Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Rick & Lisa Holly v. La Barranca II Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-14
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, or 33-1817, or any of the cited CC&R provisions concerning intentional construction delay, conflict of interest, or retaliatory fines.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rick and Lisa Holly Counsel Kevin P. Nelson, Esq.
Respondent La Barranca II Homeowners Association Counsel Edward D. O’Brien, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B); CC&R Article 11.2.5
A.R.S. § 33-1811; CC&R Article 4.7
A.R.S. § 33-1803; CC&Rs Articles 11.3 and 12

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, or 33-1817, or any of the cited CC&R provisions concerning intentional construction delay, conflict of interest, or retaliatory fines.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all three issues alleged in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Intentional delay of construction

Petitioners alleged that Respondent intentionally delayed the approval and construction of their new home for over eleven months.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)
  • CC&R Article 11.2.5

Conflict of interest

Petitioners alleged that a Board Vice President and Secretary (who owned lots adjacent to Petitioners') were blocking approval of the home due to a conflict of interest.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • CC&R Article 4.7

Retaliatory fines

Petitioners alleged fear of prospective retaliatory imposition of fines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • CC&R Article 11.3
  • CC&R Article 12

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Planned Communities Act, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Construction Delay, Conflict of Interest, Retaliatory Fines
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 4.7
  • CC&R Article 11.2.5
  • CC&R Article 11.3
  • CC&R Article 12

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019020-REL Decision – 769746.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:42 (191.2 KB)

This decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) addresses a three-issue petition filed by Rick and Lisa Holly (Petitioners), who are members and lot owners in the La Barranca II development, against the La Barranca II Homeowners Association (Respondent). The hearing proceedings took place on February 5 and February 7, 2020.

Key Facts and Background

The dispute centered on the Petitioners' attempt to gain Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval for the construction of a new home on their property (Lot 50). The approval process had spanned over eleven months. Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, and 33-1817) and certain Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioners presented three specific claims:

  1. Intentional Delay of Construction: Petitioners asserted that Respondent unreasonably delayed the construction of their home. The Petitioners' timeline expectations were based on their contractor's (Brilar) estimates, not statutes or association documents. The OAH found that Petitioners did not establish any undue delay attributable to the Respondent. Evidence showed that the contractor's initial plans failed to meet the Architectural Guidelines and that delays were more likely due to the contractor's "imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements". The ARC and its consultant provided guidance and conditional preliminary approval, requiring revisions based on valid considerations. Furthermore, final construction approval in September 2019 was withheld because the required $20,000 refundable construction deposit had not been paid and the site markers (surveyor pins) were missing.
  2. Conflict of Interest: Petitioners alleged a conflict of interest because the Board's vice president, William Bohan, and secretary, Nancy Williams, jointly owned a vacant lot (Lot 49) bordering Lot 50. Petitioners offered only suppositions that Mr. Bohan and Ms. Williams were "blocking approval" due to personal negative opinions. The OAH ruled that Petitioners did not establish that Mr. Bohan had an undeclared conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811, acknowledging that in a small development, volunteers on the board and ARC will naturally be regulating their neighbors.
  3. Retaliatory Fines: Petitioners feared retaliatory imposition of fines based on the Respondent previously fining other owners for "petty offenses". The OAH concluded that this claim, which implicated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) concerning monetary penalties, failed because the Respondent had not assessed any fines or penalties against the Petitioners. The claim was based entirely on speculation.

Outcome and Final Decision

Petitioners bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Since Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated any statute or CC&R, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky issued a Recommended Order that the petition be dismissed. The Order became binding unless a rehearing was granted.

Questions

Question

Does a board member have a conflict of interest just because they own a lot next to mine?

Short Answer

No. Owning a neighboring lot does not automatically create a conflict of interest or imply bias.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ reasoned that in planned communities, especially smaller ones, board and committee members will inevitably have to regulate their neighbors. Without evidence of actual animus or discriminatory intent, simply owning a contiguous lot is not a conflict of interest that prevents a member from voting on architectural plans.

Alj Quote

In any homeowners’ association, but especially In a small development having only 71 lots, the persons who volunteer to serve on homeowners’ associations’ boards and ARCs will necessarily be regulating their neighbors.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board of Directors
  • Neighbors

Question

Is the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) required to help me design my home to meet the guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The ARC's role is to review submitted plans for compliance, not to assist in the design process.

Detailed Answer

While an ARC might offer guidance, the decision clarifies that their official duty is strictly to review plans against the governing documents. They are not obligated to help owners or builders design compliant structures.

Alj Quote

It is not ARC’s job to help an owner design a home that complies with Respondent’s Guidelines, only to review plans that are submitted for compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Design Guidelines
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA because I am afraid they might fine me in the future?

Short Answer

No. You cannot base a legal complaint on the speculation of future retaliatory fines.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a petition cannot rely on fear of potential future actions. Unless the HOA has actually assessed a fine or penalty, a claim regarding retaliatory fines is considered speculative and will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Any prospective prohibition on fines would be based on nothing but speculation. . . . Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) or Articles 11.3 or 12 by assessing retaliatory fines or penalties against Petitioners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Retaliation
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or CC&Rs. The standard of proof is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearings

Question

Is the HOA responsible for delays if my builder doesn't understand the design guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is not liable for delays caused by a builder's failure to submit compliant plans.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA's architectural committee is reasonably responsive to submissions, they are not at fault for construction delays resulting from a contractor's misunderstanding of the design rules or failure to meet requirements.

Alj Quote

On this record, it appears that Hoamco and the ARC were reasonably responsive . . . and that any delay in construction appears more likely based on Brilar principal’s imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Construction Delays
  • Vendor Issues

Question

Can I rely on my contractor's timeline estimates for when the HOA will approve my plans?

Short Answer

No. You should rely on the timelines specified in the CC&Rs and statutes, not third-party estimates.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that a homeowner's expectations based on their builder's estimates are not binding on the HOA. The official governing documents determine the procedural timeline, and reliance on outside estimates does not constitute a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mrs. Holly candidly testified that Petiitoners’ expectations about how long it would take to build their house was based on Brilar’s principles’ estimates, not anything in statutes or Respondent’s CC&Rs . . .

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Construction
  • Expectations

Question

Can the HOA charge a fee for reviewing architectural plans?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs allow for it.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that CC&Rs can grant the Architectural Review Committee the power to assess reasonable fees in connection with the review of plans.

Alj Quote

Article 11.3 of Respondent’s CC&Rs concerns general provisions for the ARC, including that it may assess reasonable fees in connection with its review of plans . . .

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Architectural Review
  • CC&Rs

Case

Docket No
20F-H2019020-REL
Case Title
Rick and Lisa Holly vs. La Barranca II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-02-14
Alj Name
Diane Mihalsky
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member have a conflict of interest just because they own a lot next to mine?

Short Answer

No. Owning a neighboring lot does not automatically create a conflict of interest or imply bias.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ reasoned that in planned communities, especially smaller ones, board and committee members will inevitably have to regulate their neighbors. Without evidence of actual animus or discriminatory intent, simply owning a contiguous lot is not a conflict of interest that prevents a member from voting on architectural plans.

Alj Quote

In any homeowners’ association, but especially In a small development having only 71 lots, the persons who volunteer to serve on homeowners’ associations’ boards and ARCs will necessarily be regulating their neighbors.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board of Directors
  • Neighbors

Question

Is the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) required to help me design my home to meet the guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The ARC's role is to review submitted plans for compliance, not to assist in the design process.

Detailed Answer

While an ARC might offer guidance, the decision clarifies that their official duty is strictly to review plans against the governing documents. They are not obligated to help owners or builders design compliant structures.

Alj Quote

It is not ARC’s job to help an owner design a home that complies with Respondent’s Guidelines, only to review plans that are submitted for compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Design Guidelines
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA because I am afraid they might fine me in the future?

Short Answer

No. You cannot base a legal complaint on the speculation of future retaliatory fines.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a petition cannot rely on fear of potential future actions. Unless the HOA has actually assessed a fine or penalty, a claim regarding retaliatory fines is considered speculative and will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Any prospective prohibition on fines would be based on nothing but speculation. . . . Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) or Articles 11.3 or 12 by assessing retaliatory fines or penalties against Petitioners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Retaliation
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or CC&Rs. The standard of proof is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Hearings

Question

Is the HOA responsible for delays if my builder doesn't understand the design guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is not liable for delays caused by a builder's failure to submit compliant plans.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA's architectural committee is reasonably responsive to submissions, they are not at fault for construction delays resulting from a contractor's misunderstanding of the design rules or failure to meet requirements.

Alj Quote

On this record, it appears that Hoamco and the ARC were reasonably responsive . . . and that any delay in construction appears more likely based on Brilar principal’s imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Construction Delays
  • Vendor Issues

Question

Can I rely on my contractor's timeline estimates for when the HOA will approve my plans?

Short Answer

No. You should rely on the timelines specified in the CC&Rs and statutes, not third-party estimates.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that a homeowner's expectations based on their builder's estimates are not binding on the HOA. The official governing documents determine the procedural timeline, and reliance on outside estimates does not constitute a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mrs. Holly candidly testified that Petiitoners’ expectations about how long it would take to build their house was based on Brilar’s principles’ estimates, not anything in statutes or Respondent’s CC&Rs . . .

