Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Michael J Morris v. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-23
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Morris Counsel —
Respondent StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or the cited sections of the CC&Rs or Bylaws related to the Declarant's power to appoint the board.

Key Issues & Findings

Declarant control, board appointment without vote or meeting, and failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated multiple statutes and governing documents by allowing the Declarant to solely appoint the Board of Directors and failing to hold annual meetings. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to notice or hold annual members meetings since 2010. All other alleged violations were not established.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 and directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Declarant Control, Annual Meetings, Filing Fee Refund, HOA Board Appointment
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

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

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:26 (41.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:29 (7.4 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:33 (53.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:38 (114.1 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:32 (41.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:39 (7.4 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:43 (53.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:47 (114.1 KB)

This summary focuses on the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision of the dispute between Michael J. Morris and the StarPass Master Homeowner Association (HOA).

Key Facts and Parties

The administrative hearing was held before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson on March 6, 2024, in Phoenix. The Petitioner, Michael J. Morris (a homeowner), alleged ongoing violations against the Master HOA. The Respondent, StarPass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., was represented by F. Christopher Ansley, who is the Declarant, President of the Board of Directors, and statutory agent of the Master HOA, controlling the association since 1992.

Main Issues in Dispute

The petition alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, 33-1817) and specific sections of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The three core factual issues addressed were:

  1. Whether the Declarant (Mr. Ansley) was the sole person to appoint the Board of Directors without notice, a meeting, or a vote of the members.
  2. The failure to hold annual meetings of the Association’s members.
  3. Whether the actions constituted a breach of duty and violated governing documents, particularly concerning the expiration of the Declarant's voting power.

(The ALJ noted a jurisdictional limitation regarding the allegation concerning A.R.S. § 33-1810 related to audits, as the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Morris):

Mr. Morris and his witnesses argued that the Declarant maintained total control, asserting complete and sole authority to appoint the board and failing to hold regular annual meetings as required by state law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) and the CC&Rs. A key legal contention involved the Declarant’s superior voting rights (Type B membership), which were set to terminate on December 31, 2010, per the CC&Rs (Article III, Section 2(b)). Petitioner argued that the "Sixth Amendment," which attempted to extend these rights, was recorded in May 2011, five months *after* the rights had already terminated, and the subsequent backdating of the amendment was invalid under Arizona law.

Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Ansley):

Mr. Ansley conceded that he was the sole person to appoint board members. He also admitted that he had stopped holding annual members meetings since 2010, citing repeated failure to reach a quorum among Type A (homeowner) members. Mr. Ansley maintained his authority based on his Type B votes, which provided three votes per planned lot, giving the Declarant well over 75% of the total vote. He asserted that the Sixth Amendment extension was valid because the *act* (such as restructuring assessments) was implemented in January 2007, and the later recordation in 2011 served only as public notice, not the effective date of the change.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on April 23, 2024, holding that the Petitioner was the prevailing party.

Most Important Legal Point:

The ALJ found it undisputed that the Respondent failed to notice or hold an annual meeting of the members from 2010 to the current time. This failure established a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), which mandates that a meeting of the members' association must be held at least once each year.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to establish violations of the other statutes or the CC&Rs/Bylaws related to the Declarant’s ability to appoint board members or concerning the expiration of Type B rights.

Orders Issued:

  1. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee.
  2. Respondent was directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward (i.e., hold annual members meetings).
  3. No Civil Penalty was deemed appropriate.

Questions

Question

Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?

Short Answer

No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires that a meeting of the members' association be held at least once each year.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • compliance

Question

If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?

Short Answer

Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.

Alj Quote

Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Burden

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • procedure
  • bylaws

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?

Short Answer

No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • board of directors
  • jurisdiction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.

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

Question

Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties are not automatic.

Detailed Answer

A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Prevailing Party Costs

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.

Alj Quote

Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Statutes

Topic Tags

  • declarant control
  • board appointments
  • elections

Case

Docket No
24F-H030-REL
Case Title
Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-23
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?

Short Answer

No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires that a meeting of the members' association be held at least once each year.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • compliance

Question

If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?

Short Answer

Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.

Alj Quote

Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Burden

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • procedure
  • bylaws

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?

Short Answer

No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • board of directors
  • jurisdiction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.

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

Question

Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties are not automatic.

Detailed Answer

A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Prevailing Party Costs

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.

Alj Quote

Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Statutes

Topic Tags

  • declarant control
  • board appointments
  • elections

Case

Docket No
24F-H030-REL
Case Title
Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-23
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Morris (petitioner)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; Sub-HOA President
  • Bruce Prior (witness)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; past subHOA president
  • Michael Schmidt (witness)
    Wildcat Pass HOA Board member
    Also referred to as Michael Smidt

Respondent Side

  • F. Christopher Ansley (declarant)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association President/Property Manager; Devcon LLC
    Also referred to as Chris Ansley or mistakenly as Craig Ansley
  • David Makavoy (lawyer)
    Ansley's lawyer concerning amendment recording

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as Alderman Thompson
  • Brian Larson (CPA)
    Brian Larson CTA
    Provided quarterly financial statements for Master HOA
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Jimmy Liscos (board member)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
    Appointed board member who was also part of the focus group/group of seven
  • Jamie Haw (board member)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
    Appointed board member who resigned
  • Nikki Morton (focus group member)

Gregory L Czekaj vs. Colonia Del Rey HOA

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918040-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-25
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome The HOA prevailed on all three complaints regarding records, fee increases, and meeting notices. Petitioner failed to prove violations.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Czekaj Counsel —
Respondent Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

The HOA prevailed on all three complaints regarding records, fee increases, and meeting notices. Petitioner failed to prove violations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence; HOA complied with statutes regarding record provision and meeting notice mailing; fee increase vote was valid without proxy.

Key Issues & Findings

Records Request Violation

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to provide requested records. ALJ found HOA reasonably clarified burdensome requests and provided available records timely.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Invalid Fee Increase / Proxy Vote

Petitioner alleged a $5 fee increase was invalid due to a proxy vote. ALJ found the proxy vote was not included in final valid count which met 2/3 requirement.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Meeting Notice Violation

Petitioner alleged meeting notice was not received 10 days prior. ALJ ruled mailing at UPS contract postal unit 13 days prior satisfied 'sent' requirement.

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

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

Decision Documents

19F-H1918040-REL-RHG Decision – 777724.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:30:23 (266.8 KB)

19F-H1918040-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918040-REL/720897.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:30:23 (224.6 KB)

Case Title: Gregory L. Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. Case Number: 19F-H1918040-REL-RHG Date of Rehearing Decision: March 25, 2020

Procedural Status: Rehearing This summary details a rehearing of a dispute initially decided on July 8, 2019. The rehearing was granted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner after the Petitioner alleged procedural errors regarding the retroactive swearing-in of witnesses during the initial hearing,. This summary distinguishes between the original findings and the rehearing analysis where applicable.

Background The case involves a Homeowners Association (HOA) comprised of nine homes. The Petitioner, a homeowner, filed three complaints alleging statutory violations. The HOA filed a counter-petition (Complaint Four) regarding the Petitioner's conduct,.

Complaint One: Records Requests

  • Issue: Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide requested records in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Original Decision: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled the HOA prevailed. The ALJ found Petitioner’s request for "any and all" records burdensome and determined the HOA complied timely with clarified requests,.
  • Rehearing Proceedings: Petitioner argued his requests were not burdensome and claimed the HOA "refused" access, citing the 1984 CC&Rs and the lack of a physical business office as violations,. The HOA noted it has no office and records are kept in volunteers' homes.
  • Rehearing Outcome: The ALJ affirmed that the request for "any and all" documents was burdensome. The HOA satisfied its obligations by emailing documents and facilitating a records review session,. The ALJ ruled the HOA never refused records and remained the prevailing party,.

Complaint Two: Fee Increase Validity

  • Issue: Petitioner argued a $5 fee increase was invalid because the vote utilized a proxy, which he claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1812.
  • Original Decision: The ALJ found that although a proxy was discussed, it was not counted in the final tally. The valid vote count (5 YES, 1 NO) met the requirement of 2/3 of votes cast.
  • Rehearing Proceedings: Petitioner argued that passage required six votes (2/3 of the membership). The HOA clarified that the governing documents require 2/3 of votes cast. Petitioner also attempted to introduce new arguments regarding ballot formatting, which the

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Gary Wolf (Petitioner's Attorney)
    Contacted HOA attorney regarding records

Respondent Side

  • Marybeth Andree (HOA President)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Represented the HOA; also Secretary during some events
  • Carolyn Goldschmidt (HOA Attorney)
    Responded to records requests
  • Phil Oliver (Witness)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Former HOA President
  • Susan Sotelo (Witness)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Former HOA Secretary; testified regarding mailing of notices
  • Les Andree (Attendee)
    Marybeth Andree's husband; present at May 6, 2017 meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Mr. Tick (Witness)
    Insurance Agent
    Testified regarding HOA insurance policy request
  • Damian Schaffer (Witness)
    UPS Store
    UPS store clerk
  • Ed Freeman (Tenant)
    Involved in proxy vote issue; ineligible to vote
  • Sarah Hitch (Proxy Holder)
    Tenant who cast proxy vote
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the order

Other Participants

  • Maryanne Beerling (Member)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Present at May 6, 2017 meeting

Michael D. Pursley vs. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019004-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-12-04
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on both counts. It was found that the HOA violated statutes by failing to hold annual meetings in 2017 and 2018 and failing to timely respond to records requests. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $1,000.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael D. Pursley Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Maxwell T. Riddiough

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on both counts. It was found that the HOA violated statutes by failing to hold annual meetings in 2017 and 2018 and failing to timely respond to records requests. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to hold annual meetings. Respondent admitted to not holding meetings in 2017 and 2018 due to a belief that a quorum could not be established.

