Petitioner’s contention that “paper access to the account information is inferior to electronic access” was dismissed as “a policy argument that should be addressed to the Legislature.” The statute only requires that records be made “reasonably available,” which the Respondent had done.
Procedural History and Final Outcome
c. Dec. 20, 2016
John Sellers files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Mar. 7, 2017
An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Diane Mihalsky. An order is issued holding the record open for the parties to submit legal memoranda regarding the scope of A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Mar. 21, 2017
The deadline for submitting legal memoranda passes, and the record on the matter is closed.
Mar. 29, 2017
ALJ Diane Mihalsky issues the “Administrative Law Judge Decision,” which includes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommended Order to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Mar. 30, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a “Final Order.” This order formally accepts and adopts the ALJ’s decision, and the petition is denied.
The Final Order, effective immediately upon service, represented the final administrative action in the matter. The order noted that parties could file a motion for rehearing within 30 days or appeal the final administrative decision through judicial review.
Respondent admitted to all allegations regarding misuse of surplus monies, failure to adhere to budget, refusal to provide financial records, and unilateral board member decisions. The new Board committed to future compliance. Respondent was ordered to comply with statutes and CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's $2,000 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed due to mitigating testimony from the new Board chairman.
Key Issues & Findings
Surplus monies
Allegation that the Board used surplus monies without an approved budget.
Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Budget adherence
Allegation that the Board failed to adhere to the approved budget.
Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Financial records
Allegation that the Board refused to provide a financial report.
Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Board voting
Allegation that an individual board member made decisions without a Board vote.
Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Decision Documents
15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 487946.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:46 (113.1 KB)
15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 495139.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:47 (61.2 KB)
**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Maxine Fairbanks v. Santa Bird Condominium Association* (Case No. 15F-H1516012-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding the mismanagement of condominium association funds and governance procedures.
**Key Issues and Allegations**
The Petitioner, Maxine Fairbanks, alleged that the Respondent (the Association) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific allegations included:
* **Surplus Monies:** Using surplus funds without an approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1254).
* **Budget Adherence:** Failing to adhere to the approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243).
* **Financial Records:** Refusing to provide financial reports to members (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258).
* **Governance:** Allowing individual board members to make decisions without a formal vote of the Board (violation of Declaration Paragraph 9E).
**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
During the hearing on March 17, 2016, the Respondent was represented by a newly elected Board of Directors.
* **Admissions:** The Respondent **admitted to all allegations**, attributing the violations to the conduct of the previous Board.
* **Mitigation:** Patricia Benner, the chairman of the new Board, testified that the Association’s records were in "disarray" when they took office. She detailed extensive steps taken to achieve compliance, including hiring a management company.
* **Petitioner’s Request:** The Petitioner requested an order ensuring future compliance with statutes and governing documents.
**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
* **Violations Confirmed:** Based on the Respondent's admissions, the judge concluded that the Association had violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1254, 33-1243, 33-1258, and Paragraph 9E of the CC&Rs.
* **Mitigation Accepted:** The judge found Ms. Benner’s testimony credible and accepted the new Board's corrective actions as mitigation.
**Outcome and Order**
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on March 28, 2016:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with the applicable statutes and CC&Rs.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's **filing fee of $2,000.00** within 30 days.
3. **No Civil Penalty:** Due to the mitigating testimony regarding the new Board's efforts, no civil penalty was assessed.