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Construction
  • Expectations

Question

Can the HOA charge a fee for reviewing architectural plans?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs allow for it.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that CC&Rs can grant the Architectural Review Committee the power to assess reasonable fees in connection with the review of plans.

Alj Quote

Article 11.3 of Respondent’s CC&Rs concerns general provisions for the ARC, including that it may assess reasonable fees in connection with its review of plans . . .

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Architectural Review
  • CC&Rs

Case

Docket No
20F-H2019020-REL
Case Title
Rick and Lisa Holly vs. La Barranca II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-02-14
Alj Name
Diane Mihalsky
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rick Holly (petitioner)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member
  • Lisa Holly (petitioner)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member
    Also referred to as Mrs. Holly
  • Kevin P. Nelson (petitioner attorney)
    Tiffany & Bosco
  • Brian Bracken (witness/contractor's principal)
    Brilar Homes, LLC
    Petitioners' general contractor
  • Larry E. Smith (witness/contractor's principal)
    Brilar Homes, LLC
    Petitioners' general contractor

Respondent Side

  • La Barranca II Homeowners Association (respondent)
    HOA party
  • Edward D. O’Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Alexia Firehawk (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • William Bohan (HOA board member/ARC member/witness)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association
    Board Vice President
  • Nancy Williams (HOA board member/ARC member)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association
    Board Secretary
  • Luke Hyde (property manager staff)
    Hoamco
    Architectural Department Manager
  • Josh Hall (property manager staff)
    Hoamco
    Architectural Department Staff
  • Neil True (architect consultant)
    Hoamco/ARC Consultant
    Consultant architect reviewing plans

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    OAH
  • John Davis (fire marshall)
    Sedona District Fire Marshall
    Consulted by HOA regarding dumpster placement
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Robert L Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019018-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-29
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert L Greco Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Bellasera Community Association, Inc. did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the homeowner received constructive notice of the violation and fine structure, satisfying statutory requirements. The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), as the evidence showed Petitioner received sufficient constructive notice of the alleged violation and had an opportunity to be heard or appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the HOA violated statutory requirements regarding notice and imposition of monetary penalties/late fees, resulting in suspension of privileges.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing fines and suspending gate/clubhouse access without providing adequate (actual) notice of the violation and hearing opportunity, and by improperly imposing late fees. The ALJ found the HOA provided constructive notice, satisfying the statute, and was entitled to impose cumulative fines for the ongoing violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1220
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1090

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fines, Constructive notice, Statutory violation, Access suspension, Maintenance violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019018-REL Decision – 766844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:37 (133.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Robert L. Greco (Petitioner) versus the Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Homeowners Association (HOA).

The core dispute originated from a 2013 violation notice regarding a faded garage door. The Petitioner claimed he did not receive the initial notices and only became aware of the issue upon receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney. Despite subsequently painting the door, an outstanding balance of $750 in fines remained on his account. For six years, the Petitioner paid his quarterly dues but ignored the outstanding fine balance. In June 2019, after failed settlement negotiations, the HOA deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and clubhouse access, prompting him to file the formal dispute.

The judge’s decision rested on two key legal conclusions. First, the court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that “actual notice” was required for the fines to be valid. It ruled that the multiple notices mailed to the Petitioner’s residence constituted sufficient “constructive notice” under Arizona law, providing both notification of the violation and an opportunity to be heard. Second, the court determined that the $750 charge was not an improper late fee but rather three separate, legitimate fines of $250 each, levied for an ongoing, uncorrected violation as per the HOA’s enforcement policy.

Case Overview

Case Name

Robert L Greco, Petitioner, vs. Bellasera Community Association, Inc., Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019018-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

January 9, 2020

Decision Date

January 29, 2020

Petitioner’s Core Allegation

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by imposing penalties and revoking privileges without providing proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Core Factual Issue

The denial of automatic gate and clubhouse access to the Petitioner on July 1, 2019, due to unpaid fines from 2013.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict between Mr. Greco and the Bellasera Community Association unfolded over six years, escalating from a minor maintenance issue to a formal legal dispute and revocation of privileges.

Initial Violation and Fines (2013)

Details

Feb. 5, 2013

Courtesy Notice

Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner’s address stating his garage door was faded and needed to be repainted, in violation of the Design Guidelines.

Mar. 14, 2013

Final Notice & First Fine

A follow-up notice was sent, stating a $250 fine was posted to Petitioner’s account. It warned that an additional $250 fine would be assessed automatically every 14 days if the violation remained uncorrected.

Apr. 2, 2013

Notice of Remedy & Second Fine

A third notice was sent, posting another $250 fine. This letter explicitly warned that the HOA had the “ability to suspend privileges for use of the Recreational Facilities” and informed the Petitioner of his right to appeal within 14 days.

May 7, 2013

Fourth Notice & Third Fine

A fourth notice was sent, posting another $250 fine to the account. It again noted the right to appeal the fine.

Jun. 5, 2013

Letter from HOA Counsel

Attorney Kelly Oetinger sent a letter demanding the garage door be repainted within 15 days. The letter explicitly stated, “If you do not repaint… the Association may disable the transponder you use to enter the community and may disable the fobs you use for the clubhouse.”

Petitioner’s Response and Aftermath (2013)

• July 4, 2013: Petitioner repainted the garage door.

• July 5, 2013: Petitioner sent a letter to the HOA stating the attorney’s letter was his “initial alert of the garage door condition.” He explained his delay by stating, “To effectively manage my workload, I dispose of unsolicited mail… In the future, I will exercise greater caution in disposing of unsolicited mail.”

• July 5, 2013: The HOA sent a letter acknowledging the repainting and offered to settle the $900 in fines for a payment of $500. The letter reiterated the threat to deactivate gate openers and fobs.

• July 17, 2013: The HOA sent a follow-up letter correcting an internal accounting error. The total fines were $750, not $900. A new settlement offer was made: pay $375, and the remaining $375 would be waived.

Period of Inaction (2013 – 2019)

From 2013 to 2019, the Petitioner received quarterly statements from the HOA indicating a $750 balance in addition to current assessments. Each quarter, the Petitioner would physically cross out the $750 balance and pay only the current assessment amount.

Escalation and Revocation of Privileges (2019)

• June 2019: Dennis Carson, a friend of the Petitioner serving on the HOA Board of Directors, informed him that his name was on a penalty list and the Board planned to deactivate his security gate and clubhouse access.

• June 2019: Settlement negotiations failed. The Petitioner offered $100; the Board countered with $250. The Petitioner then offered $251 ($250 for the fine and $1 to rent the clubhouse), which the Board declined.

• July 1, 2019: The Respondent deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and access to the clubhouse.

• October 11, 2019: The Petitioner filed the Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition, initiating the legal proceedings.

Key Arguments and Legal Findings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on the interpretation of “notice” as required by state law and the legitimacy of the fines imposed by the HOA.

Petitioner’s Position

1. Lack of Proper Notice: The Petitioner argued that he had not received “actual notice” of the violation or the impending fines until the letter from the HOA’s counsel on June 5, 2013. He asserted that because he acted promptly after receiving that letter, the fines were unjust. His argument implied that warnings in mail he did not personally read could not be held against him.

2. Improper Fines: The Petitioner alleged that the additional $500 in charges on the original $250 fine constituted improper late fees.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The Judge systematically refuted the Petitioner’s arguments, concluding that the HOA acted within its rights and in accordance with the law.

1. On the Matter of Notice:

• The governing statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard” before imposing penalties.

• The Judge found no legal authority requiring this to be “actual notice.” To accept this argument would create an unworkable standard where a homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing.”

• The decision established that the Petitioner received constructive notice through the “multiple mailings that were presumably delivered to his residential address.”

• The notices also informed the Petitioner how to appeal the matter, thereby satisfying the requirement for an “opportunity to be heard.”

• Conclusion: “Accordingly, Petitioner was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).”

2. On the Matter of Fines:

• The Judge differentiated between late fees and fines for an ongoing violation.

• The notices sent by the Respondent “clearly stated that an ongoing failure to remedy the violation would result in additional fines every 14 days.”

• The violation persisted from before March 14, 2013 (first fine) until July 5, 2013 (when the door was confirmed painted).

• Conclusion: The Respondent was entitled to impose three separate fines for the “ongoing condition of the garage door,” making the total of $750 legitimate.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the analysis of the evidence and law, the Administrative Law Judge reached a definitive conclusion.

• Final Ruling: “This Tribunal concludes that Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).”

• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order, dated January 29, 2020, is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Greco v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Robert L. Greco (Petitioner) versus Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), Case No. 20F-H2019018-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz to test your knowledge, an answer key for review, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was the Petitioner’s central complaint that initiated the legal action?

2. What specific violation of the community’s rules was the Petitioner initially accused of, and which governing documents were cited as being violated?

3. Describe the timeline of notices and fines issued by the Respondent between February and May 2013.

4. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for not responding to the initial violation notices from the Respondent before receiving a letter from the association’s attorney?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in or around June 2019 that led the Petitioner to file his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the “notice” required by the Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge differentiate between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” in her decision?

8. Why did the judge ultimately conclude that the Respondent had provided the Petitioner with adequate “notice and an opportunity to be heard”?