Orders: Violation found. Respondent ordered to comply (implied via prevailing party status).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Failure to timely provide records

Petitioner alleged Respondent repeatedly failed to provide requested community documents within the statutory timeframe. Respondent eventually provided documents but not within the required time.

Orders: Violation found.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

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

20F-H2019004-REL Decision – 757066.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:22:35 (89.0 KB)

20F-H2019004-REL Decision – 757066.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:20 (89.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative law proceedings and subsequent decision in the case of Michael D. Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 20F-H2019004-REL). The matter, heard on October 18, 2019, centered on allegations that the Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc. (the HOA), violated Arizona Revised Statutes regarding the conduct of annual meetings and the timely provision of community records to its members.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Respondent failed to comply with its statutory obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Mandatory Annual Meeting Requirements

The primary legal dispute involved the HOA's failure to hold annual member meetings in 2017 and 2018. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), an association is strictly required to hold a meeting of the members at least once each year.

The Respondent acknowledged the failure but offered a defense based on practical constraints: because the subdivision's lots were largely undeveloped and uninhabited, the HOA believed it could not achieve a quorum. However, the ALJ found this defense insufficient to waive the statutory requirement. Compliance was eventually achieved in 2019 only after a corporate entity purchased enough lots to satisfy quorum requirements.

2. Timeliness of Records Production

The second core issue was the Respondent’s failure to provide governing documents and financial statements within the legally mandated timeframe. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) grants associations a maximum of ten business days to fulfill requests for the examination or copying of records.

The evidence demonstrated a significant delay in the HOA's response to the Petitioner:

Date of Request Method Content Requested
January 20, 2019 Letter CC&Rs
April 6, 2019 Certified Letter CC&Rs
June 21, 2019 Certified Letter CC&Rs, Rules and Regulations, Bylaws, Financial Statement

The HOA did not provide the documents via email until June 27, 2019—five months after the initial request and significantly beyond the ten-day limit following the final certified letter.

3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

In this administrative proceeding, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the allegations by a "preponderance of the evidence." The court applied the standard definition: evidence that shows the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not." Given the Respondent's admissions regarding the lack of meetings and the documented timeline of the records requests, the ALJ determined the Petitioner successfully met this burden.

Important Quotes with Context

Statutory Mandates

"A meeting of the members' association shall be held at least once each year." — A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

  • Context: This quote establishes the non-discretionary nature of annual meetings, which the Respondent failed to adhere to for two consecutive years.

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records." — A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

  • Context: This excerpt outlines the strict window of time an HOA has to respond to a member's request for information, a timeline the Respondent exceeded in this case.
Defense and Findings

"Respondent’s witness indicated that because the lots were undeveloped and no one was living in the association, Respondent believed it would be unable to have the number of owners present to make a quorum necessary to hold the annual meeting." — Findings of Fact, Paragraph 11

  • Context: This explains the Respondent’s rationale for skipping meetings, which the court ultimately found did not excuse the statutory violation.

"Petitioner initially denied having received the June 27, 2019 email that included the requested documents, but acknowledged that Respondent did email the documents to him even if he did not see them when they were sent to him." — Findings of Fact, Paragraph 10

  • Context: This clarifies that while documents were eventually provided, the provision occurred only after multiple requests and the initiation of the dispute process.

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and the final order in this matter, the following insights are relevant for the management of homeowners associations:

  • Quorum Challenges Do Not Excuse Non-Compliance: HOAs must attempt to hold annual meetings regardless of development status or anticipated quorum issues to remain in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
  • Strict Adherence to the 10-Day Records Rule: Once a member submits a written request for records, the association has a maximum of ten business days to provide the materials. Failure to do so, even if the records are eventually provided, constitutes a statutory violation.
  • Certified Mail as a Trigger: The use of certified mail by a member provides a clear, evidentiary timeline for records requests. Management companies should treat these as high-priority to avoid administrative litigation.
  • Financial Risk of Litigation: While the ALJ did not find a civil penalty appropriate in this specific case, the Respondent was still ordered to pay the Petitioner's $1,000 filing fee. This demonstrates the direct financial cost of failing to address member requests and statutory requirements in a timely manner.
  • Permissible Copying Fees: Per A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), while an association cannot charge for making materials available for review, they are entitled to charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents ($0.15) per page for physical copies.

Study Guide: Michael D. Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Michael D. Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019004-REL). It covers key legal concepts regarding Arizona Homeowners Association (HOA) regulations, the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the statutory requirements for association transparency and governance.

Key Legal Concepts and Statutes

The case centers on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding the conduct of homeowners associations and the rights of their members.

1. Mandatory Annual Meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

Under Arizona law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), a homeowners association is mandated to hold a meeting of the members at least once every year. The failure to hold such a meeting constitutes a violation of the statute, regardless of internal logistical challenges such as a lack of quorum.

2. Member Access to Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

Members of an association have a statutory right to examine and copy association records. Key provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) include:

  • Reasonable Availability: All financial and other records must be made available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
  • Response Timeframe: The association has exactly ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Cost Limitations: Associations are prohibited from charging for the review of materials. If a member requests copies, the association may charge a fee of no more than fifteen cents per page.
3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards
  • Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) has the authority to hear disputes between property owners and associations under A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: In these administrative proceedings, the Petitioner (the homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the evidence shows the facts sought to be proved are "more probable than not."

Case Summary: Findings and Conclusions

The Dispute

Petitioner Michael D. Pursley, a member of the Sycamore Vista No. 7 HOA, filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate alleging two primary violations:

  1. The Respondent failed to hold annual meetings in 2017 and 2018.
  2. The Respondent failed to timely provide requested community documents (CC&Rs, Rules and Regulations, Bylaws, and Financial Statements) after multiple requests made in early 2019.
The Respondent’s Defense

The HOA acknowledged it did not hold the 2017 and 2018 meetings. Their defense was based on the fact that the lots were undeveloped and no residents were living in the association, leading them to believe they could not achieve a quorum (the minimum number of members required to conduct business). By 2019, a corporate entity had purchased enough lots to meet quorum requirements.

The Tribunal’s Decision

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on both counts:

  • Meeting Violation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold meetings for two consecutive years.
  • Records Violation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records within the required ten-business-day window. While the records were eventually sent via email on June 27, 2019, this occurred months after the initial January and April requests.

Final Order:

  • Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
  • The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $1,000.00 filing fee.
  • No additional civil penalty was assessed.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Q1: According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), how frequently must an HOA hold a members' meeting?

  • A: At least once each year.

Q2: What is the maximum per-page fee an HOA can charge for copies of records?

  • A: Fifteen cents ($0.15) per page.

Q3: How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for records examination or copies?

  • A: Ten business days.

Q4: What reason did Sycamore Vista No. 7 HOA provide for not holding meetings in 2017 and 2018?

  • A: The lots were undeveloped and no one was living there, so the HOA believed it could not reach a quorum.

Q5: Who bears the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing, and what is the required standard of evidence?

  • A: The Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Q6: What was the specific financial penalty/reimbursement ordered by the ALJ in this case?

  • A: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner his $1,000.00 filing fee.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Compliance vs. Practical Constraints: Analyze the HOA’s defense regarding the lack of quorum due to undeveloped lots. Why did the ALJ find this defense insufficient to excuse the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)? Discuss the importance of maintaining statutory governance even in the early stages of a development.
  1. The Significance of Timely Disclosure: In this case, the Petitioner eventually received the requested documents. Explore why the law mandates a strict ten-business-day response time under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and the potential impact on homeowners when associations fail to meet this timeline.
  1. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Based on the document, describe the process of an administrative hearing for HOA disputes. Evaluate how the ALJ weighs evidence (such as the "preponderance of the evidence" standard) to reach a conclusion when facts—such as the receipt of an email—are initially contested.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community.
Petitioner The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Michael D. Pursley).
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Sycamore Vista No. 7 HOA).
Quorum The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Preponderance of the Evidence A legal standard of proof meaning that the evidence as a whole shows the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over an administrative hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Business Days For the purposes of records requests, these are the days during which the association must fulfill requests, excluding weekends and holidays (implied by the ten-day limit).
Governing Documents The collective set of rules for the association, including CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations.