**Final Status**
The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on May 9, 2016, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Maxine Fairbanks(Petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; testified at hearing
Respondent Side
Julianne C. Wheeler(attorney) Jennings, Haugh & Cunningham, LLP Attorney for Respondent
Patricia Benner(witness) Santa Bird Condominium Association Chairman of the new Board; testified at hearing
Peggi Hollen(board member) Santa Bird Condominium Association Chairman (listed on mailing list)
Neutral Parties
M. Douglas(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake(Agency Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety Interim Director
Greg Hanchett(Agency Director) Office of Administrative Hearings Interim Director; signed certification
Joni Cage(Agency Staff) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez(Agency Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Signed mailing/transmission
The Director accepted the ALJ's recommendation on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding maintenance of common areas (weeds, wall) and failure to hold elections. The HOA was ordered to comply with statutes and prove weed control. Claims regarding open meetings were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to attend. Claims regarding financial records were dismissed due to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse half ($1,000) of the filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
Maintenance of common elements
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing overflowing trash, weeds, and a broken wall. The ALJ found the evidence established these failures.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with statute and provide proof that weeds in common areas have been eliminated or properly controlled.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1247
Open meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The HOA proved notice was mailed for the May 24, 2012 meeting.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_lose
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1248
Voting and proxies
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The HOA admitted no election was held at the annual meeting because only three members attended.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1250 in the future.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1250
Association financial and other records
Petitioner requested financial records in August 2011 which were not provided until Jan/Feb 2012 (late).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_lose
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 12-541(5)
Decision Documents
12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 370568.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (41.0 KB)
12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg Decision – 376532.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:29 (212.0 KB)
**Case Summary: Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1213010-BFS-rhg
**Nature of Proceeding:** Administrative Rehearing
**Overview**
This summary addresses the **rehearing** of a dispute between Denise Park (Petitioner), a condominium owner, and the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent). While an original decision was issued in March 2013 finding the Respondent liable for three violations, the rehearing in November 2013 and subsequent Final Order modified these findings based on a statute of limitations defense,.
**Procedural History and Original Decision**
Petitioner originally alleged four statutory violations: failure to maintain common areas, failure to conduct open meetings, failure to hold elections, and failure to provide financial information.
* **Original Outcome:** In the March 28, 2013 decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Petitioner on three counts (maintenance, elections, and financial records) and ordered the Respondent to reimburse $1,500 of the filing fee.
**Rehearing Proceedings and Legal Analysis**
The rehearing was conducted on November 20, 2013. The ALJ re-evaluated the evidence and new legal arguments regarding the four alleged violations,.
**1. Maintenance of Common Areas (A.R.S. § 33-1247)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a broken wall, control weeds, and provide adequate trash services,.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued that maintenance was deferred because Petitioner and others failed to pay dues,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** Evidence established the common areas were not maintained (broken wall, weeds, peeling paint). Although the Respondent performed repairs *after* the original hearing, the ALJ ruled that post-hearing remedial actions did not alter the fact that the violation existed at the time of the petition,.
**2. Open Meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1248)**
* **Issue:** Petitioner claimed she did not receive notice of the annual meeting.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Not Found.** The ALJ found that the Respondent mailed the notice in accordance with the statute. The Petitioner’s failure to attend or receive the notice did not constitute a violation by the HOA,. This upheld the original finding.
**3. Elections (A.R.S. § 33-1250)**
* **Issue:** The HOA failed to hold elections for officers.
* **Argument:** Respondent argued no election was required because only three members attended the meeting, and all agreed to continue in their current officer roles,.
* **Ruling:** **Violation Affirmed.** The ALJ ruled that the HOA failed to hold proper elections as required by state statute and the Association's Bylaws.
**4. Financial Records (A.R.S. § 3
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Denise Park(Petitioner) Owner of three condominium units
Kevin R. Harper(Attorney) Harper Law, PLC Receiving mail for Petitioner in Final Order; listed as Respondent's attorney in initial hearing decision text
J. Roger Wood(Attorney) J. Roger Wood PLLC Represented Petitioner in rehearing
Respondent Side
Carol Ann Klagge(Treasurer) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Board member; witness
Jay Klagge(Secretary) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Board member
Tony Sturgeon(Vice President) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Board member
Helen Bartels(Board Member) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Witness; became board member after March 28, 2013
Jonathon V. O’Steen(Attorney) O’Steen & Harrison, PLC Represented Respondent in rehearing and final order; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision text
Neutral Parties
M. Douglas(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage(Complaint Program Manager) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
The Director accepted the ALJ's decision on rehearing. The Petitioner prevailed on 2 of 4 issues (maintenance and elections). The Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 (half the filing fee) and provide proof of weed control in common areas.