9. Explain the Petitioner’s allegation about improper late fees and the reason the judge rejected this argument.

10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, and what recourse was available to the parties?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was homeowner Robert L. Greco, and the Respondent was the Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (the HOA). Greco’s central complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, was that the HOA had denied him automatic gate access and use of clubhouse facilities on July 1, 2019, despite his being a long-term resident with timely payment of all quarterly dues.

2. The Petitioner was accused of having a faded garage door that needed to be repainted. The violation was cited as being contrary to the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), specifically Article V, Section 5.2, and the community’s Design Guidelines, specifically Article III, Section J.

3. The Respondent sent an initial “Courtesy Notice” on February 5, 2013. This was followed by a “Final Notice” with a $250 fine on March 14, a “Notice of Remedy” with another $250 fine on April 2, and a “Fourth Notice of Non-Compliance” with another $250 fine on May 7, 2013.

4. The Petitioner claimed that the attorney’s letter, received around June 5, 2013, was his “initial alert” regarding the garage door condition. He stated that he routinely disposes of unsolicited mail without reading it and had inadvertently discarded the previous notices sent by the Respondent.

5. In June 2019, after failed settlement negotiations over the outstanding $750 in fines from 2013, the Respondent deactivated the Petitioner’s security gate fob and his access to the clubhouse. This action prompted the Petitioner to file his dispute petition.

6. The Petitioner’s primary argument was that he did not receive “actual notice” of the violation until the attorney’s letter. He contended that because he acted promptly to correct the violation after receiving actual notice, he should not have been fined.

7. The judge used definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary. “Actual notice” was defined as notice given directly to, or personally received by, a party. “Constructive notice” was defined as notice arising by presumption of law from facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.

8. The judge concluded that the multiple notices mailed to the Petitioner’s residential address constituted “constructive notice” of the violation. Because the relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), does not explicitly require “actual notice,” and the mailings also advised him of his right to appeal, the judge found the Respondent had fulfilled its obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.

9. The Petitioner alleged that the additional $500 in fines were improper late fees on the original $250 fine. The judge rejected this, clarifying that the Respondent’s notices stated that additional fines would be assessed every 14 days for an ongoing failure to remedy the violation. Therefore, the additional charges were three separate fines for the “ongoing condition of the garage door,” not late fees.

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed. The parties were notified that this order was binding unless a request for rehearing was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning for favoring “constructive notice” over “actual notice” in the context of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). Discuss the potential consequences for homeowners and HOAs if the ruling had required “actual notice.”

2. Trace the negotiation attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent in 2013 and 2019. Evaluate the effectiveness of these attempts and discuss whether the dispute could have been resolved without formal legal proceedings.

3. The Petitioner argued that the fines imposed after the initial $250 were improper late fees. The judge, however, characterized them as new fines for an “ongoing condition.” Based on the evidence presented in the notices, construct an argument supporting both the Petitioner’s and the judge’s interpretation.

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and identify the key pieces of evidence that allowed the judge to conclude the Respondent did not violate the statute.

5. Examine the roles of the various community governing documents cited in this case (CC&Rs, Design Guidelines, Violation Enforcement policy). Explain how these documents worked together to grant the Respondent the authority to take action against the Petitioner.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The Arizona Revised Statute central to this case, which permits an HOA board to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

As defined in the decision, it is “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, it was Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Bellasera Community Association, Inc.

The Respondent in the case; the homeowners association (HOA) for the Bellasera Community in Arizona.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents for the community, which the Petitioner was found to have violated (specifically Article V, Section 5.2).

Constructive Notice

As defined in the decision, it is “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The judge ruled that mail sent to a residence constitutes this form of notice.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules established by the HOA governing the aesthetic appearance of properties. The Petitioner was found in violation of Article III, Section J of these guidelines.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition seeking a ruling. In this case, it was the homeowner, Robert L. Greco.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, it was the HOA.

He Threw Away His Mail for Years. His HOA’s Response Is a Warning to Every Homeowner.

That official-looking envelope from your Homeowners Association sits on the counter, a silent challenge. It’s easy to dismiss it as a newsletter or a bland reminder, just another piece of paper to be sorted later. But what if it isn’t? What if that envelope is a legal summons in disguise, the first shot in a battle you don’t even know you’re fighting?

For Robert L. Greco, a resident in his community for 17 years, this hypothetical became a harsh reality. He learned that ignoring HOA correspondence can ignite a conflict that smolders for years before erupting into severe consequences. Originating from a maintenance issue as simple as a faded garage door, his case offers a masterclass in the powerful lessons every homeowner should heed.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “I Didn’t Read It” Defense Doesn’t Work

The central pillar of the homeowner’s defense was disarmingly simple: he claimed he never received the first four violation notices because he habitually throws away what he considers “unsolicited mail.” He argued that without having read the warnings, he couldn’t be held responsible for the fines.

The judge’s ruling, however, invoked a foundational legal concept that extends far beyond HOA disputes into areas like property deeds and public records: the difference between “actual notice” and “constructive notice.” While actual notice means you personally saw the information, constructive notice presumes you have knowledge of something because it was delivered properly—in this case, mailed to the correct address. Whether you open the envelope is irrelevant.

In a July 5, 2013 letter, the homeowner unwittingly sealed his own fate by describing his mail-handling routine:

Routinely, Saturdays are my mail-pick-up days, and invariably, I walk straight to the re-cyclable container, and deposit the mail in the receptacle… I was astonished to learn that my garage door failed inspection. This is my initial alert of the garage door condition.

For homeowners, the takeaway is a stark one: in the eyes of the law, your recycling bin is not a valid legal defense. The burden doesn’t fall on an HOA to ensure you read your mail, only to send it. The responsibility to open and review all official correspondence rests squarely on the homeowner.

2. A Tiny Issue Can Snowball into a Years-Long Standoff

The timeline of this dispute reveals a classic case of conflict avoidance, where a minor, fixable problem was allowed to spiral into a major legal battle. The cost of a can of paint and a Saturday afternoon of work was ultimately dwarfed by a six-year, $750 dispute that cost the homeowner his access to his own community.

• February 5, 2013: The HOA sends its first “Courtesy Notice” regarding a faded garage door in need of repainting.

• March – May 2013: After no response, the HOA issues three more notices, levying escalating fines that total $750.

• 2013 to 2019: For six years, the homeowner receives quarterly statements showing the $750 balance. Each time, he would “cross out the $750.00 balance and pay the current assessment.”

• June/July 2019: The HOA finally forces the issue by deactivating his security gate fob and his access to the clubhouse.

This progression shows how a simple lack of communication transformed a weekend chore into a years-long standoff. By ignoring the notices and the subsequent fines, the homeowner allowed a molehill to grow into a mountain of conflict.

3. “Continuing Violation” Fines Are Not Late Fees

The homeowner contended that the HOA was improperly stacking late fees on top of an initial $250 penalty. However, the administrative law judge highlighted a critical distinction embedded in the association’s rules.

The HOA wasn’t charging late fees on a single, past-due penalty. It was levying new fines for a “continuing violation.” The notice sent on March 14, 2013, explicitly warned that “an additional fine of $250 will be assessed automatically every 14 days… if the violation remains uncorrected.”

This is a crucial detail found in many HOA bylaws. An unpainted garage door is not a one-time offense; it is an ongoing breach of community standards. A homeowner who thinks they are simply letting a single fine sit unpaid may actually be incurring entirely new violations over time, dramatically increasing their financial liability.

4. Failed Negotiations Can Cost More Than Money

Twice, this dispute could have been resolved. The breakdown in negotiations, however, reveals how ego and principle can prove more costly than the fines themselves.

The first attempt came in 2013, after the homeowner had finally painted the garage. The HOA initially offered to settle a supposed $900 balance for $500. This, however, was based on an “internal accounting error.” In a subsequent letter, the HOA apologized, corrected the record to show the true balance was $750, and made a formal offer: pay half—just $375—and the matter would be closed. The offer was not accepted. Including this error shows the HOA was not infallible, making the subsequent stalemate more complex.

The second negotiation occurred in 2019, prompted by a friend on the Board who urged a settlement. The homeowner offered $100. The Board countered with $250. The homeowner’s final offer was exquisitely specific: “$251.00, $250.00 to settle the outstanding fines and $1.00 to rent the clubhouse on a specific date.”

This offer was a tactical and psychological blunder. That extra dollar wasn’t about money; it was a message. Whether intended as a sarcastic jab or a principled stand to assert his rights as a member, it transformed a financial negotiation into a battle of wills. For a Board of Directors, accepting such an offer could be seen as capitulating to a petty gesture, setting a precedent that defiance works. They declined. Shortly after, the homeowner’s access to community facilities was cut off, leading to the legal petition he ultimately lost.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Lesson in Communication

This case serves as a powerful warning. The legal force of “constructive notice” makes you responsible for the mail you receive, not just the mail you read. The six-year standoff over a can of paint shows how inaction can have disproportionate consequences. And the failed $251 offer demonstrates that good-faith negotiation is paramount.