Understanding Your Rights: A Lesson in HOA Accountability from Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7

1. Introduction: When Homeowners Take a Stand

As an expert in HOA compliance and an advocate for homeowner rights, I frequently see Boards of Directors acting as if state statutes are merely "suggestions." For many homeowners, dealing with an unresponsive association feels like shouting into a void. You pay your assessments and follow the CC&Rs, but when you ask for basic transparency, you’re met with silence or excuses.

The case of Michael D. Pursley vs. Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc. is a landmark reminder that you do not have to accept Board negligence. This case demonstrates how a single, persistent homeowner held his association accountable through the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) dispute process. If your Board is skipping annual meetings or gatekeeping records, this ruling provides the roadmap for asserting your rights.

2. The Core Obligations: What the Law Requires

In Arizona, the operations of a Planned Community are governed by strict statutory mandates. Boards often plead ignorance, but as a homeowner, you must know that these requirements are non-negotiable legal duties.

Statute Number Mandatory Association Action
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) A meeting of the members' association shall be held at least once each year.
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) Fulfill requests to examine or provide copies of association records within ten business days.

Note for Homeowners: These statutes are part of the Arizona Planned Communities Act. They do not say a Board "should" hold a meeting; they say a meeting shall be held.

3. The Case Study: A Timeline of Non-Compliance

The dispute in Pursley v. Sycamore Vista No. 7 provides a textbook example of how "administrative friction" is used to discourage homeowners. Mr. Pursley’s journey to obtain basic governing documents spanned nearly half a year:

  • January 20, 2019: Initial request for CC&Rs sent to the management company.
  • April 6, 2019: After receiving no response, Pursley sent a certified letter repeating the request.
  • June 21, 2019: A second certified letter was sent, expanding the request to include Rules and Regulations, Bylaws, and Financial Statements.
  • June 27, 2019: The Association finally emailed the documents—five months after the initial request.

The "Expert" Insight on Deadlines: Interestingly, during the hearing, Mr. Pursley argued that the Association failed to provide documents within 20 business days. In a win for homeowners, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) corrected this: under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), the Association actually only has 10 business days to comply. The law is even stricter than the Petitioner realized.

4. The Judge’s Ruling: Transparency Prevails

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer found that the Association’s excuses did not hold up under legal scrutiny. The Petitioner successfully proved his case by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning he showed it was more probable than not that the violations occurred.

Proven Violations:

  • Failure to Hold Meetings: The Association admitted it held no annual meetings in 2017 or 2018, a direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).
  • Failure to Provide Timely Records: The Association failed the 10-business-day statutory deadline for record production.

The Financial Outcome: The Judge designated Mr. Pursley as the prevailing party and ordered the Association to pay his $1,000.00 filing fee within 30 days. However, as an expert consultant, I must set a realistic expectation: the ALJ noted that "No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate." This process is designed for compliance and cost recovery, not for homeowners to collect "damages" or punitive fines.

5. Why "Quorum" and "Development" Aren't Excuses

The Association attempted to justify its failure to hold meetings by claiming that because the lots were undeveloped and no one was living there, they believed they couldn't achieve a quorum. They only held a meeting in 2019 after a corporate entity purchased enough lots to guarantee a quorum.

The ALJ rejected this logic entirely. A Board cannot wait for a "friendly" corporate developer to arrive before fulfilling its duty to the individual homeowners already in the association. The statutory requirement to hold a meeting "at least once each year" is absolute. If you are the only resident in a sea of empty lots, you still have the right to an annual meeting.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Every Homeowner

The Pursley case is a victory for the "little guy," but it also highlights the necessity of a professional approach to disputes.

Expert Actionable Takeaways:

  1. Certified Mail is Your Best Friend: Mr. Pursley’s use of certified mail created an indisputable paper trail. Never rely on phone calls or unconfirmed emails.
  2. Maintain a Detailed Interaction Log: Beyond mail, keep a log of every date, time, and person you speak with regarding records. This is your "evidence" if you end up before a judge.
  3. The 10-Day Rule is Powerful: Do not let management companies tell you they need "a few weeks." The clock starts when they receive the request, and they have 10 business days. Period.
  4. Use the OAH Process: Traditional litigation is expensive and slow. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) provides access to specialized judges who understand HOA law, making it a more cost-effective and viable path for members.

Transparency is not a courtesy—it is a right. When Boards fail to follow state statutes, they undermine the community's trust. By knowing the law and documenting every step, you can ensure your association remains accountable to the people it serves.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael D. Pursley (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Maxwell T. Riddiough (respondent representative)
    Sycamore Vista No. 7 Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Represented the Respondent
  • Bradley P. Miller (Statutory Agent)
    Sycamore Vista No 7 HOA, Inc.
    Listed on transmission list

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission list
  • Felicia Del Sol (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the decision

Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919065-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-10-01
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Petitioner's request for a hearing was denied and the petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove the Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or its Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the meeting agenda or ballot.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jason West Counsel —
Respondent Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association Counsel Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request for a hearing was denied and the petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove the Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or its Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the meeting agenda or ballot.

Why this result: The relevant statute and HOA bylaws do not mandate that the Board add a member-proposed amendment to the agenda; the member has the independent recourse of gathering member support (25% or 1/4 of votes) to call a special meeting, a route the Petitioner was aware of but did not pursue.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda of the annual meeting

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place his proposed bylaw amendment (Bylaw 3.13, concerning banning directors whose actions resulted in a paid claim) on the agenda or ballot for the annual meeting.

Orders: Petition denied because Petitioner did not establish that Respondent violated the cited statute or bylaw by declining to add the proposed amendment to the agenda or ballot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
  • Bylaw 1.5
  • Bylaw 2.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaw Amendment, Meeting Agenda, Director liability, Statute interpretation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Respondent’s Bylaw 1.5
  • Respondent’s Bylaw 2.2

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

19F-H1919065-REL Decision – 742075.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:02 (159.4 KB)

19F-H1919065-REL Decision – 742075.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:36 (159.4 KB)

Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919065-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the matter of Jason West (Petitioner) versus the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Respondent), Case No. 19F-H1919065-REL. The petition, filed on May 20, 2019, was ultimately denied in a decision issued on October 1, 2019.

The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and its own Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to add his proposed bylaw amendment to the agenda for the annual members’ meeting. The proposed amendment sought to ban directors from serving for five years if their actions resulted in a paid claim against the Association.

The ALJ’s ruling was decisive: the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision rested on a strict interpretation of the relevant statute and bylaws. The ALJ concluded that neither A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) nor the Association’s bylaws compel the Board to place a member-initiated proposal on the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting. Critically, the bylaws provide a distinct and available remedy for members: Bylaw 2.2 allows members to force a special meeting for any purpose, including bylaw amendments, by gathering the support of 25% of the voting membership. The record showed the Petitioner was aware of this option but did not attempt to use it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was also denied, as the presiding body (the Office of Administrative Hearings) lacks the statutory authority to award them in such proceedings.

1. Case Overview

Case Name

Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Case Number

19F-H1919065-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

Hearing Date

September 26, 2019

Decision Date

October 1, 2019

Petitioner

Jason West, appearing on his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, represented by Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated state law and its governing documents by refusing to include his proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda and ballot for the annual meeting held in June 2019.

2. The Proposed Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3.13)

The Petitioner submitted a proposal to add a new Bylaw 3.13 to the Association’s governing documents. The full text of the proposed amendment is as follows:

Directors whose actions result in a paid claim

In an effort to reduce liability to the Association, any current or former director whose actions have resulted in a paid claim by the Association or its insurance carrier, is banned from serving as a director for a period of five years from the date of the final payment. This five year directorship ban also applies to any other individual co-owning an Association lot with the director. This Amendment is retroactive.

The stated purpose of the amendment was to reduce the Association’s liability. The decision notes that some of the current Board members may have been serving when the Association’s insurance carrier paid legal fees and other costs associated with a previous petition filed by the Petitioner.

3. Chronology of the Dispute

• December 23, 2018: The Petitioner first sent his proposed Bylaw 3.13 amendment to Joanelize Morales, the Association’s property manager.

• January 3 & 4, 2019: The Petitioner emailed Mickey Latz, owner of the management company, demanding the proposal be added to the next meeting’s agenda and ballot. In this correspondence, the Petitioner explicitly stated his awareness of the alternative process, writing, “I can also force the Board to call a Special Meeting of the Members at any time with 10 signatures from members of our Association. This is Article 2.2 of our Bylaws.”

• January – June 2019: Mr. Latz repeatedly informed the Petitioner that the Board, based on legal advice, had decided not to add the proposal to the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting.