Why this result: Petitioner lost the open meetings issue due to failure to attend despite notice, and the financial records issue due to the one-year statute of limitations.
Key Issues & Findings
Maintenance of common areas
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain common areas, citing a broken wall, weeds, and overflowing trash containers. The Tribunal found credible evidence of these conditions.
Orders: HOA ordered to comply with statute; eliminate or control weeds within 90 days and provide proof.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
73
76
133
138
139
Open meetings
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to conduct open meetings. The Tribunal found notice was mailed but Petitioner failed to attend.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_lose
Cited:
73
134
Proper elections
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to hold proper elections. The Tribunal found no election was held at the annual meeting.
Orders: HOA ordered to fully comply with election statutes in the future.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
73
135
138
Financial information
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested financial information. While the HOA failed to provide records within 10 days, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_lose
Cited:
73
136
137
Decision Documents
12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 334123.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (205.6 KB)
12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 370568.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:12 (41.0 KB)
12F-H1213010-BFS Decision – 376532.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:13 (212.0 KB)
**Case Summary: Denise Park v. Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 12F-H1213010-BFS**
**Overview**
This case involves a petition filed by Denise Park (Petitioner) against the Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, an owner of three condominium units, alleged that the Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding planned communities. The proceedings included an initial hearing on March 28, 2013, and a rehearing on November 20, 2013.
**Key Allegations and Issues**
The Petitioner charged the Respondent with four specific violations:
1. **Failure to maintain common areas** (A.R.S. § 33-1247), specifically regarding a broken wall, weeds, peeling paint, and insufficient trash containers.
2. **Failure to conduct open meetings** (A.R.S. § 33-1248).
3. **Failure to hold proper elections** (A.R.S. § 33-1250).
4. **Failure to provide financial information** within the statutory timeframe (A.R.S. § 33-1258).
**Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Park testified that common areas were neglected, trash bins were overflowing, and she had not received proper notice of meetings or elections. She also argued the Association failed to provide requested financial records until after she filed her petition.
* **Respondent:** The Association argued that maintenance issues resulted from financial struggles caused by unpaid dues, including dues owed by the Petitioner. Regarding meetings, the Treasurer testified that notice for the May 2012 meeting was mailed to Park, but she did not attend. Regarding elections, the Association argued that because only three members attended the meeting—all of whom were current officers willing to continue—no formal election was necessary. On rehearing, the Respondent raised a defense regarding the statute of limitations for the financial records claim.
**Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on rehearing, which modified the initial findings:
1. **Maintenance (Violation Found):** The ALJ found the Association failed to maintain common areas, citing the broken wall and weeds. Although the Association performed repairs after the initial hearing, the violation was substantiated at the time of the complaint.
2. **Open Meetings (No Violation):** The ALJ found the Association did hold
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Denise Park(petitioner) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association (Member) Owner of three condominium units
J. Roger Wood(attorney) J. Roger Wood PLLC Represented Petitioner in rehearing
Respondent Side
Carol Ann Klagge(witness) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Treasurer; owns three units
Jay Klagge(board member) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Secretary
Tony Sturgeon(board member) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Vice-President
Helen Bartels(witness) Montezuma Fairway Villas Homeowners Association Became board member after March 28, 2013 hearing
Jonathon V. O’Steen(attorney) O’Steen & Harrison, PLC Represented Respondent in rehearing; listed as Petitioner's attorney in initial hearing decision
Kevin R. Harper(attorney) Harper Law, PLC Represented Respondent in initial hearing; Final Order mailing list lists 'Denise Park c/o Harper Law PLC'
Neutral Parties
M. Douglas(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma(Director) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage(Complaint Program Manager) Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