Ultimately, the homeowner was left still owing the money and locked out of his own amenities—a casualty of a battle he prolonged at every turn. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question to consider: in a dispute with your HOA, where is the line between standing on principle and causing yourself unnecessary harm?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert L Greco (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
    Brown|Olcott, PLLC
  • David Reid (board member)
    Testified for Respondent
  • Annette McCarthy (manager)
    Acting Manager; Testified for Respondent
  • Kelly Oetinger (attorney)
    Counsel for Respondent in 2013
  • Dennis Carson (board member)

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE

William Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1717041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Dax R. Watson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the notice required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) must be 'actual notice,' and the evidence supported a finding that Petitioner received constructive notice.

Key Issues & Findings

Prior to imposing reasonable monetary penalties on Petitioner for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by failing to provide proper notice before imposing penalties ($2,500 fine and $5,000 recoupment of expenses) and indefinitely suspending his membership privileges. The ALJ found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the hearing and that Respondent did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: notice, constructive notice, monetary penalties, suspension, certified mail, HOA violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:42 (83.6 KB)

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:22 (83.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Analysis: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1717041-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner William Brown (Petitioner) and the Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent). The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, denying the Petitioner’s claim that the homeowners association violated Arizona state law regarding notification procedures before imposing penalties.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of “notice” as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1803(B). The Petitioner argued that the statute requires “actual notice”—proof of personal receipt of a notification—which he claimed he never received for a critical disciplinary hearing. The ALJ rejected this argument, establishing that “constructive notice” is legally sufficient. Constructive notice was deemed to have been achieved through the Respondent’s documented efforts to deliver notice via both certified and first-class mail.

A key factor in the decision was the ALJ’s finding that the Petitioner’s testimony was “not credible” regarding his claim that the United States Postal Service (USPS) failed to notify him of a certified letter. The decision upholds the sanctions imposed by the association, which include an indefinite suspension of membership privileges, a $2,500 fine, and the recoupment of $5,000 in related expenses.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from an incident on November 29, 2016, where Petitioner William Brown was alleged to have left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse containing papers listing several club properties. This act was interpreted as a threat, leading the Terravita Country Club to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Brown subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 28, 2017, alleging the club failed to provide proper notice before taking action.

Nov 29, 2016

William Brown allegedly leaves a box of matches and notes at the clubhouse.

Dec 2, 2016

The club’s General Manager sends a letter to Brown notifying him of an immediate suspension pending a review.

Dec 8, 2016

Brown signs for and receives the certified mail delivery of the December 2 suspension letter.

Dec 14, 2016

The club sends a letter via first-class and certified mail notifying Brown of a January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee hearing.

Dec 24, 2016

USPS tracking shows the December 14 certified letter is “out for delivery” at Brown’s temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

Jan 9, 2017

The Infractions Committee meets; Brown does not attend. The Committee sends a letter recommending indefinite suspension and fines.

Jan 12, 2017

The unclaimed December 14 certified letter is returned by the USPS to the club.

Jan 31, 2017

The club’s Board of Directors meets; Brown does not attend. The Board ratifies the sanctions.

Jan 31, 2017

The Board sends a letter to Brown detailing its decision: indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and $5,000 in expense recoupment.

Jun 28, 2017

Brown files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.

Sep 22, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings holds a hearing on the matter.

Oct 11, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issues the decision, denying Brown’s petition.

Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Notice”

The core of the legal dispute was the interpretation of the notice requirement within A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), which states, in part:

“After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”

The Petitioner argued that this statute requires “actual notice,” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” Because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016, letter notifying him of the initial hearing, he contended that all subsequent actions by the club were invalid.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation for two primary reasons:

1. Statutory Silence: The governing statute, A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, does not define the term “notice” or specify that it must be “actual notice.”

2. Legal Precedent and Practicality: The ALJ reasoned that requiring actual notice would create an unworkable loophole. A homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing,” thereby thwarting any disciplinary process.

Instead, the ALJ determined that “constructive notice” was sufficient. Constructive notice is defined as “notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The Respondent’s actions of sending notice via multiple methods met this standard.

Key Findings and Rulings

The ALJ made several critical findings of fact and conclusions of law that led to the denial of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, William Brown, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. The ALJ concluded he failed to meet this burden.

• Finding on Credibility: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s assertion was not credible. The decision notes: “Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.”

• Ruling on Constructive Notice: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner received constructive notice of the January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee meeting through two distinct actions taken by the Respondent:

1. The certified mailing of the December 14, 2016, letter, for which USPS tracking showed an attempted delivery and which the Petitioner was deemed to have refused.

2. The simultaneous first-class mailing of the same letter, which was “presumably delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.”

• Notice for Subsequent Meetings: The ALJ further presumed that the first-class mailing of the January 9, 2017, letter—notifying the Petitioner of the Board of Directors meeting—was also delivered, thus satisfying notice requirements for the final decision-making body.

Final Decision and Sanctions

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The ruling affirmed that Terravita Country Club, Inc. did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

This decision effectively upholds the sanctions imposed by the club’s Board of Directors on January 31, 2017, which include:

• Indefinite suspension of membership privileges.

• A fine of $2,500.00.

• Recoupment of expenses incurred related to the infraction, totaling $5,000.00.

The order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1717041-REL)

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner William Brown and Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source material.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the specific statutory violation that William Brown alleged Terravita Country Club had committed?

3. Describe the incident on November 29, 2016, that initiated the actions taken by the Respondent.

4. What was the immediate consequence imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent’s General Manager on December 2, 2016?

5. How did a temporary change of address filed by the Petitioner affect the delivery of the certified mail notice sent on December 14, 2016?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the type of notice he was required to receive for the disciplinary hearing?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge find the Petitioner’s claim about not being notified by the USPS of certified mail to be “not credible”?

8. What two forms of notice did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner had received for the January 9, 2017 meeting?

9. What were the final penalties that the Respondent’s Board of Directors imposed on the Petitioner on January 31, 2017?

10. What was the final recommended order from the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Petitioner’s petition?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Brown, and the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc. Terravita Country Club is a homeowners association in Arizona, and William Brown is a property owner and member of that association.

2. William Brown alleged that the Terravita Country Club violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803. The specific issue was that the Respondent failed to provide proper notice before imposing monetary penalties for violations of the association’s rules.

3. On or about November 29, 2016, the Petitioner allegedly left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse. Inside the box were three pieces of paper with the typed names of three locations: Director’s House, Desert Pavilion, and Country Club Clubhouse.

4. On December 2, 2016, the Respondent’s General Manager, Thomas Forbes, sent the Petitioner a letter immediately suspending him from all rights and privileges of the country club property. This suspension was to remain in effect until the disciplinary process was completed.

5. Because the Petitioner had filed a temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to Coldspring, Texas. USPS tracking showed it was “out for delivery” on December 24, 2016, but the Petitioner failed to claim it, and it was eventually returned to the Respondent.

6. The Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) required “actual notice” of the January 9, 2017 hearing. He asserted that because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016 letter, the notice requirement was not met.

7. The decision document does not explicitly state the evidence for why the claim was not credible. However, the Judge’s conclusion implies that the documented evidence from the USPS showing the letter was “out for delivery” in Coldspring, Texas, between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was more convincing than the Petitioner’s denial.

8. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner received “constructive notice” via the certified mailing for which he refused to sign. Additionally, it was presumed that the first-class mailing of the same letter was delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

9. The Board of Directors suspended the Petitioner’s membership privileges indefinitely. They also imposed a fine of $2,500.00 and sought to recoup $5,000.00 in expenses incurred related to the infraction.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) regarding notice.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal distinction between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” as defined and applied in this case. Explain why accepting the Petitioner’s argument for requiring “actual notice” would have created a potential loophole, according to the Judge’s reasoning.

2. Trace the complete timeline of events and communications, beginning with the incident on November 29, 2016, and ending with the final decision from the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2017. Detail each key date, the action taken, and the method of communication used.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that he failed to meet this burden.

4. Describe the multi-step disciplinary process employed by the Terravita Country Club. Identify the roles and recommendations of the General Manager, the Infractions Committee, and the Board of Directors in addressing the Petitioner’s alleged violation.

5. Evaluate the Respondent’s communication strategy for notifying the Petitioner of the disciplinary proceedings. Discuss the methods used (first-class mail, certified mail) and explain how these methods became a central point of contention and the ultimate basis for the Judge’s decision.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C. R2-19-119

A reference to the Arizona Administrative Code rule establishing that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this type of proceeding.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes at the heart of the case. It provides that a homeowners association’s board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

Defined as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” This was the standard of notice the Petitioner argued was required.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) in the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes findings of fact, and issues a decision.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Terravita Country Club, Inc. that made the final determination on penalties, including the indefinite suspension and fines imposed on the Petitioner.

Constructive Notice

Defined as “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of” or “notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person.” The Judge ruled the Petitioner received this type of notice.

Notice

Defined as “[l]egal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation of law as a result of some fact…; definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, of an existing right or title.” The term is not specifically defined in the relevant state statute (Title 33, Chapter 16).

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, William Brown.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Terravita Country Club Infractions Committee

A committee within the homeowners association that met on January 9, 2017, to hear evidence regarding the Petitioner’s alleged infraction and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.

He Ignored a Letter From His HOA. It Cost Him $7,500. Here Are 5 Legal Lessons From His Case.