• April 17, 2019: Notice was sent to members for the annual meeting scheduled for June 4, 2019. The agenda was limited to (1) Election of Directors and (2) Approval of 2018 Annual Meeting Minutes. On the same day, the Petitioner re-sent his proposed amendment.

• May 14, 2019: The Petitioner attended a Board meeting and threatened to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate if his amendment was not placed on the agenda.

• May 20, 2019: The Petitioner filed the formal petition that led to this hearing.

• June 3, 2019: A notice was sent rescheduling the meeting to June 20, 2019, with the agenda unchanged.

• June 20, 2019: At the annual meeting, the Petitioner, whose name was on the ballot, was not elected to the Board of Directors.

4. Governing Authorities and Bylaws

The ALJ’s decision centered on the interpretation of one state statute and two specific Association bylaws.

• A.R.S. § 33-1804(B): This Arizona statute governs homeowners’ association meetings. It requires annual meetings and specifies notice requirements. It explicitly provides a mechanism for members to call special meetings: “Special meetings of the members’ association may be called by the president, by a majority of the board of directors or by members having at least twenty-five percent, or any lower percentage specified in the bylaws, of the votes in the association.”

• Bylaw 1.5 (Amendment Process): This bylaw states that amendments can be made “at a regular or special meeting of the Members, by a vote of the Members having a majority (more than 50%) of the votes.” The ALJ found that this bylaw is permissive, allowing for votes on amendments, but does not obligate the Board to place any specific proposal on an agenda.

• Bylaw 2.2 (Special Meetings): This bylaw mirrors the state statute, allowing members to compel a meeting. It states: “Special meetings of the Members may be called at any time … upon written request signed by Members having at least one-fourth (1/4) of the authorized votes… which request shall be delivered to the President or Secretary.”

5. Summary of Key Testimony

The hearing included testimony from the Petitioner and six witnesses he subpoenaed, including property managers and the three current Board members.

• Board Members (Bryan Selna, David Epstein, Linda Seidler): All testified that they consulted with the Association’s attorneys and property management company. Based on the advice received, they collectively decided not to add the Petitioner’s proposal to the agenda.

• Mickey Latz (Property Management Co. Owner): Testified that the Board as a whole, not the secretary, determines the meeting agenda. He affirmed that counsel had advised the Board it was not obligated to add member-requested items. Mr. Latz testified that he explicitly pointed the Petitioner to the process outlined in Bylaw 2.2, which allows members to call their own meetings directly.

• Joanelize Morales (Property Manager): Confirmed that she prepares meeting agendas based on the Board’s instructions. She also testified that the Petitioner never attempted to use the Bylaw 2.2 process to gather the support of his neighbors to schedule a meeting to consider his proposed amendment.

6. Historical Context and Prior Litigation

The decision provides context regarding the Petitioner’s previous interactions with the Association.

• Prior Petition (OAH Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL): In April 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition concerning the Board’s failure to fill vacant positions. On June 28, 2017, an ALJ dismissed that petition, concluding that the Board had done all it could and that vacancies were due in part to the Petitioner’s “obstructionist tactics.”

• Successful Amendment (Bylaw 3.12): In April 2017, the Petitioner proposed a different amendment regarding director resignations. The Board at that time agreed to submit it to a vote, and it was passed by the membership in May 2017.

7. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s conclusions of law methodically dismantled the Petitioner’s claims, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated the statute and bylaw.

• Statutory and Bylaw Interpretation: The ALJ applied a plain-language reading to the governing authorities.

◦ The court found that nothing in the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires an HOA board to add an item to an agenda at a member’s request. Instead, it provides the remedy for members to call a meeting themselves.

◦ Similarly, the court concluded that Bylaw 1.5 allows for bylaw amendments to be considered at meetings but does not compel the Board to include such proposals on the agenda of a meeting it has noticed.

◦ The ALJ found that Bylaw 2.2 provides the explicit and proper procedure for a member to bring an issue to a vote when the Board declines to do so: gather support from 25% of the members to call a special meeting.

• Final Ruling: Because the Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any cited statute or bylaw, the petition was ordered to be denied.

• Attorney’s Fees: The Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. The decision cited legal precedent establishing that administrative bodies like the Department of Real Estate and the OAH are not empowered by the legislature to award attorney’s fees in these types of disputes.

Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the provided administrative law judge decision.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action did the Petitioner, Jason West, allege the Respondent took that violated Arizona statute and the association’s bylaws?

3. Describe the substance of the proposed Bylaw 3.13 that the Petitioner wanted to add to the agenda.

4. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not adding the proposed bylaw amendment to the annual meeting’s agenda or ballot?

5. According to Bylaw 2.2, what procedural option did the Petitioner have to bring his proposed amendment to a vote without the Board’s approval?

6. What was the outcome of the Petitioner’s previous case against the Respondent in 2017 (OAH Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)?

7. What two specific authorities did the Petitioner claim the Respondent’s Board violated?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation, does A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) require an HOA board to add an item to an agenda at a single member’s request?

9. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case (No. 19F-H1919065-REL)?

10. What was the judge’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees, and what was the reason for this ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Jason West, who owns a house in the Desert Sage Two development. The Respondent is the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, of which the Petitioner is a member.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and its own Bylaw 1.5. The specific violation was the Board’s failure to place a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner on the agenda of the association’s annual meeting.

3. The proposed Bylaw 3.13 sought to ban any current or former director from serving on the board for five years if their actions resulted in a paid claim by the association or its insurance carrier. This ban would be retroactive and also apply to any individual co-owning a lot with the director.

4. The Respondent’s Board, after consulting with its attorneys and property management company, argued that neither state law nor its bylaws obliged them to add items to an agenda at a single member’s request. They contended that the Petitioner had the option to call a special meeting himself by gathering support from other members.

5. Bylaw 2.2 allows for a special meeting of the members to be called upon a written request signed by members who hold at least one-fourth (25%) of the authorized votes. The Petitioner was aware of this option but had not attempted to use it.

6. In the previous case, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Board had done all it could to fill vacant positions and that the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics” were part of the reason no eligible members were willing to serve.

7. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent’s Board violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(B) and the association’s Bylaw 1.5.

8. No, the judge concluded that nothing in the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires a homeowners’ association board to add an item to an agenda or ballot at the request of a single member. The statute only provides that members with at least 25% of the votes can independently call a meeting.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent’s Board violated either A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or Bylaw 1.5.

10. The judge ruled that attorney’s fees could not be awarded to the Respondent. The reason given is that the legislature has not empowered the Department of Real Estate or the Office of Administrative Hearings to award attorney’s fees in this type of administrative proceeding.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct a detailed essay response for each of the following prompts, using only evidence and reasoning found within the case document.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s method of statutory construction and interpretation of restrictive covenants. How did the judge apply these principles to A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5 to reach a conclusion?

2. Discuss the balance of power between an individual HOA member and the Board of Directors as illustrated in this case. What rights and recourses are available to a member who disagrees with a Board decision, according to the Respondent’s Bylaws?

3. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Who held the burden of proof, what was the standard required, and why was the Petitioner unable to meet this standard?

4. Examine the history between the Petitioner and the Respondent as detailed in the “Findings of Fact.” How might this prior history, including the 2017 legal case and a previously successful bylaw amendment, have influenced the actions of both parties in the current dispute?

5. Based on the testimony of Michael David (“Mickey”) Latz and the text of the bylaws, contrast the process for placing an item on the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting versus the process for calling a member-initiated special meeting. What are the key differences in initiative, requirements, and control?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent official (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over evidentiary hearings and issues decisions on petitions filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

An Arizona statute cited by the Petitioner. It stipulates that an HOA members’ meeting must be held at least annually and that special meetings can be called by the president, a board majority, or members with at least 25% of the votes.

Bylaw 1.5

A bylaw of the Desert Sage Two HOA that states the Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting by a majority vote of members present in person or by proxy.

Bylaw 2.2

A bylaw of the Desert Sage Two HOA that allows for special meetings of the members to be called by the president, the Board, or upon written request from members holding at least one-fourth (25%) of the votes.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state body authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association

An organization whose members own property and/or residences in a specific development (in this case, Desert Sage Two in Scottsdale, Arizona).

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

Jason West, the member of the homeowners’ association who filed the petition alleging a violation by the association’s Board.

Petition

A formal complaint filed with the Department of Real Estate by an HOA member or the HOA itself concerning alleged violations.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof standard required in the hearing. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, the entity against which the petition was filed.

Restrictive Covenant

A rule or provision within community documents, like bylaws, that is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties if it is unambiguous.

Select all sources
742075.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

19F-H1919065-REL

1 source

This text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning a dispute between a homeowner, Jason West (Petitioner), and his association, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)) and an association bylaw by refusing to place his proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda of the annual meeting. The proposed amendment sought to ban directors whose actions resulted in a paid insurance claim from serving for five years, but the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that neither the statute nor the association’s bylaws required the Board to add a member-proposed item to a scheduled agenda or ballot. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation and denied the petition.

