Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120022-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-08-24 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Velva Moses-Thompson |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes | Counsel | Anthony L. Perez, Esq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association | Counsel | Clint G. Goodman, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(D) and (E), 33-1804(5), or 33-1811, or that the alleged unapproved flood light violation was outside the scope of the cited CC&R provision (Article III, § 3.10).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated A.R.S.§ 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to properly respond to the Barnes response to the notice of alleged violation and proceeding with enforcement actions.
Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated these statutes because the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice contained all required information under A.R.S. § 1803(D)(1)-(4), rendering A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) inapplicable.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
The association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) in rendering its decision on the Barnes contest of the notice.
Petitioner failed to establish violation of meeting procedures, as the appeal was discussed in an open session, and the subsequent closed session was justified to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
The alleged violation and resulting penalty imposed are void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.
Petitioner failed to prove violation. A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies only to contracts, decisions, or actions for compensation, and no evidence was presented that the Petitioner's appeal involved such compensation.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- A.R.S. § 33-1811
The alleged violation is outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.
Petitioner failed to prove the violation (installation of an unapproved flood light) was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10, which requires prior approval for 'other structure[s]'.
Orders: Petition dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
- Article IV, 4.6 (CC&Rs)
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 33-1811
- Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf
21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf
Questions
Question
What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?
Short Answer
The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.
Detailed Answer
An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
Topic Tags
- violation notices
- due process
- HOA procedures
Question
Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?
Short Answer
No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.
Alj Quote
If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
Topic Tags
- violation notices
- legal requirements
Question
Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?
Short Answer
Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.
Detailed Answer
While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Alj Quote
The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
- board meetings
- open meeting law
- executive session
Question
Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?
Short Answer
Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.
Alj Quote
Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article III, § 3.10
Topic Tags
- architectural control
- home improvements
- lighting
Question
Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?
Short Answer
Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.
Detailed Answer
A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Topic Tags
- conflicts of interest
- penalties
- statutory interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.
Alj Quote
At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- hearings
- burden of proof
Case
- Docket No
- 21F-H2120022-REL
- Case Title
- Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2021-08-24
- Alj Name
- Velva Moses-Thompson
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?
Short Answer
The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.
Detailed Answer
An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
Topic Tags
- violation notices
- due process
- HOA procedures
Question
Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?
Short Answer
No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.
Alj Quote
If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
Topic Tags
- violation notices
- legal requirements
Question
Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?
Short Answer
Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.
Detailed Answer
While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Alj Quote
The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
Topic Tags
- board meetings
- open meeting law
- executive session
Question
Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?
Short Answer
Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.
Detailed Answer
Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.
Alj Quote
Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.
Legal Basis
CC&R Article III, § 3.10
Topic Tags
- architectural control
- home improvements
- lighting
Question
Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?
Short Answer
Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.
Detailed Answer
A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Topic Tags
- conflicts of interest
- penalties
- statutory interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.
Alj Quote
At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- legal standards
- hearings
- burden of proof
Case
- Docket No
- 21F-H2120022-REL
- Case Title
- Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
- Decision Date
- 2021-08-24
- Alj Name
- Velva Moses-Thompson
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Darryl Jacobson-Barnes (petitioner)
Also referred to as Darryl Lynn Barnes–Jacobson and Darryl Barnes - Robert Barnes (petitioner)
Also referred to as Robert A Barnes and Bob Barnes - Anthony L. Perez (petitioner attorney)
Boyes Legal, PC
Respondent Side
- Clint G. Goodman (respondent attorney)
Goodman Holmgren Law Group - Michelle Mooney (board member)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
Filed complaint against Petitioner - Jennifer Amundson (property manager)
VISION Community Management
Also referred to as Jen Amundson; inspected violation - Amanda Stewart (board member)
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
Board President
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings - Judy Lowe (ADRE contact)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - c. serrano (administrative staff)
Transmitted July 14, 2021 Order - Miranda Alvarez (administrative staff)
Transmitted August 24, 2021 Order