Introduction: The Dreaded Envelope

It’s a feeling many homeowners know: the sight of a formal, certified letter from the homeowners association (HOA). But for homeowner William Brown, the stakes were far higher than a dispute over landscaping or dues. His troubles began after he allegedly left a box of matches at the country club’s front desk, along with a list of three club properties. The HOA, Terravita Country Club, Inc., interpreted this as an implied threat of arson and took immediate action.

When Mr. Brown ignored the subsequent legal notices, it resulted in an indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 in expenses. This article distills the official administrative court decision from his case into five surprising and critical legal takeaways that every homeowner should understand.

1. You Can Be Legally Notified—Even If You Never Open the Letter

The core of this case hinged on a crucial legal distinction. The judge’s decision rested on the critical difference between two types of legal notice:

• Actual Notice: “Notice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

• Constructive Notice: “Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.”

Because the HOA sent the meeting notice via both certified and first-class mail, the judge concluded that the homeowner had received “constructive notice.” The certified mail provided a documented attempt at delivery, while the first-class mail carried a legal presumption of delivery. Together, this combination was legally sufficient, and the law presumed Mr. Brown was aware of the meeting. This distinction is a fundamental principle that every property owner must grasp.

2. Dodging Certified Mail Is a Terrible Legal Strategy

The homeowner’s primary argument was that because he never signed for or received the certified letter notifying him of the January 9, 2017 hearing, he could not be held responsible. The judge directly rejected this line of reasoning.

To accept Petitioner’s argument, a homeowner would be able to avoid receiving “actual notice” by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing, as Respondent alleged Petitioner did in this case.

The court viewed this as an attempt to create a loophole to evade responsibility. Allowing someone to claim ignorance by simply avoiding a signature would undermine the entire legal notification process. The lesson for homeowners is that actively avoiding mail is interpreted by the courts not as ignorance, but as a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility.

3. First-Class Mail Is More Powerful Than You Think

A critical fact in the case was that the HOA didn’t rely solely on trackable certified mail; it also sent the notices via standard USPS first-class mail. This proved to be a savvy “belt and suspenders” legal strategy. By using both methods, the HOA created a redundant and legally robust notification system that was almost impossible to defeat. The judge noted the legal presumption about this standard mail:

…it is presumed that the first class mailing of the same letter was delivered to Petitioner at his address of record.

This concept of “presumed delivery” is a powerful tool in legal proceedings. In many contexts, proof that a letter was properly addressed and sent via standard mail is sufficient to assume it was delivered, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. This case demonstrates that even a standard envelope in your mailbox should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

4. In a Dispute, Credibility Is Everything

The case wasn’t decided on technicalities alone; a subjective, human element played a pivotal role. Because the homeowner had filed an official temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to his location in Texas. He claimed that the USPS never even left a notice for him to pick it up. The judge’s assessment of this claim was devastating to his case.

Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.

In the end, the outcome hinged on the judge’s assessment of believability. With no hard evidence to back up his claim, the homeowner’s story was found to be unconvincing, which fatally undermined his entire argument. The lesson is clear: when a dispute comes down to your word against theirs, your credibility can be your most valuable asset—or your most fatal liability.

5. The Burden of Proof Is on You, the Accuser

A fundamental legal concept that worked against the homeowner was the “burden of proof.” Because Mr. Brown filed the complaint, the responsibility was on him to prove that the HOA had violated the law, not the other way around. The judge stated this rule directly:

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

“Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.” In other words, Mr. Brown had to prove that his version of events was more likely true than not true. As the petitioner, he failed to provide enough convincing evidence to support his accusation, and his case collapsed.

Conclusion: A $7,500 Lesson

This case is a stark reminder that legal communication is a serious process. Ignoring notices, dodging mail, and hoping problems will disappear is a strategy that carries severe financial and personal consequences. For Mr. Brown, the final outcome was an indefinite suspension from the country club, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 for the expenses the HOA incurred.

The next time a formal notice arrives in your mailbox, will you see it as just a piece of paper, or as a legal process you can’t afford to ignore?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Dax R. Watson (HOA attorney)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Thomas Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

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

Jones, Michael J. vs. Westwind Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-11-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome Respondent violated CC&Rs Article 11.7 and 6.5 by adopting Rental Rules and Crime Free Lease Addendum that restricted leasing rights (inconsistent with Article 8.13) without obtaining the required 75% member vote. The conflicting rules were declared unenforceable.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $400.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Jones Counsel —
Respondent Westwind Homeowners Association Counsel Chandler Travis

Alleged Violations

Article 11.7
A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
Article 6.5

Outcome Summary

Respondent violated CC&Rs Article 11.7 and 6.5 by adopting Rental Rules and Crime Free Lease Addendum that restricted leasing rights (inconsistent with Article 8.13) without obtaining the required 75% member vote. The conflicting rules were declared unenforceable.

Key Issues & Findings

Unilateral Amendment of CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by amending rental rules to include minimum lease terms and Crime Free Lease Addendum without the required 75% affirmative vote of the membership.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce conflicting provisions of Rental Rules and CFLA; declared unenforceable.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 11.7
  • Article 8.13

Unreasonable Penalties and Due Process

Petitioner alleged the Crime Free Lease Addendum violated statute by deeming single violations irreparable and denying due process/opportunity to be heard.

Orders: ALJ did not address this statute as it relates to monetary penalties and no evidence of improper penalties was presented.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: no_decision

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Authority to Adopt Rules / Discrimination

Petitioner alleged rules discriminated between owners. ALJ found rules inconsistent with CC&Rs (Art 8.13 leasing rights), thus violating Board's rulemaking authority under Article 6.5.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce inconsistent rules.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 6.5
  • Article 8.13

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 314883.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:22 (110.2 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 319377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:43:26 (58.6 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 314883.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:39 (110.2 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 319377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:40 (58.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association. The dispute centered on the Westwind Homeowners Association Board’s unilateral adoption of new Rental Rules and a Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA). Petitioner Michael J. Jones, an owner who leases his property, challenged these rules on the grounds that they violated the Association's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

On November 26, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of Mr. Jones, determining that the Board had exceeded its authority by effectively amending the CC&Rs without the required 75% homeowner vote. The decision was certified as the final administrative action on January 2, 2013. The Association was ordered to cease enforcement of the contested rules, reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000 filing fee, and pay $400 in civil penalties.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Limits of Board Rule-Making Authority

The central legal tension in this matter was the distinction between a Board's authority to adopt "rules" and the formal process required to amend "CC&Rs."

  • The Board’s Argument: The Board contended that Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs granted them the power to adopt and amend rules. They argued that because the term "from time to time" regarding leasing in the CC&Rs was vague, they had the authority to clarify it by mandating 12-month minimum lease terms.
  • The ALJ’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that while the Board can adopt rules, those rules cannot be inconsistent with the Declaration. By imposing a 12-month minimum and granting the Board the power to approve shorter terms or terminate leases, the Board effectively amended the CC&Rs. Under Article 11.7, such amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from the total eligible membership, which the Board did not obtain.
2. Consistency with Governing Documents

The case underscores the principle that Association Rules are subordinate to the CC&Rs.

  • The Conflict: Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs states that "nothing in the Declaration will be deemed to prevent the leasing of a Lot."
  • The Violation: The newly adopted Rental Rules and CFLA created conditions that could prevent the leasing of a lot (e.g., through disapproval of lease terms or immediate termination of tenancy). Because these rules were inconsistent with the "primary" governing document, they were deemed improperly adopted and unenforceable.
3. Third-Party Enforcement and Tenant Rights

The Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA) attempted to establish the Association as a "third-party beneficiary" of the lease between an owner and a tenant.

  • Expanded Authority: The CFLA claimed to give the HOA the same remedies as a landlord, including the power of "forcible detainer" (eviction).
  • The Petitioner's Concern: Mr. Jones argued that this granted the Board the ability to evict tenants for minor non-criminal violations (e.g., trashcans or landscaping) without due process, as the CFLA labeled any violation of community documents as "material and irreparable."
  • The Association's Defense: The Board President testified the CFLA was a response to criminal activity and was intended to protect property values and safety. However, the ALJ found the potential for the Board to "immediately terminate a lease" was a restriction on leasing rights not permitted by the existing CC&Rs.
4. Discrimination Among Owners

The Petitioner alleged that the CFLA discriminated against owners who lease their homes compared to those who reside in them with guests or family. While the ALJ ultimately found the discrimination claim "moot" because the rules were already invalid due to the lack of a 75% vote, the case highlights the risks of creating rules that apply only to a specific class of homeowners.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Source & Context Significance
"The Association Rules will not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this Declaration… and, upon adoption, the Association Rules will have the same force and effect as if they were set forth in full…" CC&Rs Article 6.5 (Ex. A at 23). Foundational rule regarding the Board's authority to create regulations. Establishes the hierarchy of documents; rules are only valid if they align with the Declaration.
"A single violation of any provisions of the community documents… shall be deemed a serious violation, and a material and irreparable non-compliance." CFLA Paragraph 6 (Ex. C at 3). Language in the compulsory contract for tenants. This was the basis for the Petitioner’s fear that minor infractions could lead to immediate eviction without due process.
"The Rental Rules and CFLA impose restrictions that could potentially prevent the leasing of a Lot… [they] are inconsistent with the CC&Rs and therefore, are in violation of Article 6.5, as well." ALJ Conclusion of Law #3. The Judge's final determination on the conflict. This confirms that the Board's attempt to "interpret" vague language was actually an unauthorized restriction on property rights.
"The provisions… that were determined to conflict with the CC&Rs were not properly adopted, have no legal effect, and are unenforceable." ALJ Conclusion of Law #5. The final status of the contested rules. Renders the 12-month lease requirement and the CFLA null and void for this Association.