1 source

What was the specific legal and procedural context of this homeowners association dispute?
How did the Petitioner’s proposed bylaw amendment attempt to alter Board member liability?
What statutory and bylaw provisions guided the final Administrative Law Judge decision?

Based on 1 source

00:00
00:00

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jason West (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine, Baker, Hickman, & Houston, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Edward A. Padilla (property manager)
    Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
    Property manager in May 2017; testified for Petitioner; also referred to as 'Eddie'
  • Joanelize Morales (property manager)
    Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
    Property manager since August 2018; testified for Petitioner
  • Bryan Robert Selna (board member)
    Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
    Current Vice President of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
  • David Epstein (board member)
    Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
    Current President of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
  • Linda Maria Seidler (board member)
    Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
    Current Secretary of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
  • Michael David Latz (property manager)
    Golden Valley Property Management
    Owner of Golden Valley Property Management; testified for Petitioner; also referred to as 'Mickey'

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Colonia Del Rey Homeowners Association v. Gregory Czekaj

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-07-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome Petitioner failed to prove HOA violated records, voting, or notice statutes. HOA failed to prove Petitioner violated Bylaws by misrepresenting himself as an officer.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Czekaj Counsel Gary Wolf
Respondent Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. Counsel Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Bylaws Sections 6.1, 7.1, 9.2

Outcome Summary

Petitioner failed to prove HOA violated records, voting, or notice statutes. HOA failed to prove Petitioner violated Bylaws by misrepresenting himself as an officer.

Why this result: Petitioner's interpretations of statutes regarding notice and voting were incorrect, and HOA complied with records requests. HOA lacked evidence for its claim against Petitioner.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to provide requested organizational, business, corporate, and financial records.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Invalid fee increase due to proxy vote

Petitioner alleged a $5 fee increase was invalid because a proxy vote was used in violation of statutes and rules.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide ten-day meeting notice

Petitioner alleged HOA failed to give ten-day notice for a meeting to vote on Bylaws amendments.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party. Petitioner bears his filing fees.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Petitioner exceeded rights as member

HOA alleged Petitioner misrepresented himself as an officer to obtain insurance and tax information.

Orders: The HOA did not prevail. HOA bears its filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

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

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:52 (224.6 KB)

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:34:36 (224.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.

Executive Summary

On July 8, 2019, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings issued a decision regarding a multi-faceted dispute between Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner) and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (Respondent). The proceedings consolidated four separate complaints: three filed by the Petitioner regarding records access, voting validity, and meeting notices, and one filed by the HOA alleging the Petitioner misrepresented himself as an officer to third-party entities.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the HOA. The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in three of the four complaints. The ALJ concluded that the HOA had fulfilled its statutory obligations regarding records disclosure and meeting notices and that a contested $5.00 assessment increase was legally valid. Regarding the fourth complaint, neither party prevailed, as the evidence was insufficient to prove the Petitioner had intentionally misrepresented himself, though the ALJ noted the Petitioner was "mistaken" in his belief that individual members possess board-level administrative authority.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Obligations vs. Member Demands for Records

A central theme of the dispute was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the inspection of association records. The Petitioner argued that the HOA "withheld" documents, while the HOA maintained that the Petitioner's requests were overly broad and burdensome.

  • Burdensome Requests: The ALJ determined that the Petitioner’s request to review "any and all" documents since 1984 was inherently burdensome for a small, volunteer-run HOA with no central office.
  • Response Standards: The ruling clarified that associations are permitted to ask members to narrow their requests. Once a member provides clarification and acknowledges receipt (e.g., saying "thank you"), the HOA is justified in considering the request fulfilled until a new, specific request is made.
  • Electronic Disclosure: The HOA’s provision of electronic documents at no cost was found to be an appropriate response to records requests, fulfilling the statutory requirement for reasonable availability.
2. Validity of Governance and Voting Procedures

The Petitioner challenged a $5.00 monthly assessment increase (from $75 to $80) based on the initial use of an illegal proxy vote.

  • Correction of Errors: Although a proxy vote was initially and incorrectly counted, the HOA subsequently corrected the tally.
  • Defining "Votes Cast": The ALJ found that under the HOA’s CC&Rs, the requirement for a 2/3 majority applies to the "votes cast" by those present, not 2/3 of the total membership. With 6 members present, a vote of 5 YES and 1 NO (83.3%) exceeded the required 2/3 threshold (4 votes), rendering the increase valid regardless of the discarded proxy.
  • Record Retention: The destruction of original ballots after one year was found to be in compliance with the HOA’s one-year record retention policy and A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7).
3. Standards for Meeting Notices

The dispute highlighted a common member misconception regarding notice periods. The Petitioner argued that a meeting was invalid because he did not receive the notice 10 days in advance.

  • Mailing vs. Receipt: The ALJ clarified that A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires the HOA to "cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent" at least 10 days prior to a meeting. The law does not mandate that the member receive the notice within that timeframe.
  • Validity: The ruling confirmed that a member's failure to receive actual notice does not invalidate the actions taken at a meeting, provided the HOA can demonstrate the notice was sent (e.g., through testimony or mailing records).
4. Limits of Member Authority

The final theme involved the boundaries between individual member rights and Board administrative authority. The Petitioner attempted to contact the HOA’s insurance agent and the IRS to obtain sensitive information, such as the HOA’s Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

  • Administrative Rights: The ALJ concluded that HOA Bylaws vest management and administrative authority exclusively in the Board of Directors.
  • The "Right to Enforce": The Petitioner argued that CC&R provisions allowing owners to "enforce" restrictions gave him the right to contact vendors and the IRS. The ALJ rejected this, stating that the right to enforce allows a member to petition the Board or seek legal remedy, but does not bestow board-level administrative powers upon individual homeowners.

Analysis of Complaints and Outcomes

Complaint Number Subject Matter Primary Allegation Prevailing Party
One Records Access HOA withheld requested financial and corporate records. HOA
Two Assessment Vote A $5.00 fee increase was invalid due to the use of a proxy vote. HOA
Three Meeting Notice HOA failed to provide 10-day notice for a Bylaw amendment meeting. HOA
Four Misrepresentation Petitioner allegedly posed as an HOA officer to the IRS and insurance agent. Neither

Important Quotes with Context

On Burdensome Record Requests

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the request, as stated, was burdensome and needed to be clarified given that the HOA has been in existence since 1984, has no office, and various persons have been officers over the past years." (Finding 62)

Context: The ALJ rejected the Petitioner's claim that the HOA was "withholding" information, noting that the HOA acted reasonably by asking the Petitioner to narrow his broad request for all documents since the association's inception.

On the Definition of Statutory Notice

"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner’s argument fails that the notice packages had to be 'received' more than ten days prior to the meeting; such a position is a misreading of the statutory requirement." (Finding 68)

Context: This quote addresses Complaint Three, establishing that the legal standard for notice is the act of mailing or sending, not the confirmed receipt by the homeowner.

On Member Privileges vs. Board Authority

"Petitioner is mistaken if he believes that he, as a member, may undertake to dictate or manage actions of the Board. The HOA Bylaws do not vest any of the Board’s authority in the members." (Finding 71)

Context: The ALJ used this statement to clarify that while members have the right to review records and vote, they do not have the right to perform administrative tasks, such as contacting the IRS or HOA vendors on behalf of the association.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards
  • Formalize Record Requests: Require members to clarify broad requests. Document all responses and utilize electronic delivery to satisfy statutory requirements for "reasonable availability" at minimal cost.
  • Correct Procedural Errors Promptly: As seen in the assessment vote, an initial procedural error (like an improper proxy) does not necessarily invalidate an action if the corrected tally still meets the required legal threshold.
  • Maintain Proof of Mailing: Ensure the Secretary maintains records of when meeting notices are sent. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), proving the date of mailing is the standard for legal compliance, not proof of delivery.
For Homeowners
  • Distinguish Between "Review" and "Manage": Members have a statutory right to review records, but this does not grant them the authority to act as an agent of the HOA or manage its business affairs (e.g., contacting the IRS).
  • Understand Voting Thresholds: Carefully review CC&Rs to determine if a required majority applies to the entire membership or only the votes cast by those present at a meeting where a quorum is met.
  • Verify Statutory Timelines: Be aware that "notice" is legally defined by the date the HOA initiates delivery, not the date the mail is received. Failing to receive mail does not legally excuse a member from the outcomes of a meeting.

Study Guide: Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA Administrative Case

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Gregory L. Czekaj (Petitioner/Homeowner) and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (Respondent/HOA), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on June 14, 2019. It examines the legal requirements for homeowners' associations regarding records access, voting procedures, meeting notices, and the limitations of member authority.