Findings of Fact and Legal Consequences

Violations Identified

The ALJ identified two primary violations:

  1. Violation of Article 11.7: Attempting to amend the Declaration (restricting leasing) without a 75% homeowner vote.
  2. Violation of Article 6.5: Adopting Association Rules that were inconsistent with the Declaration.
Financial and Regulatory Penalties

The Office of Administrative Hearings imposed the following:

Penalty/Cost Amount Payee
Civil Penalty $400.00 Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Reimbursement $2,000.00 Petitioner Michael J. Jones (Filing Fee)
Total Liability $2,400.00

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards
  • Verify Amendment Thresholds: Before implementing rules that restrict property use (such as lease durations), Boards must verify if such restrictions require a formal amendment to the CC&Rs rather than a simple rule adoption.
  • Ensure Consistency: All new rules must be cross-referenced with the CC&Rs. If the Declaration says "nothing shall prevent" an action, a rule cannot subsequently "restrict" that action.
  • Evidence of Monetary Penalties: In administrative hearings regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), specific evidence of improper monetary fines must be presented for the court to rule on statutory violations.
For Homeowners
  • Burden of Proof: In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning the claim is "more probable than not."
  • Recourse for Filing Fees: If a homeowner prevails in a case against an HOA regarding governing documents, they may be entitled to a full reimbursement of their filing fees (in this case, $2,000).
  • Finality of ALJ Decisions: If the relevant state department (in this case, Fire, Building and Life Safety) does not act to modify or reject an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe, the decision becomes a certified final agency action.

Study Guide: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association

Case Overview and Key Concepts

This study guide examines the administrative law case of Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association (No. 12F-H1213001-BFS). The case centers on the authority of a Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of Directors to implement new rental regulations and crime-prevention measures without a full vote of the association membership.

Core Legal Issues
  1. Unauthorized Amendment of Governing Documents: Whether the Board’s adoption of "Rental Rules" (specifically a 12-month minimum lease term) constituted a unilateral amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in violation of the required 75% membership approval.
  2. Statutory Compliance (A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)): Whether the Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA) violated state law by imposing compulsory contracts, denying due process, or establishing unreasonable penalties.
  3. Discrimination Among Owners: Whether the new rules unfairly targeted and discriminated against owners who lease their properties compared to those who reside in them.
Hierarchy of Authority

The case highlights a critical legal hierarchy within planned communities:

  • Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.): State laws that govern HOA operations and member rights.
  • CC&Rs (Declaration): The superior governing document of the association. Amendments typically require a high threshold of member votes (75% in this case).
  • Association Rules/Bylaws: Rules adopted by a majority of the Board. These must remain consistent with the CC&Rs and cannot be used to circumvent the amendment process of the Declaration.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the specific voting threshold required to amend the Westwind CC&Rs according to Article 11.7?

  • Answer: An affirmative vote of 75% or more of the total number of eligible votes in the Association.

2. How did the Board justify its decision to set a 12-month minimum lease term?

  • Answer: The Board argued it was clarifying the "vague" term "from time to time" found in Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs and was acting to preserve neighborhood safety and property values.

3. What is the "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA), and what power did it attempt to give the Association?

  • Answer: The CFLA is a rental agreement form that tenants and owners must sign. It attempted to establish the Association as a "third-party beneficiary" of the lease, allowing the HOA to enforce lease terms and use "forcible detainer" (eviction) laws against tenants for violations.

4. According to the ALJ’s findings, why were the Rental Rules and CFLA considered inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs?

  • Answer: Article 6.5 allows the Board to adopt rules but mandates they cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the Declaration. Because the rules restricted the right to lease (specifically regarding lease duration and immediate termination), they effectively amended the CC&Rs without the required 75% vote.

5. What was the "burden of proof" required in this administrative hearing, and who held it?

  • Answer: The Petitioner, Michael J. Jones, held the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence."

6. What financial penalties were imposed against the Westwind Homeowners Association?

  • Answer: A civil penalty of $400 ($200 per violation) and a reimbursement of the $2,000 filing fee to the Petitioner.

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The Limits of Board Authority vs. Member Rights

Analyze the conflict between a Board’s duty to manage a community (Article 6.5) and the members' rights established in the CC&Rs (Article 8.13). At what point does a "clarifying rule" become an "unauthorized amendment"? Use the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the 12-month lease requirement to support your argument.

2. Due Process and the Crime Free Lease Addendum

The Petitioner argued that the CFLA denied owners and tenants due process by deeming a single violation "irreparable" before a hearing could occur. Discuss the legal implications of an HOA acting as a "third-party beneficiary" to a private lease agreement. Is it reasonable for an HOA to have the power of "forcible detainer" over a tenant?

3. Discrimination in HOA Rulemaking

The Board argued that lease rules are similar to pet rules—they only apply to those who choose to have pets (or tenants). The Petitioner argued this created a discriminatory class of owners. Evaluate these two perspectives based on the source text. Why did the ALJ ultimately declare the discrimination issue "moot"?

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B): An Arizona statute governing the imposition of reasonable monetary penalties by an association after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes between individuals and government agencies or regulated entities.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The legal documents that lay out the guidelines for a planned community; they are "recorded" and stay with the land.
  • Crime Free Lease Addendum (CFLA): A specific document adopted by the Westwind Board intended to reduce criminal activity in rental units by making any violation cause for immediate lease termination.
  • Forcible Detainer: A legal action (often called an eviction) taken by a landlord to regain possession of a property from a tenant.
  • Moot: A legal point that does not require a decision because the underlying issue has already been resolved by other means or the ruling would have no practical effect.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
  • Third-Party Beneficiary: A person or entity who is not a party to a contract but stands to benefit from it and may have the legal right to enforce its terms.
  • Unilateral Amending: The act of changing governing documents by one party (the Board) without the required consent or vote of the other parties (the homeowners).

HOA Power Play: When Board Rules Clash with Homeowner Rights

CASE SUMMARY Matter: Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association Case No: 12F-H1213001-BFS Core Conflict: The scope of a Board’s rule-making authority versus the fundamental property rights protected by the community’s Declaration (CC&Rs).

1. Introduction: The High Stakes of HOA Governance

For homeowners and property investors, the Homeowners Association (HOA) Board is the local government with the most direct impact on property values and owner autonomy. However, a recurring point of friction in planned communities is the boundary of Board power. In the landmark case of Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association, the Office of Administrative Hearings was asked to decide a pivotal question: Can a Board unilaterally rewrite rental regulations under the guise of "rule-making," or does such a move constitute an ultra vires act—an action taken beyond its legal authority?

2. The New Rules: Crime Prevention vs. Owner Autonomy

In May 2011, the Westwind Board of Directors adopted new "Rental Rules" and a "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA). The Board, represented by President Steven Wadding, argued these measures were essential to combat rising criminal activity in rental units and to protect the community from non-responsive, off-site owners.

Effective August 1, 2011, the Board mandated several restrictive measures:

  • A 12-Month Minimum Lease Requirement: Explicitly prohibiting shorter-term rentals.
  • Mandatory Board Approval: Any month-to-month or short-term leases were subject to case-by-case Board review and potential disapproval.
  • Third-Party Beneficiary Status: The CFLA established the HOA as a third-party beneficiary in private lease agreements, granting the Board the authority to pursue "forcible detainer" (eviction) actions directly against tenants.
3. The Homeowner’s Challenge: Three Primary Complaints

The Petitioner, Michael J. Jones, challenged these regulations, arguing that the Board’s "safety measures" were actually a bypass of the community’s constitutional protections.

Complaint 1: The 75% Amendment Threshold Jones argued that the Board violated Article 11.7 of the CC&Rs. By mandating a 12-month lease minimum, the Board was not merely "clarifying" rules; it was effectively amending the Declaration. Per the CC&Rs, any such amendment requires an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the total eligible votes in the association—a threshold the Board ignored.

Complaint 2: Due Process and the Statutory "Irreparable" Trap Jones alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The CFLA labeled a single violation of community documents as "material and irreparable," providing grounds for immediate lease termination. Jones successfully argued that this was an attempt to bypass the statutory requirement for "notice and an opportunity to be heard." By pre-defining minor issues—like trashcan placement or landscaping—as "irreparable" violations, the Board sought to strip tenants of their due process rights before a violation even occurred.

Complaint 3: Unlawful Discrimination Jones asserted the Board violated Article 6.5, which prohibits rules that discriminate among owners. He argued the rules unfairly targeted landlords while exempting owner-occupants. In its defense, the HOA provided a "Pet Analogy," arguing that rules for landlords are like rules for pet owners: they only apply to the class of people who choose to have them.

4. The Legal Verdict: Why the Board Overstepped

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) performed a rigorous analysis of the Governing Document Hierarchy. While Article 6.5 allows a Board to adopt rules "from time to time," those rules are strictly subordinate to the Declaration.

The ALJ found the Board’s 12-month rule was in direct conflict with Article 8.13, which protects an owner's right to lease their lot "from time to time." By imposing a minimum term and a disapproval mechanism, the Board obstructed a right already granted by the CC&Rs. The ALJ dismissed the HOA's claim that they were "clarifying" vague language, viewing the Board's actions instead as an unauthorized obstruction of property rights.

"The provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA specifically addressed herein that were determined to conflict with the CC&Rs were not properly adopted, have no legal effect, and are unenforceable."

Ultimately, the ALJ found the Board had performed an "effective amendment" without the required 75% community vote. Because the rules were found invalid on these grounds, the ALJ ruled the discrimination claim (Complaint 3) was moot.

5. The Financial Fallout: Costs of the Dispute

The ruling, certified as final on January 2, 2013, by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, imposed the following costs on the Westwind HOA:

  • Civil Penalties ($400): A fine of $200 for each of the two primary violations: (1) Violation of Article 11.7 (Improper Amendment) and (2) Violation of Article 6.5 (Inconsistency with the Declaration).
  • Filing Fee Reimbursement ($2,000): The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner for his filing costs.

Note on Statutory Merits: Regarding the A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) complaint, the ALJ noted in Footnote 1 that while the CFLA's language was concerning, the court did not rule on the merits of the "irreparable violation" trap because the HOA had not yet actually imposed a monetary penalty under those specific provisions.

6. Essential Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This case serves as a definitive roadmap for HOA governance and the limits of unilateral authority:

  • 1. Governing Document Hierarchy: CC&Rs are the "constitution" of the community. Board-created rules are "statutes" that cannot contradict, diminish, or "effectively amend" the rights granted in the Declaration.
  • 2. Amendment vs. Rule-Making: Significant policy shifts—especially those restricting leasing—must follow the formal amendment process. Attempting to bypass a 75% vote by labeling a change as a "rule" is a high-risk legal maneuver.
  • 3. The "Clarification" Fallacy: Boards cannot use the excuse of "interpreting vague language" to strip away rights. The ALJ interpreted the phrase "from time to time" as a shield for the owner’s leasing rights, not a gap for the Board to fill with restrictions.
  • 4. Financial Risk of Unilateral Overreach: When a Board acts ultra vires, the association faces civil penalties and the reimbursement of the homeowner's legal costs, creating a significant liability for the community's budget.
7. Conclusion: Balancing Community and Individual Rights

The Jones v. Westwind decision underscores that neighborhood safety and property values, while legitimate goals, are not "blank checks" for Board overreach. Transparency and strict adherence to the community’s governing documents are not optional—they are the legal requirements of the job. For homeowners and investors, this case stands as a critical reminder: your property rights are protected by the CC&Rs, and even the most well-intentioned Board cannot vote them away in a closed-door session.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Jones (petitioner)
    Westwind Homeowners Association (Owner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a home in Westwind

Respondent Side

  • Chandler Travis (attorney)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    Represented the Respondent
  • Steven Wadding (witness)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    President of the Board; testified regarding the CFLA

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who authored the decision
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy c/o Gene Palma

Mackey, John E. & Ikuko vs. Continental Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078009-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-02-07
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge determined the Association acted appropriately in enforcing the Guidelines and CC&Rs. The Petitioner failed to maintain the front yard in accordance with the Guidelines and failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The petition was dismissed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John E. Mackey Counsel —
Respondent Continental Ranch Community Association Counsel David A. McEvoy

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined the Association acted appropriately in enforcing the Guidelines and CC&Rs. The Petitioner failed to maintain the front yard in accordance with the Guidelines and failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B). The petition was dismissed.

Why this result: The Petitioner admitted to not having the required tree or bushes and failed to submit an application to the Architectural Review Committee for a variance regarding the Ocotillo cactus.

Key Issues & Findings

Imposition of fines for failure to maintain front yard landscaping (missing trees/bushes)

Petitioner contested fines imposed for not having a tree or bushes in the front yard. Petitioner argued vegetation attracted snakes and that an Ocotillo cactus should count as a substitute.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action required of the Association.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lost

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • CC&Rs 1.28
  • CC&Rs 4.5

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-H078009-BFS Decision – 185133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:31:59 (80.2 KB)

08F-H078009-BFS Decision – 185133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:20 (80.2 KB)

Briefing Document: John E. Mackey vs. Continental Ranch Community Association (Case No. 08F-H078009-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive synthesis of the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between John E. Mackey (Petitioner) and the Continental Ranch Community Association (Respondent). The Petitioner contested fines imposed for non-compliance with the Association’s landscaping Design Guidelines. The presiding judge, Lewis D. Kowal, ruled in favor of the Association, dismissing the petition. The core finding was that the Association acted within its legal authority under its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes to enforce landscaping standards and impose reasonable monetary penalties for non-compliance.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 08F-H078009-BFS

• Petitioner: John E. Mackey

• Respondent: Continental Ranch Community Association

• Administrative Law Judge: Lewis D. Kowal

• Hearing Date: January 30, 2008

• Final Order Date: February 7, 2008

Landscaping Requirements and Violations

The Association’s Design Guidelines establish specific minimum requirements for front yard landscaping. These standards were the primary point of contention in the dispute.

Minimum Landscape Package Standards

According to the Guidelines in effect during the violation period, each unit must include:

• At least one (1) 24” box tree.

• One (1) shrub per every 20 square feet of the front yard.

• Rock or other materials intended to aid in dust abatement.

• Installation must be completed within thirty days of the close of escrow.

Timeline of Violations and Enforcement

Evidence presented during the hearing established a pattern of non-compliance and the Association’s adherence to its internal enforcement policies:

• September 2006: During a community patrol, the Association’s Assistant Manager, Karen Mathews, observed that the Petitioner lacked a tree and bushes in his front yard.

• September 6, 2006: The Association issued the first notice of violation.

• November 2, 2006: A third notice was issued, informing the Petitioner that no application had been submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to rectify the landscaping.

• 2006–2007: The Association issued multiple violation notices and subsequently imposed fines.

Penalty Structure

The Association follows a specific policy for escalating fines:

• First and Second Notices: Warnings for the same violation within a calendar year.

• Third Notice: Imposition of a $25.00 fine.

• Subsequent Notices: Increasing fine amounts up to a maximum of $100.00.

Petitioner Arguments and Evidence

The Petitioner, John E. Mackey, provided several justifications for the state of his landscaping, though these were ultimately found insufficient to override the Association’s requirements.

Argument Category

Petitioner’s Position

Environmental Issues

Contended that a previous tree died and became an “eyesore,” and that the front yard area does not support new vegetation.

Safety Concerns

Stated that he and his wife avoided bushes (specifically Texas Rangers) because they believed such vegetation attracts snakes.

Substitutions

Argued that an Ocotillo cactus planted in the yard should serve as a substitute for the required 24” box tree.

Initial Compliance

Believed that he was in compliance when he first moved into the community in 1993 and hired a professional landscaper.

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on the Petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof required under Arizona law.

Statutory and Contractual Framework

• A.R.S. § 33-1803(B): This statute allows the board of directors of an association to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations of declarations, bylaws, and rules after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.

• CC&Rs Section 4.5: Grants the Association the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal design guidelines to interpret and supplement the CC&Rs for the property.

• CC&Rs Section 1.28: Defines the Association’s Design Guidelines as those referenced within the CC&Rs.

Findings of the Court

The court reached several critical conclusions that led to the dismissal of the petition:

1. Failure of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated state law or its own CC&Rs.

2. Lack of Procedural Engagement: While the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has occasionally allowed an Ocotillo to substitute for a tree, the Petitioner never submitted a formal request for such a substitution.

3. Authority to Enforce: The weight of the evidence showed that the Petitioner lacked the required tree and shrubs during the relevant period. The Association had the clear authority to issue violations and impose fines for this non-compliance.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be dismissed. The ruling confirmed that the Association is not required to take any further action regarding the Petitioner’s claims. This decision constitutes the final administrative action and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).

Case Study Analysis: Mackey v. Continental Ranch Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case John E. Mackey v. Continental Ranch Community Association. It explores the legal standards for community association enforcement, the specific requirements of residential landscaping guidelines, and the procedural requirements for homeowners to seek variances or exemptions.

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing?

2. What specific landscaping requirements did the Petitioner fail to meet according to the Association’s Design Guidelines?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary defense regarding why he could not maintain a tree in his front yard?

4. What safety concern did the Petitioner cite as a reason for not planting bushes?

5. According to the Association’s policy, what is the sequence of actions before a fine reaches the maximum amount of $100.00?

6. What is the significance of the Ocotillo cactus in this dispute?

7. What did the Association’s Architectural Review Committee require from the Petitioner that he failed to provide?

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), what must the board of directors provide before imposing monetary penalties?

9. How is “preponderance of the evidence” defined within the context of this legal proceeding?

10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing? The Petitioner is John E. Mackey, a resident and member of the community since 1993. The Respondent is the Continental Ranch Community Association, represented by legal counsel David A. McEvoy.

2. What specific landscaping requirements did the Petitioner fail to meet according to the Association’s Design Guidelines? The Guidelines required a minimum landscape package consisting of at least one 24” box tree and one shrub per every 20 square feet of the front yard. Additionally, the yard was required to have rock or other materials to assist in dust abatement.