I. Case Overview

  • Case Numbers: 19F-H1918040-REL and 19F-H1919054-REL.
  • Parties: Gregory L. Czekaj, a homeowner since March 2017, and Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc., a nine-home association established in 1984.
  • Central Issues: Alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding records requests, voting irregularities, and meeting notice timelines, as well as an HOA allegation regarding a member's unauthorized use of authority.

II. Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Interpretations

1. Access to HOA Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805)
  • Availability: All financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination.
  • Timeline: The HOA has ten (10) business days to fulfill a written request.
  • Costs: Statutes do not require an HOA to provide copies at no cost. The HOA may charge up to 15 cents per page for copies, which must be reimbursed upon delivery.
  • Scope: Requests must be specific. Requests to review "all documents" may be considered burdensome, especially for older associations without formal offices.
2. Meeting Notices (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B))
  • Timing: Notice must be provided not fewer than ten (10) days in advance of a meeting.
  • Legal Requirement: The statute requires the HOA to "cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by [U.S.] mail."
  • Receipt vs. Sending: The legal obligation is satisfied when the notice is sent. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive the actual notice, provided the HOA followed the sending procedures.
3. Voting and Proxies (A.R.S. § 33-1812)
  • Proxies: Arizona state law and specific HOA resolutions (e.g., Resolution 20140315-01) may prohibit the use of proxy votes.
  • Absentee Ballots: These are acceptable and may be cast via email if permitted by the association.
  • Quorum and Thresholds:
  • A quorum is often met by the presence of members entitled to cast 50% of the votes.
  • Assessments exceeding 10% of the previous year's amount may require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those voting (not 2/3 of the entire membership).
4. Member vs. Board Authority
  • Member Privileges: Under HOA Bylaws (Section 3.1), privileges are limited to voting, holding office, and enjoying common areas.
  • Management Rights: Business affairs are managed by the Board of Directors (Section 6.1). Members do not possess administrative rights, authority, or responsibility to manage vendors, contractors, or government agencies (like the IRS) on behalf of the HOA.
  • Enforcement Rights: While CC&Rs may allow an owner to "enforce" restrictions (Article XIV, Section 1), this typically means the right to petition the Board to act, rather than the right to assume Board duties.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. How many business days does an HOA have to fulfill a written records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)?
  2. Does a member’s failure to receive a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting? Explain why or why not.
  3. According to the ALJ decision, what is the maximum fee an HOA can charge per page for copies of records?
  4. In the context of the $5 assessment increase, how was the two-thirds (2/3) majority calculated?
  5. Why was the proxy vote cast for Ed Freeman eventually disregarded in the final tabulation of the May 2017 vote?
  6. Under the Colonia Del Rey Bylaws, who is responsible for the management of the HOA's business affairs?
  7. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding his right to contact the IRS and the HOA’s insurance agent?
  8. What constitutes a "preponderance of the evidence" in an administrative hearing?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Tension Between Transparency and Burdensome Requests: Analyze the ALJ's conclusion regarding Complaint One. How should an HOA balance its statutory duty to provide records with the practical limitations of being a small, volunteer-run organization without a physical office?
  2. Statutory Interpretation of "Notice": Discuss the legal distinction between "causing notice to be sent" and the member's "actual receipt" of notice. Why is this distinction vital for the administrative functioning of a homeowners' association?
  3. The Limits of Homeowner Enforcement Rights: Petitioner argued that CC&R Article XIV gave him the right to enforce rules, which he interpreted as authority to contact vendors and the IRS. Critique this interpretation based on the ALJ’s findings regarding the separation of member privileges and Board authority.
  4. Validity of HOA Actions: Evaluate the May 6, 2017, assessment vote. Even though the HOA initially provided incorrect information on the ballot (stating 6 votes were needed) and allowed an invalid proxy, the ALJ upheld the vote. Explain the legal reasoning that allowed the vote to stand.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B): The Arizona statute governing the requirements and timelines for notifying members of HOA meetings.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Arizona statute mandating that HOA financial and other records be made reasonably available to members.
  • Absentee Ballot: A ballot cast by a member who is not physically present at a meeting; in this case, permitted via email.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and makes decisions in cases involving government agency rules or specialized statutes (e.g., the Department of Real Estate).
  • Bylaws: The rules governing the internal management of the HOA, including the duties of the Board and the rights of members.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The legal documents that lay out the guidelines for the community and the rights/obligations of the homeowners.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in this case, meaning that a claim is "more probably true than not."
  • Proxy Vote: A vote cast by one person on behalf of another. In this case, the ALJ confirmed that such votes were prohibited by state law and HOA resolution.
  • Quorum: The minimum number of members who must be present (in person or by absentee ballot) at a meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
  • Ramada: A common area structure in the Colonia Del Rey HOA used for records review and meetings.
  • TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number): A unique number used by the IRS to identify a business entity or organization like an HOA.

Lessons from the Courtroom: A Homeowner’s Legal Challenge to HOA Governance

1. Introduction: Small Association, Big Legal Stakes

The legal landscape of homeowner associations (HOAs) often involves sprawling master-planned communities with hundreds of residents. However, the case of Gregory L. Czekaj v. Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918040-REL) serves as a potent reminder that legal stakes remain high regardless of community size.

Colonia Del Rey is a micro-community in Tucson, Arizona, consisting of just nine homes on a private road. It has no central office and no pool, and its Board is comprised entirely of elected volunteers. Yet, this tiny association found itself before the Office of Administrative Hearings defending its governance against four separate complaints from a single homeowner. As a legal analyst, I find this case particularly instructive because the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision provides a definitive roadmap for record requests, voting thresholds, and the strict boundaries of homeowner authority versus Board management.

2. Record Requests: "Burdensome" vs. "Legal Right"

In Complaint One, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested records. The conflict began when the Petitioner issued a sweeping request to review "any and all" association documents. The HOA President initially pushed back, labeling the request "burdensome" and asking for specificity—a move the Tribunal later interpreted as a reasonable administrative response for a small, volunteer-run entity.

The following table analyzes the friction between the Petitioner’s allegations and the HOA’s documented compliance:

Petitioner’s Allegations HOA’s Documented Responses & Legal Context
Withholding Organizational Docs: Claimed the HOA failed to provide current Articles of Incorporation, forcing him to pay $54 to the state for them. Fulfilled Electronically: The HOA provided the Articles, Bylaws, and CC&Rs via email on May 14. The Tribunal ruled the request was satisfied once the member replied "thank you."
Incomplete Financial Review: Alleged tax returns and insurance policies were missing during a November 23 records review. Coordinated Access: The HOA facilitated a two-hour review session. Remaining records (tax returns/invoices) were emailed on Nov 30 after being finalized by the CPA.
Access to Physical Copies: Challenged the logistics of obtaining hard copies of the records reviewed. Governance Rule: Per A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), HOAs may charge up to 15 cents per page for copies and have 10 business days to produce them after a specific request is made.

Analyst’s Note: The ALJ concluded the HOA complied with the law because they provided records within 10 business days of the Petitioner clarifying his broad request. For boards, the takeaway is clear: broad requests can be legally treated as burdensome, but once specified, the statutory clock starts.

3. The $5 Assessment Increase: Navigating Voting Math

Complaint Two challenged a 2017 vote that raised monthly assessments from $75 to $80. The Petitioner argued the vote was invalid because a proxy was cast for a tenant (Ed Freeman), which violated both A.R.S. § 33-1812(A) and the HOA’s own policies.

While the proxy vote was indeed improper and eventually discarded, the Tribunal’s analysis of the "Math of Governance" is where the most critical professional insight lies. Many associations struggle to distinguish between a "majority of all members" and a "majority of votes cast."

  • The Voting Requirement: Under Article IV, Section 5(b) and (f) of the CC&Rs, the increase required approval by 2/3 of the votes cast—not 2/3 of the total membership.
  • The Final Valid Tally: After discarding the invalid proxy and accounting for eligible members present, the count was 5 "YES" and 1 "NO."
  • The Calculation: 5 (Yes) / 6 (Total) = 83.3% Approval.

Governance Tip: Because the 83.3% approval rate comfortably exceeded the 66.6% (2/3) threshold, the Judge ruled the assessment increase valid. Associations must meticulously check their CC&Rs to see if thresholds apply to "total membership" or "votes cast," as this distinction often saves a vote from failure due to low turnout.

4. The Notice Requirement: "Sent" vs. "Received"

In Complaint Three, the Petitioner sought to invalidate Bylaw amendments, claiming he received the meeting notice only nine days before the vote—one day short of the 10-day requirement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(B).

The Tribunal’s interpretation reinforces a vital legal standard: The law requires the HOA to "cause notice" (hand-deliver or mail) at least 10 days in advance; it does not require the HOA to guarantee the date of receipt by the member.

The HOA Secretary proved that notice packages were mailed on November 5 for the November 18 meeting (13 days prior). Furthermore, the Board utilized a "multi-channel" approach by emailing the notice on November 4. The Judge clarified that a member's failure to receive actual notice does not invalidate the meeting's actions, provided the HOA initiated the mailing within the statutory window.

5. The Limits of Membership: You are an Owner, Not an Officer

The most contentious conflict (Complaint Four) involved the Petitioner contacting the HOA’s insurance agent and the IRS to obtain the association’s Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). The HOA filed a police report, citing fiduciary responsibility after the IRS suggested the inquiry could indicate potential identity theft.

The Judge used this as a teaching moment regarding the hierarchy of authority:

  • Privileges vs. Administrative Rights: A member’s privileges (voting, holding office, using common areas) do not grant "administrative rights."
  • The Enforcement Misconception: The Petitioner cited Article XIV, Section 1 of the CC&Rs, which gives owners the right to "enforce" restrictions. The Judge ruled this only allows an owner to petition the Board to take action—it does not authorize a homeowner to manage vendors, contact insurance agents, or engage with the IRS on the association’s behalf.

Analyst’s Note: The Judge noted the Petitioner was "propelled by certain motives" (personal disagreement with Board policy) rather than statutory violations. Neither party prevailed on this complaint because there was no "preponderance of evidence" of intentional misrepresentation, but the legal warning was clear: ownership does not equal agency.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Final Order deemed the HOA the prevailing party on three out of four complaints. Under A.R.S. § 32-2199, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof—he had to prove his claims were "more probably true than not." His failure to do so highlights the importance of evidence over grievance.

Critical Takeaways for HOA Governance:

  1. Clarity in Record Requests: Overly broad "any and all" requests are often deemed burdensome. Boards should provide access but can insist on specificity to manage limited volunteer resources.
  2. Statutory Compliance over Perception: For meeting notices, the legal benchmark is the date the notice is sent. Associations should document mailing dates (and utilize email as a backup) to provide a "belt and suspenders" defense against notice claims.
  3. Respect the Governance Hierarchy: While owners have a right to review records, they have no authority to manage the association’s administrative affairs. A board’s fiduciary duty includes protecting sensitive data like the TIN from unauthorized member inquiries.

In the end, this case demonstrates that even in a community of nine homes, a deep understanding of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the specific language of the CC&Rs is the only way to navigate—and successfully resolve—the complexities of HOA governance.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Czekaj (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf; also Respondent in consolidated counter-claim
  • Gary Wolf (petitioner's attorney)
    Contacted HOA attorney regarding records request

Respondent Side

  • Marybeth Andree (HOA President)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Represented the HOA; testified at hearing
  • Carolyn Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Responded to Petitioner's attorney regarding records
  • Sarah Hitch (proxy holder)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Member who cast a proxy vote for Ed Freeman
  • Phil Oliver (board member)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Provided email clarification regarding the vote; wrote letter regarding irregularities
  • Susan Sotelo (HOA secretary)
    Colonia Del Rey HOA, Inc.
    Mailed the ballots for the meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing
  • Mr. Tick (witness)
    State Farm (implied)
    HOA insurance agent; testified regarding Petitioner's request for policy
  • Ed Freeman (tenant)
    Tenant living in Oregon; subject of proxy vote dispute
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order

Jerry Wheeler vs. Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1717036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome The Petitioner's petition was granted. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the required annual meeting for several years. The Respondent was ordered to hold a meeting, refund the filing fee to the Petitioner, and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $250.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jerry Wheeler Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the required annual meeting for several years. The Respondent was ordered to hold a meeting, refund the filing fee to the Petitioner, and pay a $250.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold required annual meeting

Petitioner, a homeowner, alleged the HOA had not held an annual meeting since April 1, 2014, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The unconverted evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the statutorily required annual meeting for several years.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to hold a meeting in accordance with the planned community statutes as currently scheduled on December 28, 2017. Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and pay a $250.00 civil penalty to the planned community hearing office fund.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $250.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA annual meeting violation, statutory requirement, default judgment
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 586602.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:21 (65.3 KB)

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 588549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:24 (592.6 KB)

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 586602.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:12 (65.3 KB)

18F-H1717036-REL Decision – 588549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:16 (592.6 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Wheeler v. Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and orders from the case of Jerry Wheeler versus the Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association (HOA). The central issue was the HOA’s failure to conduct annual meetings as legally required by Arizona state law. The petitioner, Jerry Wheeler, provided uncontested evidence that the HOA had not held a meeting for several years, specifically since his tenure began on April 1, 2014.

The case was complicated by the death of the HOA’s president prior to the hearing and the association’s subsequent failure to appoint a new representative or appear at the proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted the hearing in the respondent’s absence and ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner.

The final judgment, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate, found the Beaver Dam Estates HOA in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The HOA was ordered to hold a meeting on a specified date, reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee, and pay a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation.

Case Overview

The matter was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing and decision.

Case Detail

Information

Petitioner

Jerry Wheeler

Respondent

Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Case Number (OAH)

18F-H1717036-REL

Case Number (Dept. of Real Estate)

HO 17-17/036

Petition Filed

June 8, 2017

Hearing Date

September 5, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

September 6, 2017

Final Order Date

September 13, 2017

Presiding Judge

Suzanne Marwil, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Adopting Authority

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner’s Allegations and Evidence

The petitioner’s case was built on the central allegation that the Beaver Dam Estates HOA had failed to comply with its statutory duty to hold annual meetings.

• Core Allegation: The HOA was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(B), which mandates that a members’ association meeting “shall be held at least once each year.”

• Petitioner Testimony: Jerry Wheeler testified that since moving into the community on April 1, 2014, the HOA had not held a single meeting. He also testified regarding his numerous efforts to compel the HOA president, Randy Hawk, to convene a meeting for the purpose of reviewing the association’s financial statements with homeowners.

• Supporting Evidence: The petitioner submitted numerous written statements from other homeowners within the Beaver Dam Estates community. These statements corroborated his testimony, confirming that no HOA meeting had been held for several years. This evidence was referred to as “Exhibit B” in the proceedings.

Respondent’s Actions and Procedural Failures

The respondent’s engagement with the legal process was minimal and ultimately ceased, leading to a judgment in its absence.

• Initial Response: The HOA’s then-president, Randy Hawk, initially responded to the petition by agreeing to hold a meeting.

• First Meeting Attempt: A meeting was scheduled for July 18, 2017. However, only about ten people attended, prompting Hawk to reschedule for December 28, 2017. A letter was sent to all members notifying them of the new date and the intent to hold an election for a new president and vice president.

• Death of Representative: The petitioner subsequently informed the Tribunal that Randy Hawk had passed away, leaving the HOA without a clear representative for the legal matter.

• Failure to Appoint New Representative: On August 16, 2017, the Tribunal issued an order, mailed to the respondent’s address of record, requesting that the HOA name a new representative. The HOA failed to do so.

• Failure to Appear: The respondent did not appear for the scheduled hearing on September 5, 2017, nor did it request to appear telephonically. After a 20-minute grace period, the ALJ proceeded with the hearing in the respondent’s absence.

Legal Framework and Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on a clear statutory requirement and the uncontested evidence presented by the petitioner. The burden of proof was on the petitioner, with the standard of proof being a preponderance of the evidence.

• Statutory Violation: The central finding was that the respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). The pertinent text of the statute states:

• Key Conclusion: The ALJ determined that “The unconverted evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold the statutorily required annual meeting of Respondent for several years prior to the filing of the petition.”

• Recommended Action: Based on this conclusion, the ALJ stated that the respondent “should hold an annual meeting in accordance with the planned community statutes.”

Final Order and Penalties

The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it a binding Final Order. The order mandated several actions by the respondent.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The petitioner’s petition is granted.

2. The respondent must hold a meeting in accordance with planned community statutes as scheduled on December 28, 2017.

3. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the respondent shall pay the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

4. The respondent shall pay to the planned community hearing office fund a civil penalty of $250.00 for the violation.

This Final Order was declared a final administrative action, effective immediately upon service on September 13, 2017. The parties were notified of their right to apply for a rehearing within thirty days or to appeal the decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide for Wheeler v. Beaver Dam Estates HOA

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided legal documents. Each answer should be approximately 2-3 sentences.

1. Who were the primary parties in the case Wheeler v. Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association, and what were their roles?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent?

3. According to the Findings of Fact, how long had the Petitioner lived in the community, and why is this duration significant?

4. What specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Respondent violate, and what does this statute require?

5. What event involving the Respondent’s president, Randy Hawk, complicated the case proceedings?

6. What was the outcome of the hearing held on September 5, 2017, regarding the Respondent’s attendance?

7. What standard of proof was required in this matter, and which party had the burden of proof?

8. Describe the key components of the Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge.

9. What two monetary penalties were imposed on the Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association?

10. According to the Final Order, what steps could an aggrieved party take after the decision was issued?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Jerry Wheeler, the Petitioner, and the Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association, the Respondent. As the Petitioner, Mr. Wheeler initiated the legal action by filing a petition, while the Homeowners Association was the entity required to respond to the allegations.

2. The central allegation was that the Respondent had violated state law by failing to hold a meeting of the members’ association for several years. The Petitioner specifically sought to have the association convene a meeting to review financial statements.

3. The Petitioner, Jerry Wheeler, testified that he had moved into the community on April 1, 2014. This duration is significant because he stated that no meeting of the association had been held during his entire tenure, providing a multi-year timeframe for the alleged violation.

4. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B). This statute mandates that, notwithstanding any provisions in community documents, a meeting of the members’ association must be held at least once each year within the state of Arizona.

5. After responding to the petition and scheduling a future meeting, the Respondent’s president, Randy Hawk, passed away. The Petitioner informed the Tribunal of this event, which created uncertainty about who could serve as the Respondent’s representative in the matter.

6. The Respondent, Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association, failed to appear for the hearing on September 5, 2017. After a 20-minute grace period, the Administrative Law Judge proceeded with the hearing in the Respondent’s absence.

7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” as stated in A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioner, Jerry Wheeler, had the burden of proving his case.

8. The Order granted the Petitioner’s petition and mandated that the Respondent hold a meeting on the currently scheduled date of December 28, 2017. It also imposed financial penalties on the Respondent and affirmed that the order was binding on the parties unless a rehearing was granted.

9. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee required by section 32-2199.01. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the planned community hearing office fund.

10. A person aggrieved by the decision could apply for a rehearing by filing a petition with the Commissioner within thirty (30) days. The Final Order is also considered a final administrative action, which a party may appeal by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay-style response for each.

1. Trace the procedural history of case No. 18F-H1717036-REL from the initial petition filing to the issuance of the Final Order. Discuss the key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Tribunal, and the legal significance of each step.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Explain how the “Findings of Fact” supported the “Conclusions of Law,” with a specific focus on the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and the application of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

3. Discuss the role and authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in this dispute. How do the statutes cited (e.g., A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) empower these bodies to adjudicate disputes and enforce compliance among homeowners associations?

4. Evaluate the impact of the Respondent’s failure to appear at the September 5, 2017 hearing. How did this absence affect the proceedings and the evidence presented, and in what way did it likely influence the final outcome?

5. Examine the remedies and enforcement mechanisms outlined in the Final Order. Discuss the specific purpose of ordering a meeting, reimbursing the filing fee, and imposing a civil penalty, and explain the legal process for appealing the decision.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Suzanne Marwil served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case frequently cites statutes within Title 32 and Title 33, such as A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), which governs HOA meetings.

A.A.C. (Arizona Administrative Code)

The official compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. A.A.C. R2-19-119 established the burden and standard of proof for the hearing.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.

Civil Penalty

A monetary fine imposed by a government agency for a violation of a law or regulation. The Respondent was ordered to pay a $250.00 civil penalty.

Conclusions of Law

The section of a legal decision that applies the relevant laws and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a judgment.

Final Administrative Action

A final decision by an administrative agency that is legally binding and can be appealed to a court through a process of judicial review.

Findings of Fact

The section of a legal decision that details the factual circumstances of the case as determined by the judge based on the evidence presented.

A formal directive from a judge or administrative body that requires a party to perform a specific act or refrain from doing so. The final decision in this case included an Order for the Respondent to hold a meeting and pay penalties.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal proceeding by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Jerry Wheeler.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, which requires that the evidence presented by one side is more convincing and likely to be true than the evidence of the opposing side.

Rehearing

A request to have a case heard again by the same administrative body or court, typically based on new evidence or an error in the original proceeding. A party had 30 days to petition for a rehearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association.

Tribunal

A general term for a body, including a court or administrative hearing office, that has the authority to judge or determine claims and disputes.

4 Key Lessons from One Homeowner’s Winning Fight Against His HOA

Introduction: When Your HOA Becomes Dysfunctional

For many homeowners, a Homeowners Association (HOA) is a background presence, collecting dues and ensuring community standards. But what happens when the HOA itself fails in its duties? When legally required meetings stop, financial transparency disappears, and the leadership becomes unresponsive, residents can feel powerless. It’s a common frustration that leaves homeowners wondering what recourse they have when the very organization meant to maintain order violates its own governing laws.

This was the exact situation faced by Jerry Wheeler, a resident of Beaver Dam Estates in Arizona. After years of his HOA failing to hold its legally required annual meeting, he decided he had enough. Instead of letting his frustration simmer, he took formal action, setting in motion a legal process that offers powerful lessons for any homeowner living in a planned community. His story is a clear example of how one determined individual can hold an association accountable.

——————————————————————————–

1. One Determined Homeowner Can Hold an Entire HOA Accountable

It can feel daunting to challenge an organization, but Jerry Wheeler’s case proves that a single person can be the catalyst for change. The core of his dispute extended beyond procedure into a fundamental issue of financial transparency. On June 8, 2017, Wheeler filed a petition because since moving in on April 1, 2014, no annual meeting had been held. His stated goal was clear: he wanted the HOA to convene a meeting to “review Respondent’s financial statements with the homeowners.”

Initially, the HOA president, Randy Hawk, responded to the petition by agreeing to hold a meeting. However, the execution faltered. A meeting scheduled for July 18, 2017, failed when only about ten people attended. Hawk then rescheduled for December 28, 2017. While Wheeler initiated the petition alone, he strengthened his case by presenting numerous written statements from other homeowners confirming no annual meetings had been held for several years. This demonstrates that one person’s courageous action, aimed at securing accountability and supported by the community, can successfully trigger the legal mechanisms designed to protect homeowners’ rights.

2. Annual Meetings Aren’t Just a Suggestion—They’re the Law

The core of Jerry Wheeler’s complaint wasn’t based on a simple grievance; it was rooted in a specific violation of Arizona state law. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision found that the Beaver Dam Estates HOA was in direct violation of a statute requiring annual meetings. This law is not a guideline or a best practice—it is a legal mandate.

For any homeowner in Arizona, the relevant section of the law is crystal clear:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, all meetings of the members’ association and the board shall be held in this state. A meeting of the members’ association shall be held at least once each year…

This statute is a cornerstone of transparency and accountability for planned communities. It ensures that residents have a regular, guaranteed opportunity to hear from the board, review financials, elect new leadership, and have their voices heard. Understanding that this is a legal requirement—not just a courtesy—is critical knowledge for any homeowner.

3. Ignoring the Process Has Financial Consequences

The Beaver Dam Estates HOA’s strategy of inaction ultimately backfired, resulting in financial penalties. The association’s failure to appear at its own hearing on September 5, 2017, meant that Wheeler’s evidence was uncontested, leading directly to a default judgment and the resulting financial penalties. The judge’s final order wasn’t just a request to do better; it was a binding decision with specific consequences.

Because the judge granted the petitioner’s petition, the HOA was ordered to take three specific actions:

• Hold the legally required meeting as scheduled on December 28, 2017.

• Pay the Petitioner (Jerry Wheeler) back for his filing fee.

• Pay a civil penalty of $250.00 to the planned community hearing office fund.

This outcome makes it clear that avoiding legal and administrative responsibilities is not a viable strategy. The process is designed to proceed with or without the respondent’s participation, and ignoring it leads directly to mandated actions and financial penalties.

4. The System Can Work, Even Under Strange Circumstances

The proceedings in this case were complicated by unusual and unfortunate events, yet the legal framework proved resilient. After attempting to schedule the required meetings, the HOA’s president, Randy Hawk, passed away. The tribunal ordered the association to name a new representative, but it failed to do so. Compounding the issue, no one from the HOA showed up for the scheduled hearing.

Despite these significant obstacles—the death of the board’s president and the association’s complete failure to participate—the process did not grind to a halt. The Administrative Law Judge was able to conduct the hearing, review the uncontested evidence presented by Jerry Wheeler, make official Findings of Fact, and issue a final, binding order. This remarkable persistence shows that the administrative system is robust and designed to deliver a resolution, ensuring that a petitioner’s rights are upheld even when a respondent organization is in disarray.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Rights

The case of Jerry Wheeler vs. Beaver Dam Estates is a powerful reminder that community living is governed by rules that apply to everyone—including the association itself. An HOA cannot simply cease to function or ignore its legal obligations without consequence. The systems in place, from state statutes to administrative hearings, are designed to provide a path for homeowners to seek and achieve recourse.

This case serves as an empowering example of how knowledge and determination can lead to accountability. It underscores the importance of understanding the specific laws that govern your community association. This case was in Arizona, but it raises a universal question: Do you know the specific laws that govern your own HOA, and is your board in compliance?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jerry Wheeler (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Randy Hawk (president)
    Beaver Dam Estates Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardner (HOA coordinator)