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary defense regarding why he could not maintain a tree in his front yard? The Petitioner testified that a previous tree had died and became an eyesore, leading him to cut it down. He further claimed that he attempted to plant other vegetation, but that specific area of his yard does not support plant life.

4. What safety concern did the Petitioner cite as a reason for not planting bushes? The Petitioner and his wife expressed concerns that having bushes in the front yard would attract snakes. They argued that this created a safety issue for their household, which influenced their decision not to comply with the shrub requirement.

5. According to the Association’s policy, what is the sequence of actions before a fine reaches the maximum amount of $100.00? The Association issues two notices of violation for the same issue within a calendar year before imposing a $25.00 fine. Subsequent letters increase the fine amount incrementally until the maximum penalty of $100.00 is reached.

6. What is the significance of the Ocotillo cactus in this dispute? The Petitioner contended that his remaining Ocotillo cactus should serve as a substitute for the mandatory 24″ box tree. While the Architectural Review Committee has allowed such substitutions in the past, the Petitioner never officially requested this consideration.

7. What did the Association’s Architectural Review Committee require from the Petitioner that he failed to provide? The Association informed the Petitioner that he needed to submit an application to the Architectural Review Committee to bring his yard into compliance or request a substitution. As of the November 2, 2006, notice, the Petitioner had not submitted any such application.

8. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), what must the board of directors provide before imposing monetary penalties? The board of directors is authorized to impose reasonable monetary penalties for violations of association rules, but only after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard. This ensures due process within the community’s governing framework.

9. How is “preponderance of the evidence” defined within the context of this legal proceeding? Drawing from Black’s Law Dictionary, the decision defines it as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence. It is evidence that shows the facts sought to be proved are “more probable than not.”

10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal? The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Association acted appropriately under the CC&Rs and Guidelines, and that the Petitioner failed to prove his case. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed, and no further action was required of the Association.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the information from the case to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Authority of CC&Rs: Explain the legal relationship between the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Association’s Design Guidelines. How does Section 4.5 grant the Association the power to evolve its standards over time?

2. Homeowner Obligations vs. Environmental Limitations: Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s claim that his land could not support vegetation and the Association’s requirement for a minimum landscape package. How might the Petitioner have better addressed these environmental challenges within the Association’s legal framework?

3. The Enforcement Process: Evaluate the Association’s enforcement protocol, from the initial patrol by the Assistant Manager to the final imposition of fines. Is this process designed to encourage compliance or punish non-compliance?

4. Due Process and Administrative Remedies: Discuss the role of the Architectural Review Committee as a mechanism for variance. How did the Petitioner’s failure to engage with this administrative body affect the outcome of his legal challenge?

5. Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Describe the burden of proof placed on the Petitioner in this matter. Why is it significant that the Petitioner had to prove the Association violated specific statutes or CC&R sections rather than the Association proving he was in violation?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The Arizona Revised Statute that allows an association’s board of directors to impose reasonable monetary penalties after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judicial officer who presides over hearings and makes decisions regarding disputes involving government agencies or administrative bodies.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A body within a community association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying homeowners’ requests for property modifications or landscape substitutions.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal governing documents that outline the rules and requirements for a planned community.

Design Guidelines

A set of standards adopted by an association that interpret and supplement the CC&Rs, specifically regarding the aesthetic and physical development of property.

Dust Abatement

Measures taken to reduce or eliminate dust, which in this case includes the use of rocks or other specific materials in landscaping.

Ocotillo

A type of desert plant (cactus) that was at the center of the debate regarding whether it could serve as a substitute for a required tree.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition; in this case, John E. Mackey.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing and has a higher probability of being true than the opposing evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Continental Ranch Community Association.

The Snake in the Grass: How a Single Tree and an Ocotillo Cactus Led to a Legal Showdown in the Arizona Desert

1. Introduction: The Front Yard Battleground

For many, the dream of homeownership includes a patch of land to call one’s own—a personal sanctuary in the stark Arizona landscape. But for those living within a Homeowners Association (HOA), that sanctuary is often governed by a thick binder of rules designed to ensure every pebble and petal remains in its designated place. The tension between a resident’s practical fears and a board’s rigid aesthetic standards is a staple of suburban life, but rarely does it escalate as dramatically as it did in Mackey vs. Continental Ranch Community Association.

What began as a simple case of a dying tree in the Tucson heat spiraled into a multi-year legal saga. For John Mackey, a resident of the community since 1993, the conflict was defined by a mounting pile of violation letters and a fundamental disagreement over what a “safe” yard looks like. His story is a poignant reminder that in the eyes of an HOA, the dread of a $100 fine can often grow faster than the plants in your garden.

2. The “Snake Defense” and the Safety vs. Aesthetic Dilemma

At the heart of the dispute was a stark choice: visual uniformity or personal safety. Mr. Mackey testified that he was hesitant to plant additional vegetation in his front yard because of a very specific desert predator. While he maintained “Texas Ranger” bushes on the right side of his yard, he argued that adding more shrubs to the front would create a haven for snakes—a genuine safety hazard for himself and his wife.

This “snake defense” highlights the recurring clash between a homeowner’s lived experience and the community’s “design package.” To the Association, the lack of greenery wasn’t a safety precaution; it was a violation of a specific mathematical formula. According to the Association’s Guidelines:

For the Board, the desert’s wildlife was a secondary concern to the community’s “look.”

3. The Power of the “Paper Trail”: Why Asking Matters

Perhaps the most frustrating revelation of the Mackey case was that the homeowner was closer to compliance than he realized. Mr. Mackey argued that a large Ocotillo cactus he had planted should have satisfied the Association’s tree requirement.

In a surprising moment of testimony, Ms. Mathews, the Association’s Assistant Manager, admitted that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) actually had a history of permitting Ocotillos as substitutes for traditional trees. However, there was a procedural catch-22: the homeowner had to ask for permission through a formal application before the substitution could be recognized. Because Mackey never filed the paperwork, his Ocotillo remained, legally speaking, a “non-tree.”

The Administrative Law Judge emphasized this lack of a “paper trail” in the Findings of Fact:

4. Living under “Living Documents”: The Evolution of Guidelines

One of the most persistent myths in HOA living is the idea of being “grandfathered in.” Mr. Mackey pointed out that when he moved in back in 1993, he had even hired a professional landscaper to ensure his property met every standard of the time. He believed that if he was compliant then, he should be compliant now.

The legal reality, however, is far more fluid. Under Section 4.5 of the CC&Rs, the Association is granted the explicit authority to “amend, supplement, and repeal” design guidelines as they see fit. This means the rules are “living documents.” What was acceptable in the early 90s can become a violation a decade later as community standards evolve. For homeowners, this means that “compliance” is not a one-time achievement, but a continuous—and sometimes exhausting—obligation.

5. When Nature Doesn’t Cooperate with the Rules

There is a certain irony in a legal mandate to maintain life in a landscape that actively resists it. Mr. Mackey testified to the existence of what one might call “killer soil,” claiming that he had attempted to plant trees and shrubs in the past only to watch them perish because the front yard area “does not support vegetation.”

Despite this environmental struggle, the law offers little sympathy. The Administrative Law Judge noted that while the Petitioner had his “reasons for not maintaining” the landscape, those reasons did not override the Association’s authority. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), boards are permitted to impose “reasonable monetary penalties” for violations regardless of the homeowner’s personal frustrations with the soil. The law views the CC&Rs as a contract: if the rules say a tree must be there, the homeowner must find a way to make it grow or pay the price.

6. The Progressive Cost of Non-Compliance

The Association’s enforcement is not a one-off event but a calculated progression. The Mackey case shows how quickly a few missing bushes can turn into a financial drain. Per the Association’s policy, the fines are triggered by a specific timeline:

• Initial Warnings: The first and second notices of violation serve as warnings to the homeowner.

• The Fine Trigger: If a third notice is issued for the same violation within a calendar year, a $25.00 fine is imposed.

• The Escalation: Subsequent notices continue to increase the financial penalty.

• The Ceiling: Fines can continue to climb until they reach a maximum of $100.00 per violation notice.

7. Conclusion: The Final Word on Curb Appeal

In the end, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed Mr. Mackey’s petition, confirming that the Association was within its rights to enforce the rules and collect the fines. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the “collective power” inherent in community living. When you sign those closing papers, you aren’t just buying a house; you are agreeing to a vision of a neighborhood that may, at times, conflict with your own common sense or safety concerns.

It leaves us to ponder a difficult question: Is the pristine, uniform “look” of a desert street worth the legal friction and the financial burden placed on a homeowner? While the HOA argues that these rules protect property values for everyone, the Mackey case reveals the human cost of maintaining that perfect curb appeal. Is a single tree worth a battle in court? In the world of HOAs, the answer is almost always a resounding “yes.”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John E. Mackey (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ikuko Mackey (Petitioner's wife)
    Agreed that John Mackey be the designated Petitioner at commencement

Respondent Side

  • David A. McEvoy (Respondent Attorney)
    Continental Ranch Community Association; McEvoy, Daniels & Darcy, P.C.
  • Karen Mathews (Assistant Manager/Witness)
    Continental Ranch Community Association
    Testified regarding violations and fines

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution