Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1804

Kenneth E Kassa v. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-04-28
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, finding that the HOA complied with requirements to hold annual meetings and the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations involving closed meetings.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth E. Kassa Counsel —
Respondent Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, finding that the HOA complied with requirements to hold annual meetings and the Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations involving closed meetings.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Petitioner provided no evidence that specific private meetings violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law

Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by holding closed meetings that should have been public and failing to properly notice meetings.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner's petition be denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019035-REL Decision – 785528.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:50 (146.6 KB)

20F-H2019035-REL Decision – 785528.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:44:59 (146.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kenneth E. Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Kenneth E. Kassa (Petitioner) and the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). The case, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, centered on allegations that the Association violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Petitioner contended that the Board of Directors improperly held private meetings and failed to provide adequate notice or transparency regarding their deliberations between 2017 and 2019. The Association maintained that it complied with its Bylaws by holding one annual public meeting and conducting Board business within its vested powers.

Following an evidentiary hearing on April 8, 2020, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The ALJ found no evidence that the Board’s private sessions addressed matters required by law to be open to the public. Consequently, the petition was denied, and no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 was found.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance vs. Association Bylaws

The crux of the dispute involved the interplay between the Association’s governing documents and state statutes.

  • Association Bylaws: The Bylaws (Sections 4.01 and 6.01) require at least one annual meeting of the members and one annual meeting of the Board. The Association relied on these provisions to justify its practice of holding a single public annual meeting.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: This statute mandates that all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors be open to all members, regardless of contrary provisions in a declaration or bylaws. It allows for closed sessions only under five specific circumstances (e.g., legal advice, litigation, or personal employee information).
2. Notice and Transparency Requirements

The hearing revealed a discrepancy between the Association’s notification practices and statutory requirements:

  • Association Practice: The Association provided notice for meetings solely by placing flyers in common areas. Meeting minutes were not proactively distributed but were made available upon written request.
  • Legal Requirements (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)): The statute requires that notice of member meetings be hand-delivered or sent via prepaid U.S. mail to each owner 10 to 50 days in advance, stating the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting.
3. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

The decision highlights the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required in these proceedings. The Petitioner was responsible for proving it was "more probably true than not" that the Association violated the law. While the Petitioner opined that closed meetings should have been open, the ALJ noted a lack of specific evidence regarding the content of those meetings that would prove a statutory violation.

Key Entities and Legal Framework

Entity/Element Description
Kenneth E. Kassa Petitioner; a property owner and member of Queen Creek Ranchettes Phase I.
Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA Respondent; a residential real estate development association in Queen Creek, AZ.
A.R.S. § 33-1804 The Arizona statute regulating open meetings for planned communities.
The Board of Directors The governing body of the Association, vested with all rights, powers, and duties of the Association.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) The independent state agency responsible for conducting the evidentiary hearing.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Open Meeting Requirement

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association."

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Context: This statute serves as the primary legal standard for the case, overriding any Association Bylaws that might suggest meetings could be closed by default.

On the Definition of Proof

"A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not."

— ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law ¶ 4 (referencing Morris K. Udall)

Context: The ALJ used this definition to explain why the Petitioner’s arguments failed; the Petitioner offered opinions and beliefs rather than the "superior evidentiary weight" required to win the case.

On the Burden of Evidence

"Petitioner provided no evidence to suggest that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 based on what was discussed in private Board meetings held between 2017 and 2019."

— ALJ Decision, Conclusions of Law ¶ 11

Context: This quote captures the primary reason for the denial of the petition. The Petitioner failed to provide factual evidence of what occurred in the closed sessions.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards
  • Statutory Overrides: Associations must recognize that state statutes regarding open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804) take precedence over internal CC&Rs or Bylaws. Relying solely on Bylaws that conflict with state law can lead to litigation.
  • Closed Session Justification: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(C), a Board must identify the specific statutory paragraph (e.g., legal advice, pending litigation) that authorizes them to close a meeting before entering a executive session.
  • Formal Notice Procedures: To ensure compliance, associations should follow the statutory requirement of hand-delivering or mailing notices 10 to 50 days in advance, rather than relying exclusively on flyers in common areas.
For Association Members
  • Evidence-Based Petitions: When alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law, members must provide specific evidence of the topics discussed in closed sessions or the failure of the Board to cite a statutory reason for closing a meeting. Mere suspicion or opinion is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
  • Accessing Records: Members have the right to request meeting minutes in writing, a practice confirmed as valid in this case.
  • Jurisdiction Limits: Administrative Law Judges are limited to the issues raised in the petition. Secondary arguments regarding the "appropriateness" of meeting content may be deemed outside the tribunal's scope if they are not directly tied to the specific statutory violation alleged.

Study Guide: Kassa v. Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Kenneth E. Kassa (Petitioner) and the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent/Association). It explores the legal frameworks governing Arizona homeowners' associations, the specifics of the Open Meeting Law, and the standards of proof required in administrative disputes.

Key Concepts and Legal Framework

1. Statutory Authority and Jurisdiction

The Arizona Department of Real Estate is authorized by statute to decide petitions regarding disputes between homeowners and associations. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, conducts evidentiary hearings to resolve these contested cases. In this matter, the authority to hear the case is derived from ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D) and 41-1092.

2. Arizona Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

This statute serves as the primary regulation for association transparency. Its key provisions include:

  • Open Access: All meetings of the members' association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committee meetings must be open to all members or their designated representatives.
  • Member Participation: Members must be permitted to attend and speak at appropriate times during deliberations.
  • Supremacy of Law: The statute applies notwithstanding any contrary provisions in an association's declaration, bylaws, or other documents.
3. Exceptions for Closed Meetings

Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a meeting or portion thereof may only be closed to consider:

  1. Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
  2. Pending or contemplated litigation.
  3. Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor.
  4. Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against employees or contractors.
  5. Discussion of a member's appeal of a violation or penalty (unless the member requests an open session).
4. Notice and Documentation Requirements
  • Notice (Statutory): For member meetings, notice must be hand-delivered or mailed 10 to 50 days in advance, stating the date, time, place, and purpose.
  • Notice (Bylaws): The Association's specific bylaws required notice at least 5 but no more than 30 days before a meeting.
  • Meeting Minutes: While the Association in this case did not distribute minutes automatically, they were made available to members upon written request.
5. Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof. They must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence must show that the contention is "more probably true than not."

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the core issue Kenneth E. Kassa alleged in his petition?
  • Answer: Petitioner alleged that the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc. violated Arizona Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804).
  1. According to the Association's Bylaws, how often must regular meetings of the Board be held?
  • Answer: Bylaws Article VI, Section 6.01 states regular Board meetings shall be held at least annually.
  1. What method did the Association use to provide notice for the meetings held between 2017 and 2019?
  • Answer: Notice was provided by placing flyers in common areas; no other form of notice was provided to members.
  1. What is the legal definition of "preponderance of the evidence" used in this decision?
  • Answer: It is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not, representing the "greater weight of the evidence" with the most convincing force.
  1. Before entering a closed session, what must a Board of Directors do according to A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)?
  • Answer: The board must identify the specific statutory paragraph (under subsection A) that authorizes the closure of the meeting.
  1. Under the Association's Bylaws, who is authorized to call a special meeting?
  • Answer: The President of the Association or the Board upon written request of Members entitled to cast one-fourth (1/4) of Class A membership votes, or the Class B Member (if any).

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Conflict of Governing Documents: Analyze the hierarchy of authority between an HOA’s Bylaws/CC&Rs and state statutes like A.R.S. § 33-1804. How does the "notwithstanding" clause in the statute affect the enforceability of Association documents that might seek to limit member access to meetings?
  1. Transparency vs. Privacy: Discuss the five statutory exceptions that allow an HOA board to hold a closed meeting. Why is it necessary to balance the membership's right to an open meeting with the need for privacy in matters of legal advice or personnel performance?
  1. The Burden of Evidence in Administrative Hearings: In this case, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. Evaluate the challenges a member faces when alleging that "private" meetings should have been "public." What kind of evidence would be required to prove that a closed session was used for an unauthorized purpose?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law for administrative agencies.
Bylaws The rules adopted by an organization for its internal governance.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; an enforceable contract between an association and property owners regarding property use.
Class A/B Membership Specific categories of membership within an association, often defining different voting rights or roles.
Declaration A legal document that establishes the homeowner's association and its governance; in conflicts, the Declaration typically controls over Bylaws.
OAH Office of Administrative Hearings; an independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner The party who files a petition or complaint (in this case, Kenneth E. Kassa).
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases where the evidence must show a claim is more likely to be true than not.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, the Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association).
A.R.S. § 33-1804 The specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes known as the Open Meeting Law for planned communities.

Understanding HOA Open Meeting Laws: Lessons from the Queen Creek Ranchettes Ruling

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Privacy and Transparency

In the management of Arizona homeowners associations, few issues generate as much friction as the balance between a board’s operational privacy and a homeowner’s right to transparency. Boards often feel the need to discuss sensitive matters behind closed doors to protect the association, while homeowners may view any non-public discussion with skepticism. This tension frequently leads to formal disputes regarding the "Open Meeting Law."

The case of Kenneth E. Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA serves as a critical case study for both boards and members. It illustrates how the Arizona Department of Real Estate and Administrative Law Judges interpret the law when a homeowner alleges that their board is operating in the shadows. As a consultant, my goal is to help you navigate these rulings so you can ensure your association remains compliant and avoids the costs of administrative litigation.

2. The Legal Foundation: Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The bedrock of HOA transparency in Arizona is A.R.S. § 33-1804. This statute is unique because it explicitly states that its requirements apply notwithstanding any provision in the bylaws or declarations to the contrary. This means that even if your association’s older bylaws say one thing, state law is the final authority.

Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), all meetings of the association and the board of directors must be open to all members. However, the law provides five—and only five—specific conditions under which a board is legally permitted to move into a closed executive session:

  • Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.
  • Pending or contemplated litigation.
  • Personal, health, or financial information regarding an individual member, an association employee, or a contractor's employee.
  • Matters relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against an association employee or contractor.
  • A member’s appeal of a violation or penalty, unless that member specifically requests the meeting be held in an open session.

Beyond the content of the meetings, A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) sets strict procedural requirements for member meeting notices. The law requires notice to be hand-delivered or sent via prepaid U.S. mail not fewer than 10 nor more than 50 days before the meeting. It is vital to note that in the Kassa case, the association’s bylaws suggested a 5-to-30-day window. As your consultant, I must remind you: the statutory 10-to-50-day window overrides your bylaws every time.

3. Case Breakdown: The Petitioner’s Allegations vs. HOA Practices

In the Kassa proceeding, the Petitioner challenged the board’s habit of conducting the majority of its business in private. The conflict highlights a significant gap between what a homeowner perceives as "secrecy" and what an association views as "standard practice."

The Petitioner’s Arguments:

  • Board meetings were held privately throughout the year without legal justification or proper notice.
  • The single annual public meeting was merely a summary of "closed-door" decisions rather than a place for true deliberation.
  • There was a lack of evidence that the board was sharing or posting meeting minutes with the community.

The Association’s Practices:

  • The Association held only one annual public meeting for members in 2017, 2018, and 2019, while holding all other monthly board meetings privately.
  • Notice for these meetings was provided exclusively through flyers placed in common areas.
  • Meeting minutes were not proactively distributed but were made available to any member who submitted a written request.
4. The Verdict: Why the Burden of Proof Matters

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, but the reasoning was procedural rather than a full endorsement of the board’s methods. The decision turned on the "Preponderance of the Evidence."

In legal terms, this standard means that the Petitioner must prove that their claim is "more probably true than not." The judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden for two reasons:

  1. Failure to Prove Improper Content: While the Petitioner proved the meetings were private, he provided "no evidence" to suggest that the topics discussed were outside the five legal exceptions.
  2. Procedural Limitations: The judge noted that the tribunal could not rule on the "appropriateness" of private meetings without specific evidence of a statutory violation regarding the meeting's subject matter.

Essentially, the Board was saved by the Petitioner's lack of documentation. The judge did not rule that the Board's transparency was perfect; rather, she ruled that the Petitioner didn't prove it was illegal.

5. Essential Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This ruling offers several actionable lessons for navigating HOA governance.

  • For Homeowners: Maintain an Evidence Log. A mere suspicion that a board is discussing non-exempt topics in private is not enough to win a case. If you believe a board is violating the Open Meeting Law, you must provide specific evidence of the topics discussed. Proactive inquiry and documenting board responses are essential.
  • For Boards: Audit Your Notice Procedures Immediately. While the Queen Creek Ranchettes HOA survived this challenge, their use of "common area flyers" for notice is a significant legal risk. A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) specifically requires notice to be mailed or hand-delivered. Do not rely on flyers or signs as a substitute for the statutory mailing requirements, as a more prepared petitioner could use that procedural failure to invalidate board actions.
  • The Right to Minutes. This ruling confirms that associations are not legally required to proactively "broadcast" minutes to the entire community. However, you must provide them upon written request. Boards should ensure they have a clear, documented process for responding to these requests to demonstrate transparency.
6. Conclusion: Navigating Future Governance

The Kassa vs. Queen Creek Ranchettes case is a reminder that transparency is not just a best practice—it is a legal framework. For homeowners, it highlights that the "burden of proof" is a high bar that requires more than just frustration; it requires evidence. For boards, it serves as a warning that relying on outdated bylaws or informal notice methods (like flyers) puts the association in a position of unnecessary vulnerability.

Ultimately, adherence to the 10-to-50-day statutory notice requirement and maintaining clear records of what is discussed in executive sessions are your best defenses. By aligning your procedures with state law rather than just your bylaws, you can prevent costly administrative hearings and build a culture of trust within your community.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth E. Kassa (petitioner)
    Queen Creek Ranchettes Phase I subdivision property owner
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jody Augustin (board member)
    Queen Creek Ranchettes Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Represented the Association; called as a witness

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order

Other Participants

  • Dean McDaniels (observer)
    Listed under Appearances as observing
  • Kelly Kassa (observer)
    Listed under Appearances as observing
  • Kimberly Timm (observer)
    Listed under Appearances as observing
  • Sonya Foster (observer)
    Listed under Appearances as observing
  • Colleen Kaul (observer)
    Listed under Appearances as observing

James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-04-05
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James Dutton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent Cielo Noche Community Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier; Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of meetings and acting on results of secret meetings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by failing to provide notice of meetings held between November 2017 and May 2018, specifically regarding the hiring of new management and landscaping companies in executive session without community input or proper notice.

Orders: The Tribunal found the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open/noticed. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 6
  • 7
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:30 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:35 (194.0 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (194.0 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative proceedings and final decision in the case of James Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL). The dispute centered on allegations that the Association’s Board of Directors violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 by holding "secret" meetings, failing to provide proper notice to members, and taking actions in executive sessions that should have occurred in open meetings.

Following hearings held on January 4 and March 7, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark determined that the Respondent violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. While the Board’s actions were not found to be in bad faith or intentionally negligent, the Petitioner's request for relief was granted, and the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Transparency and the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The central conflict of this matter was the tension between the Board’s perceived need for privacy during vendor transitions and the statutory requirement for transparency. Arizona law mandates that all meetings of a homeowners' association and its board be open to all members, with very narrow exceptions.

  • Violations Identified: The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open to the community. Specifically, the Board discussed and acted upon the hiring of a new management company (Tri-City) and a new landscaping vendor (Peak) in executive sessions.
  • Notice Failures: Testimony revealed a "miscommunication" between the community manager and the Board that led to a complete lack of notice for a meeting held on July 23, 2018.
  • The Scope of Executive Sessions: The Board argued that discussions regarding the management company were "employee performance" matters. However, the ALJ ruled that these topics did not meet the strict statutory criteria for closed sessions.
2. Governance and Management Transitions

The evidence highlighted a period of significant transition for the Cielo Noche subdivision, which consists of 164 homes in Queen Creek, Arizona.

  • Management Shift: The Association transitioned from Trestle Management Group to Tri-City Management Company. Petitioner James Dutton, a former Board President, argued that the community was denied input on this critical decision, which resulted in a 3% increase in management costs.
  • Vendor Influence: The Board also replaced the community landscaper via executive vote. This was a point of contention because the landscaping vendor receives approximately one-third of the community's annual budget.
  • Role of the Community Manager: Kari Moyer, the Tri-City manager, testified that she repeatedly had to "issue reminders" to the Board between June and November 2018 that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reasons they were citing.
3. Legal and Procedural Missteps

The proceedings underscored the importance of legal counsel in maintaining HOA compliance.

  • Lack of Counsel: Testimony indicated that during the period when many of the contested decisions were made, the Association did not have its own legal counsel, relying instead on advice from the management company.
  • Emergency Meetings: The Petitioner provided evidence of "emergency meetings" held in September and November 2018 where the Board failed to read or approve minutes at subsequent open meetings, a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2).

Key Entities and Roles

Entity Role Key Contributions/Findings
James Dutton Petitioner Former Board President; filed the petition alleging secret meetings and lack of notice.
Cielo Noche Community Association Respondent The HOA governing a 164-home subdivision; found in violation of Open Meeting Law.
Jenna Clark ALJ Presided over the hearings; issued the final order in favor of the Petitioner.
Kari Moyer Witness Community Manager for Tri-City; admitted to notice failures and correcting the Board's improper use of executive sessions.
David Hibler Witness Association Treasurer; testified regarding the Board’s rationale for closed sessions during developer negotiations.

Important Quotes with Context

On Statutory Requirements

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) (Cited in the Conclusions of Law to emphasize the legal preference for transparency).

On the Finding of Violation

"Based on a review of the credible and relevant evidence in the record the Tribunal holds that Respondent held at least one closed meeting which should have been held either partly or entirely in open session."

— Administrative Law Judge Decision, Page 12 (The core legal conclusion of the case).

On Notice Failures

"Ms. Moyer conceded that the Board’s July 18, 2018, meeting was not noticed. Ms. Moyer explained that there was a miscommunication between herself and the Board. Specifically, each party believed the other was going to post notice to the community, but neither did."

— Finding of Fact 46 (Contextualizing the lack of notice for a specific meeting).

On Management's Corrective Actions

"Ms. Moyer testified that… after the Board meeting held that day [May 30, 2018] she informed the Board that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reason(s) they did, and that in the future such discussions needed to take place in open session."

— Finding of Fact 43 (Showing that the management company recognized and attempted to correct the Board's errors).

Actionable Insights for Association Governance

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this matter, the following principles are established for HOA compliance under A.R.S. § 33-1804:

  • Strict Adherence to Executive Session Criteria: A board may only close a meeting for five specific reasons: legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/financial/medical information of members, employee job performance, or discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation.
  • Vendor Contracts are Open Business: Discussing the performance of a third-party contractor (like a landscaping company) or the hiring of a new management firm generally does not qualify as an "employee job performance" exception and should be handled in open session.
  • Mandatory Notice Requirements: Boards must ensure that notice is posted for all meetings, including informal "workshops" where a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
  • Emergency Meeting Protocol: If an emergency meeting is called to handle business that cannot wait 48 hours, the minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  • Email Voting Limitations: While minor administrative tasks (like architectural requests) might be handled via email per certain bylaws, substantive business and voting should generally occur in a noticed, open forum to avoid "secret meeting" allegations.
  • Documentation of Legal Basis: Before entering a closed session, the board must identify the specific statutory paragraph that authorizes the closure.

Study Guide: Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between James Dutton and the Cielo Noche Community Association. It explores the application of Arizona Open Meeting Laws, the powers of homeowners' association (HOA) boards, and the procedural requirements for administrative law proceedings.

Section 1: Case Overview and Legal Framework

Case Background

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) centers on allegations that the Association's Board of Directors violated state statutes by failing to provide notice for meetings and conducting business in "secret" or executive sessions that should have been open to the membership.

Key Entities
Entity Description
James Dutton The Petitioner; a property owner in the Cielo Noche subdivision and former Board President.
Cielo Noche Community Association The Respondent; a homeowners' association for a 164-home development in Queen Creek, Arizona.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from HOA members regarding violations of community documents or state statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) The independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for the ADRE.
Jenna Clark The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
Governing Documents and Statutes
  1. A.R.S. § 33-1804: The primary statute in question, which mandates that meetings of homeowners' associations and their boards be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed (executive) sessions.
  2. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The enforceable contract between the Association and property owners that empowers the Association to control property use.
  3. Association Bylaws: The internal rules governing Board conduct, including meeting frequency, quorum requirements, and the ability to act via unanimous written consent.

Section 2: Key Concepts and Legal Standards

The Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The state policy dictates that all meetings must be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to members.

Authorized Reasons for Executive Sessions: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a board may only close a portion of a meeting to discuss:

  • Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
  • Pending or contemplated litigation.
  • Matters relating to the job performance of an individual employee of the association or a contractor's employee.
  • Personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.
  • Discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation (unless the member requests it be open).

Procedural Requirements for Closed Meetings:

  • Identification: The board must identify the specific statutory paragraph authorizing the closure before entering the executive session.
  • Emergency Meetings: May be called for business that cannot wait 48 hours. Minutes must state the reason for the emergency and be read/approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  • Informal Meetings: Any quorum of the board meeting informally to discuss association business (workshops, etc.) must still comply with open meeting and notice provisions.
The Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the contention is "more probably true than not."

Section 3: Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the central issue the Petitioner paid to have adjudicated?
  • Answer: Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to provide notice of meetings and acting on the results of secret meetings.
  1. What was the Respondent’s justification for hiring Tri-City Management and Peak Landscaping in executive sessions?
  • Answer: The Association argued these discussions related to employee performance (for Trestle Management) and were part of privileged negotiations regarding construction defects with the developer (KHOV).
  1. According to the Bylaws, what constitutes a quorum for the Cielo Noche Board of Directors?
  • Answer: A majority of the number of Directors.
  1. How much was the filing fee the Petitioner had to pay to the Department?
  • Answer: $500.00.
  1. What was the ALJ’s finding regarding the Board’s conduct?
  • Answer: The ALJ found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice for at least one meeting (July 18/23, 2018), thus violating the Arizona Open Meeting Law.
  1. Why did the ALJ decline to assess a civil penalty against the Respondent?
  • Answer: The record did not reflect that the Association’s conduct was intentional, negligent, or in bad faith.
  1. What is required of the Board regarding the minutes of an emergency meeting?
  • Answer: The minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
  1. Who were the two primary witnesses called by the Respondent?
  • Answer: Kari Moyer (Tri-City Community Manager) and David Hibler (Association Treasurer).

Section 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Tension Between Privacy and Transparency: Analyze the Board’s decision to hire a new management company and landscaping vendor in executive session. Discuss whether "employee performance" exceptions should extend to the selection and hiring of third-party corporate contractors, or if such actions fundamentally impact the community's budget and require open-session deliberation.
  2. Statutory Construction and Policy: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) states that any person interpreting the statute "shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings." Evaluate the Board’s actions regarding the July 23, 2018 meeting notice. How does the "miscommunication" defense presented by the Association weigh against the state’s explicit policy of transparency?
  3. The Role of Legal Counsel and Management Advice: During the hearing, it was revealed that Trestle Management and later Kari Moyer provided advice regarding executive sessions. Discuss the extent to which a Board’s reliance on professional management or legal counsel mitigates their liability for statutory violations, specifically in the context of the ALJ’s decision to waive civil penalties.

Section 5: Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in cases involving state agencies.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona Revised Statute governing open meetings for planned communities.
  • CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules of the community and the powers of the HOA.
  • Electronic Signature: As defined by A.R.S. § 44-7002(8), an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to a record and executed by an individual with the intent to sign.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or legally protected matters.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal action or petition (in this case, James Dutton).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that has the most convincing force and shows a claim is more likely true than not.
  • Quorum: The minimum number of board members who must be present (personally or via communication means) for the transaction of business to be legal.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Cielo Noche Community Association).
  • Stipulated Order: A legal order where both parties agree to certain terms, such as extending a deadline for a decision.
  • Unanimous Written Consent: A provision in the Bylaws (Article VII, Section 5) allowing Directors to take action without a meeting if all Directors provide written consent.

Transparency Behind Closed Doors: Lessons from the Dutton vs. Cielo Noche HOA Decision

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Community Governance

For homeowners in a planned community, the Board of Directors acts as a local government with significant power over property values and daily life. However, this power is not absolute. In Arizona, the law is designed to prevent "secret governance," yet the tension between Board efficiency and a member’s right to transparency remains a primary source of litigation.

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) stands as a stark warning to Boards that treat executive sessions as a convenient shield for uncomfortable public business. When even a former Board President—an insider familiar with the gears of power—must petition the state to force transparency, it signals a systemic failure in accountability. The central question of this case remains vital for every Arizona homeowner: When exactly can an HOA Board legally shut its doors, and when does "privacy" become a statutory violation?

2. The Case Context: From President to Petitioner

The conflict within the Cielo Noche Community Association, a high-end development in Queen Creek, began following a leadership transition. James Dutton served as the Association’s Board President from August 2016 until his resignation in November 2017. Upon returning to the rank of a concerned member, Dutton discovered that the governance of the community had shifted toward a culture of closed-door decision-making.

On July 25, 2018, Dutton filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, triggering an adjudication by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was the Association’s adherence—or lack thereof—to A.R.S. § 33-1804, the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Administrative Law Judge was tasked with determining whether the Board had systematically bypassed notice requirements and improperly used executive sessions to decide matters that, by law, belonged in the public eye.

3. Timeline of the "Secret" Decisions

The hearing revealed a troubling chronology of actions taken between November 2017 and July 2018. The Board frequently utilized executive sessions to conduct business that had direct, significant financial impacts on the community without the membership’s knowledge:

  • November 2017: Immediately following Dutton’s resignation, the Board used an executive session to vote on hiring a specific law firm, accept bids for a community reserve study, and deliberate on the retention of their management company.
  • April – May 2018: The Board negotiated and signed a contract with Tri-City Management, replacing Trestle Management. This decision not only changed the community’s primary administrative partner but also saddled the homeowners with a 3% increase in management fees—all without a public vote.
  • May 30, 2018: In a further closed-door session, the Board voted to replace the community’s landscaping vendor with a company called "Peak."
  • July 18, 2018: The Board held a meeting to vote on financial documents without providing any notice to the community. While the Association later claimed this was a "miscommunication," the manager conceded that no notice was posted.
  • Secret Administrative Tasks: Beyond major vendor changes, the Board used closed sessions to discuss mundane community business that strictly required open deliberation, including drainage issues, parking variances, gate lighting, and the community website.
4. The "Open Meeting" Standard: A.R.S. § 33-1804

Arizona law is not ambiguous regarding HOA transparency. The statutory construction of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) mandates that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the homeowner’s right to observe:

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

The Board at Cielo Noche attempted to justify their secrecy through broad interpretations of the law. The following table contrasts those legal justifications with the reality found by the Tribunal:

Legal Justification (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)) The Association's Argument The Reality & Legal Finding
Legal Advice (A1): Private advice from an attorney regarding litigation. The Board argued that negotiations with the developer (KHOV) were privileged legal matters. The Board held several "legal" executive sessions in Nov 2017 before they had actually secured legal counsel in Dec 2017 or Jan 2018. Secrecy is only permitted for actual legal advice.
Personnel Matters (A4): Job performance of an individual employee. Management and landscaper changes were characterized as "employee performance" reviews. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) applies only to individual employees. Management firms and landscaping companies are corporate contractors; their performance is community business, not a private personnel matter.
Proper Notice (D/E): 48-hour notice is mandatory for all Board meetings. The failure to notice the July 18 meeting was a "miscommunication" between the Board and Manager. Notice is a statutory mandate, not a courtesy. A "miscommunication" does not excuse an illegal meeting.
5. Key Testimonies: Management vs. Membership

The evidentiary record highlights a Board that disregarded professional warnings in favor of autonomy.

  • James Dutton (Petitioner): Dutton’s testimony emphasized the high stakes of these secret meetings. He noted that the landscaping vendor alone accounted for one-third of the community’s budget, and the management company controlled all financial records and resident correspondence. Excluding members from these decisions deprived them of oversight over the Association's most critical financial pillars.
  • Kari Moyer (Tri-City Manager): In perhaps the most damaging testimony for the Association, Moyer—a CAAM-certified manager—admitted she had to repeatedly warn the Board from May through November 2018 that they were holding executive sessions for reasons not permitted by law. Despite these professional warnings from a certified expert, the Board continued its practice of "secret" governance.
  • David Hibler (Board Treasurer): Hibler, an engineer by trade, conceded that the Board conducted early closed-door negotiations regarding developer settlements without legal counsel present, undermining the Association's claim that these sessions were protected by "legal advice" exceptions.
6. The Verdict: Accountability without Penalties

Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled that the Cielo Noche Community Association had indeed violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice to the community.

The Order:

  • Petition Granted: The Tribunal formally concluded the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  • Mandatory Reimbursement: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Association was ordered to reimburse James Dutton for his $500 filing fee.
  • No Civil Penalty: While the Judge did not find "bad faith" sufficient to warrant additional civil penalties, the ruling serves as a permanent record of the Board’s failure to adhere to the strict requirements of Arizona law.
7. Conclusion: 4 Essential Takeaways for HOA Members

The Dutton decision provides a clear roadmap for ensuring Board accountability:

  1. The Default is Open: All meetings where a quorum of the Board meets to discuss Association business—including informal "workshops"—must be noticed and open. The five exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) are to be narrowly construed.
  2. Corporate Vendors are Not "Employees": Boards cannot hide the hiring or firing of management companies or landscaping firms behind "personnel" exceptions. Those exceptions apply only to individual employees of the HOA or the contractor.
  3. Notice is a Strict Liability Requirement: There is no "oops" in the Open Meeting Law. If a Board fails to provide the required 48-hour notice, any action taken is a violation of the law, regardless of intent or "miscommunication."
  4. Emergency Meeting Transparency: Emergency meetings are for true emergencies only. The minutes must explicitly state the "reason necessitating the emergency" and must be read and approved at the very next regular meeting.
Closing Statement

The case of Cielo Noche serves as a reminder that transparency is not a gift granted by a Board; it is a right owned by the members. Homeowners must remain vigilant, and when Boards ignore the warnings of their own professional managers, the Arizona Department of Real Estate stands as a critical venue for restoring the rule of law.

The final decision in this matter was transmitted on April 5, 2019.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Dutton (petitioner)
    Cielo Noche subdivision
    Former Board President; property owner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz Law, PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. Nogami (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Lydia Linsmeier (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Kari Moyer (witness)
    Tri-City Property Management Services
    Community Manager
  • David Hibler (witness)
    Cielo Noche Community Association
    Board Treasurer

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Signed minute entries/transmission

Other Participants

  • Cindo Dutton (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Aaron Smith (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Bob Willis (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Thomas Pruit (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Kenny Shepherd (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Luke Clesceri (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Carol Clesceri (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Derek Zeigler (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Carole Cozzi (observer)
    Attended hearing
  • Anthony Cozzi (observer)
    Attended hearing

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-12-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel —
Respondent Desert Ranch HOA Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Issues 2 (retention of election materials) and 3 (open meetings violation). Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 objection rule) was dismissed. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00, representing the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 as the evidence did not show that a Director was restricted by the Member waiver clause from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned.

Key Issues & Findings

Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on Mr. Schoeffler’s objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Bylaw 2.4 by investigating or acting upon an objection to election results that was raised by a Director after the Annual Meeting adjourned, thereby waiving the claim according to the bylaw.

Orders: Petition dismissed as to Issue 1.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) when it discarded the ballot envelopes at or about the time of the election.

The HOA discarded the ballot envelopes at or about the time of the election, which violated the statutory mandate to retain ballots, envelopes, and related materials for at least one year.

Orders: Petitioner established violation and was deemed the prevailing party regarding this issue. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate. The initial order included an order for Respondent to pay Petitioner the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when it held meetings that were closed and/or without proper notice.

The HOA Board members met with an attorney following the Annual Meeting without providing any notice of the upcoming meeting and/or failing to provide notice that the meeting was closed because it involved legal advice from an attorney.

Orders: Petitioner established violation and was deemed the prevailing party regarding this issue. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate. The initial order included an order for Respondent to pay Petitioner the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election Dispute, Records Retention, Open Meeting Violation, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T09:22:44 (117.5 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T09:22:49 (38.8 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 655766.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T09:22:55 (113.2 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 655766.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:30 (113.2 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:34 (117.5 KB)

18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678305.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:37 (38.8 KB)

Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA: Case Briefing

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between Petitioner Tom Barrs and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA) concerning the HOA’s March 18, 2017, Board of Directors election. The petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly overturned the initial election results, mishandled election materials, and held meetings in violation of state law and its own bylaws.

An initial ruling by an Administrative Law Judge found the HOA in violation of state statutes regarding the retention of election materials (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)) and open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804). However, the judge ruled against the petitioner on the central claim that the HOA violated Bylaw 2.4 by investigating the election after the annual meeting had concluded.

The petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing, which focused exclusively on the alleged violation of Bylaw 2.4. The final decision on rehearing, issued December 26, 2018, reaffirmed the initial ruling. The judge concluded that the investigation was properly initiated by a board member, not a general member, and that the bylaw restricting post-meeting objections did not apply to the Board of Directors itself. Consequently, the petition regarding the overturning of the election was dismissed.

Case Overview

This document details the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the administrative case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818035-REL-RHG

Petitioner

Tom Barrs

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Presiding Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge

Initial Hearing

Not specified in document

Rehearing Date

December 6, 2018

Decision Date

December 26, 2018

Key Individuals:

• Tom Barrs: Petitioner.

• Catherine Overby: HOA President, appeared for Respondent.

• Brian Schoeffler: HOA Vice President, appeared for Respondent; candidate in the disputed election.

• Jerome Klinger: Candidate initially announced as a winner of the election.

• Patrick Rice: Board member at the time of the election.

Chronology of the 2017 Election Dispute

1. Pre-March 18, 2017: Absentee ballots are sent to HOA members listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates, with a space for a write-in.

2. March 18, 2017: At the Annual Meeting, ballots are submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and write-in candidate Jerome Klinger are announced as the winners. No members object before the meeting is adjourned. Immediately following, board member Patrick Rice gathers the ballots and expresses concerns about the results.

3. March 19, 2017: Brian Schoeffler sends an email to board members asking for a review and a decision on whether a “revote” is necessary.

4. March 20, 2017: Catherine Overby emails the HOA membership, stating the election has been “contested” and that the board must investigate. She also asserts that bylaws do not allow write-in candidates, meaning she and Schoeffler were the new directors based on the vote count.

5. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Overby and Rice, meet with an attorney at Overby’s house. They discover that duplicate and proxy ballots were improperly counted.

6. Post-March 29, 2017: The board determines the valid votes resulted in a tie between Schoeffler and Klinger. A run-off election is scheduled.

7. April 29, 2017: The run-off election is held. Brian Schoeffler is announced as the winner.

8. May 10, 2017: The Board of Directors holds an organizational meeting.

Procedural History and Allegations

Initial Petition and Hearing

• March 19, 2018: Tom Barrs files a single-issue HOA Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee but including a four-page narrative alleging multiple violations.

• April 13, 2018: Barrs files an amended petition, adding an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

• July 30, 2018: Barrs pays to convert the petition to a multiple-issue dispute and submits a “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.”

The three core issues alleged by the petitioner were:

1. Improper Overturning of Election: The Board of Directors improperly removed Jerome Klinger by overturning the March 18, 2017 election results. The petitioner argued the challenge by the third candidate was barred by Bylaw 2.4, and the methods used violated recall protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1813 and Bylaw 3.3.

2. Improper Handling of Election Materials: The board violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by disposing of election materials (ballot envelopes) required to be kept for one year and by selectively invalidating votes cast on invalid ballots.

3. Improperly Held Meetings: Meetings related to the 2017 election were held as closed sessions or without proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Initial Decision

Following the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision with the following conclusions:

• Violation Found: The Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by discarding the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.

• Violation Found: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding meetings that were closed and/or without proper notice.

• No Violation Found: The Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4.

Rehearing and Final Order

• October 1, 2018: Barrs files a request for rehearing, citing misconduct, insufficient penalties, errors of law, and a decision not supported by evidence.

• November 2, 2018: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

• December 6, 2018: At the rehearing, the petitioner states he is only seeking reconsideration of Issue 1 (the improper overturning of the election) and not the lack of penalties for Issues 2 and 3.

Judicial Analysis and Final Rulings

The final decision focused solely on whether the HOA’s actions violated its own bylaws regarding election challenges.

Key Bylaw and Legal Standard

• Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4: The central bylaw in dispute states:

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving the violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Analysis of Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4

• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs argued that because candidate Brian Schoeffler did not object to the election results before the March 18, 2017 meeting adjourned, Bylaw 2.4 barred the board from investigating his concerns raised the following day via email. The petitioner contended that board members are also “Members” and thus are bound by this rule.

• Evidence Presented: Testimony established that Patrick Rice, acting as a Board member, expressed concerns with the vote count immediately after the meeting adjourned. This, not Mr. Schoeffler’s subsequent email, initiated the board’s investigation. At the rehearing, the petitioner presented selected audio clips he had recorded to support his arguments but did not provide the entire recording.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ made a critical distinction between the terms used in the HOA’s bylaws.

◦ The terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were found to have specific, non-interchangeable meanings throughout the bylaws.

◦ Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member.”

◦ The petitioner made no showing that a “Director” or the “Board of Directors” could not raise questions about the validity of election results after a meeting had adjourned.

◦ Since the investigation was initiated by a board member (Rice) and not exclusively by a member’s untimely objection (Schoeffler), the board’s actions did not violate Bylaw 2.4.

Final Order

Based on the analysis from the rehearing, the judge issued the following order:

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed as to Issue 1.

This order, resulting from a rehearing, is legally binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.

Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Tom Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, and what were their roles?

2. What specific event on March 18, 2017, served as the catalyst for the entire legal dispute?

3. What were the initial, announced results of the election held at the March 18, 2017, Annual Meeting?

4. According to the Petitioner, how did the HOA Board violate Bylaw 2.4 following the election?

5. In the initial hearing, which two of the Petitioner’s allegations were found to be valid violations committed by the Respondent?

6. Why did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing?

7. During the rehearing on December 6, 2018, what was the single issue that the Petitioner chose to focus on for reconsideration?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what action initiated the Board’s investigation into the election results, separate from Brian Schoeffler’s email?

9. How did the Judge’s interpretation of the terms “Member” and “Director” in the bylaws defeat the Petitioner’s primary argument on rehearing?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding Issue 1 after the conclusion of the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Tom Barrs, who served as the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by its President, Catherine Overby, and Vice President, Brian Schoeffler.

2. The dispute was triggered by the election for two vacant seats on the HOA Board of Directors held during the Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017. The subsequent actions by the Board to investigate and ultimately overturn the initial results of this election led the Petitioner to file a dispute.

3. The initially announced results of the March 18, 2017, election declared that Ms. Catherine Overby and Mr. Jerome Klinger were the winning candidates. No members present at the meeting raised an objection to these announced results before the meeting was adjourned.

4. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated Bylaw 2.4 by acting on an objection to the election results raised by Brian Schoeffler the day after the meeting. The bylaw states that any member who fails to object to an irregularity during a meeting “forever waives that claim,” and the Petitioner argued Mr. Schoeffler, as a member, had waived his right to object.

5. In the initial hearing, the Judge found that the Petitioner successfully established two violations by the Respondent. These were a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) for discarding ballot envelopes and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 for holding closed meetings without proper notice.

6. The Commissioner granted the rehearing “for the reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s Rehearing Request.” The Petitioner’s request cited multiple grounds, including misconduct by the prevailing party, errors of law, and that the initial findings of fact were not supported by the evidence or were contrary to law.

7. At the rehearing, the Petitioner stated he was only seeking reconsideration of the initial decision as it related to Issue 1. This issue was the allegation that the Board improperly overturned the election results in violation of Bylaw 2.4.

8. The Judge found that the Board’s investigation was initiated by Mr. Patrick Rice, a Board member at the time, who expressed his concerns with the vote “immediately after the Annual Meeting adjourned.” This occurred prior to and independent of the email sent by Brian Schoeffler the following day.

9. The Judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific and non-interchangeable meanings. Because the Petitioner made no showing that a “Director” (like Mr. Rice) could not raise questions after a meeting, the restriction on “Members” in Bylaw 2.4 did not apply to the Board’s actions.

10. The final order stated that the Petition was to be dismissed as to Issue 1. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated Bylaw 2.4.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the timeline of events from the Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017, to the run-off election on April 29, 2017. Discuss the key actions taken by the HOA Board—including the meeting with an attorney and the discovery of invalid ballots—and explain how these actions led to the legal dispute.

2. Detail the three distinct issues the Petitioner alleged in his “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.” Based on the outcome of the initial hearing, evaluate the success of these claims and explain why the Petitioner prevailed on some issues but not others.

3. The Petitioner’s case on rehearing hinged on the interpretation of Bylaw 2.4. Construct the Petitioner’s argument regarding this bylaw and then fully explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for ultimately rejecting it, focusing on the distinction between “Members” and “Directors.”

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and analyze how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this standard led to the dismissal of Issue 1 on rehearing.

5. Examine the procedural history of the case, from the initial single-issue petition to the final binding order after rehearing. What were the key procedural steps, such as amending the petition and filing for a rehearing, and how did these steps shape the final scope and outcome of the case?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the State of Arizona. The Petitioner alleged violations of several statutes, including A.R.S. § 33-1813, § 33-1811, § 33-1812, and § 33-1804.

Bylaw 2.4

The specific bylaw of the Desert Ranch HOA that was the central focus of the rehearing. It states, “Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting… forever waives that claim.”

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition was filed.

Director

An elected member of the HOA’s Board of Directors. The ALJ’s decision distinguished this role from that of a general “Member.”

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The governing organization for the planned community of Desert Ranch, responsible for enforcing community documents and statutes.

Member

A homeowner within the planned community. The ALJ’s decision emphasized that in the bylaws, this term has a specific meaning that is not interchangeable with “Director.”

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Barrs.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, to reconsider the initial decision based on alleged errors.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association.

5 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Election Gone Wrong

Introduction: When “The Rules” Aren’t What You Think

Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) run on rules. From lawn maintenance to paint colors, the governing documents are the ultimate authority. But what happens when the rules themselves become the center of a dispute? Imagine this scenario: your HOA holds its annual board election. The results are announced, the winners are declared, and everyone goes home. Then, the next day, the board decides to overturn the result.

This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s the core of a real-life legal case that reveals surprising truths about community governance, the power of a single word, and what can happen when an election goes off the rails.

——————————————————————————–

1. An Election Isn’t Over Until the Board Says It’s Over

The dispute began at the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017. The ballots for two open board seats were counted, and Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger were announced as the winning candidates. Crucially, no members present raised an objection before the meeting adjourned. By all appearances, the election was over.

But it wasn’t. Immediately after the meeting, a board member, Mr. Rice, gathered the ballots and expressed his concerns with the election results. The next day, the losing candidate, Brian Schoeffler, sent an email asking the board to “review the situation” and consider a “revote.” The board then formally announced that the election had been contested and that it was obligated to investigate.

After consulting an attorney, the board discovered several ballot irregularities, including duplicate ballots and an improperly counted proxy ballot. This new tally resulted in a tie between Mr. Schoeffler and Mr. Klinger. The board then forced a run-off election, which Mr. Schoeffler ultimately won. While the losing candidate’s email drew attention, the true turning point had already occurred moments after the meeting ended, when a board member himself questioned the results—an act that would prove legally decisive.

2. A Single Word in the Bylaws Can Change Everything

The homeowner who filed the legal petition, Tom Barrs, built his case on a seemingly straightforward rule in the HOA’s bylaws. He argued that any challenge to the election was invalid because it wasn’t raised before the Annual Meeting adjourned. The bylaw in question, Section 2.4, reads:

Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting (whether procedural, parliamentary, substantive or technical) forever waives that claim.

The petitioner’s argument was simple: the challenge was raised after the meeting by a “Member,” so the claim was waived. The case seemed open-and-shut.

However, the Administrative Law Judge made a critical distinction that decided the case. The judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific meanings and were not interchangeable. While a Member had to object during the meeting, the judge found no rule preventing a Director from raising questions later.

Because a board member, Mr. Rice, had expressed concerns immediately following the meeting, the board’s subsequent investigation was deemed permissible. This razor-thin interpretation of a single word highlights the immense power that definitions and precise language hold in governing documents.

3. The Board Broke the Law, But Still Won on the Main Issue

In a surprising twist, the judge determined that the HOA had, in fact, violated Arizona state law on two separate counts during the election controversy. The petitioner successfully proved that the board failed to follow established statutes.

The two violations established in the initial hearing were:

• Improper Destruction of Ballots: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) when it destroyed all of the ballot envelopes around the time of the election. This act made a true, verifiable recount impossible, directly undermining the integrity of the very election the board was claiming to investigate.

• Improper Meetings: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding closed meetings without providing proper notice to the members, particularly a meeting at the home of a board member, Ms. Overby, where the decision to hold a run-off was made. By making these critical decisions behind closed doors, the board created an appearance of secrecy that fueled the dispute and eroded member trust.

Despite proving these clear legal violations, the petitioner still lost on his primary complaint—overturning the run-off and reinstating the original election results. This outcome serves as a stark example of a pyrrhic victory. You can successfully prove that an organization broke the rules without achieving your ultimate goal in the dispute.

4. An Investigation Can Uncover a Cascade of Deeper Problems

The board’s decision to contest its own election results was controversial, but the subsequent investigation brought a cascade of other procedural failures to light. The initial challenge acted like a pulled thread that unraveled a series of previously unknown mistakes.

During the board’s meeting with its attorney, it was discovered that “duplicate ballots and a proxy ballot that were improperly counted” had skewed the original vote. This alone was enough to call the first result into question.

Furthermore, the board itself asserted that its own bylaws “did not allow for a write-in candidate.” This was a significant admission, as one of the original winners, Jerome Klinger, had been a write-in. If true, his victory would have been invalid from the start, regardless of any other challenges. The board’s investigation, initiated to resolve one perceived error, ended up exposing its own systemic incompetence—from improperly counting ballots to being unaware of its own rules regarding write-in candidates. The effort to fix the election proved the election was fundamentally broken from the start.

5. An HOA Board Can Investigate Itself

The petitioner’s case rested on the idea that board members are also “Members” of the association and are therefore bound by the same rules. If a regular member had to object during the meeting, a director should have to as well.

The judge rejected this argument, implicitly affirming the board’s higher-level fiduciary duty to ensure a fair and legal election. The final decision made it clear that the bylaws used “Member” and “Director” with distinct meanings and responsibilities. The bylaw requiring members to object during the meeting was the mechanism for an individual’s challenge; it did not override the board’s inherent duty to govern properly.

The key takeaway from the judge’s decision was unambiguous: The petitioner “made no showing that a Director could not raise questions as to the validity of the election results after the meeting adjourned.” This legally affirms a board’s power to investigate its own processes, a responsibility separate from the rules that govern challenges from the general membership.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Have You Read Your Bylaws Lately?

This case serves as a powerful reminder that the dense, legalistic language of HOA governing documents is not just boilerplate. These documents have immense real-world power, dictating the outcomes of contentious disputes and shaping the governance of a community. The intricate details and specific wording can mean the difference between a final result and one that is just the beginning of a long and costly fight.

This entire, year-long legal battle hinged on the definition of a single word. When was the last time you read the fine print governing your own community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf,.
  • Stephen Barrs (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner,.

Respondent Side

  • Catherine Overby (board member/president)
    Desert Ranch HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent,; Board President,; testified at hearing,.
  • Brian Schoeffler (board member/vice president)
    Desert Ranch HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent,; Board Vice President,; testified at hearing,.
  • Patrick Rice (board member)
    Desert Ranch HOA
    Board member who expressed concerns immediately after the meeting,,,; involved in meeting with attorney,.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner (ADRE))
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Issued Order Granting Rehearing; recipient of decision copy,.
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision copy.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision copy.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision copy.
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision copy.
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision copy.

Other Participants

  • Jerome Klinger (board director)
    Desert Ranch HOA
    Initially announced as a winning candidate for director,; later removed after contest; involved in run-off,.
  • Paula Barrs (listed resident)
    Listed with Tom Barrs on mailing address.

Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-06-25
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The ALJ granted the petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by allowing the president to call a special meeting for board member recall without the required petition signed by homeowners. The HOA was ordered to reinstate the two removed board members and refund the petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1813

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petitioner's request, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 by allowing the president to call a special meeting for board member recall without the required petition signed by homeowners. The HOA was ordered to reinstate the two removed board members and refund the petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Removal of board member; special meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when the president called a special meeting to recall three recently elected Board members, arguing that the statute requires a petition signed by homeowners. Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804 procedures could also be used. The ALJ ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1813, as the specific statute regarding removal, requires a petition.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is granted. Respondent shall reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell and reimburse the $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1813
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Board Removal, Recall Election, Statutory Interpretation, Petition Requirements
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1813
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

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

18F-H1818042-REL Decision – 642530.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:32:07 (142.9 KB)

18F-H1818042-REL Decision – 642530.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:07 (142.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 18F-H1818042-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute concerned the legality of a special meeting called by the HOA Board President to recall three recently elected board members. The petitioner argued this action violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which requires such a recall to be initiated by a petition from homeowners. The HOA contended that the president had the authority to call the meeting under the broader powers granted in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that when a specific statute and a general statute conflict, the specific statute controls. A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically governs the removal of board members and mandates a homeowner petition process. Therefore, the president’s unilateral call for a recall election was improper. The judge granted the petitioner’s request, ordering the HOA to reinstate the two board members who were removed and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute within the Carter Ranch development, a 253-lot community in Coolidge, Arizona.

• Petitioner: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, a homeowner and member of the Carter Ranch HOA.

• Respondent: Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

• Petition: On or about April 5, 2018, Van Dan Elzen filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. He alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813 when its president, Lance Van Horne, called a special meeting to recall three newly elected board members.

• Hearing: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing, which took place on June 20, 2018, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.

The Contested Elections

The dispute originated from a contentious board election process marked by accusations of misconduct, culminating in a recall election that was later found to be procedurally invalid.

March 20, 2018 Board Election

An initial annual meeting on February 20, 2018, failed to achieve the required quorum of 26 ballots. A second meeting was scheduled for March 20, 2018, for which eight candidates ran for five open board positions.

• Allegations of Misconduct: Prior to the meeting, Community Manager Mary Chaira received reports that three candidates—Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell—were going door-to-door “disseminating allegedly false information about Respondent’s finances, and harvesting ballots.”

• Meeting Conduct: At the March 20 meeting, a quorum of 47 homeowners was present. Board President Lance Van Horne addressed the allegations of false information. However, homeowners who may have filled out ballots based on this information were not permitted to withdraw them. The meeting was described by Ms. Chaira as “unruly and stressful.”

The election results for the top six candidates were as follows:

Candidate

Number of Votes

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Elected

Steve Brownell

Elected

Trish Brownell

Elected

Lance Van Horne

Elected

Steve F.

Tie for 5th position

Tie for 5th position

April 24, 2018 Recall Election

Believing the March 20 election outcome was “compromised” by the alleged dissemination of false information and ballot harvesting, President Van Horne called a special meeting for April 24, 2018, to hold a recall election for the three newly elected members: Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell.

A quorum of 52 homeowners returned ballots for the recall. The results were:

Board Member

Votes for Recall

Votes against Recall

Outcome

Roxanne Gould

Remained on Board

Steve Brownell

Removed from Board

Trish Brownell

Removed from Board

Following the recall, other members were elected to fill the vacant board positions.

Central Legal Issue: Statutory Interpretation

The case presented a pure legal question of statutory interpretation, as the facts of what occurred were not in dispute. The core issue was which Arizona statute governs the process for recalling an HOA board member.

Competing Legal Positions

• Petitioner’s Argument: The recall election was invalid because it violated A.R.S. § 33-1813. This statute, titled “Removal of board member; special meeting,” explicitly states that a recall process is initiated upon the board’s receipt of a petition signed by a specified number or percentage of homeowners. The president’s unilateral action did not meet this requirement.

• Respondent’s Argument: The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813 was not the exclusive procedure. It claimed that the president could also call such a meeting under the authority of A.R.S. § 33-1804, a more general statute governing meetings, which states that “Special meetings of the members’ association may be called by the president.”

Statutory Analysis by the Court

The Administrative Law Judge highlighted the direct conflict between the two statutes on the subject of board member removal.

Feature

A.R.S. § 33-1813 (Specific Statute)

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) (General Statute)

Meeting Initiation

By homeowner petition only.

By the president, a board majority, or homeowner petition.

Petition Requirement

For HOAs ≤ 1,000 members: petition signed by at least 100 members or 25% of votes, whichever is less.

Petition signed by at least 25% of votes (or lower if specified in bylaws).

Meeting Notice

Within 30 days after receipt of the petition.

Between 10 and 50 days in advance of the meeting.

The judge noted that A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically overrides the petition requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B), demonstrating legislative intent for it to be the controlling authority on this specific issue.

The Judge’s Legal Conclusion

The decision rested on the well-established legal principle that a specific statute governs over a general one when they are inconsistent. Citing case law, the judge reasoned:

“When provisions of a general statute are inconsistent with those of a special nature on the same subject, the special statute controls.”

Applying this canon of statutory construction, the judge concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the controlling authority for the removal of an HOA board member. Therefore, a valid recall process must be initiated by a homeowner petition as outlined in that statute. The president lacked the authority to call the April 24, 2018 recall meeting on his own initiative.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal conclusion that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1813, the Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order with the following mandates:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s petition is granted.

2. Board Member Reinstatement: The Carter Ranch HOA is required to reinstate Board members Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell.

3. Fee Reimbursement: The HOA must reimburse the petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, for his $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

This order is considered binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818042-REL, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association. It covers the key facts, legal arguments, and final ruling of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action by the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) prompted the Petitioner to file a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. What were the allegations made against candidates Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell prior to the March 20, 2018 election?

4. State the vote counts for the top three candidates who were elected to the Board of Directors on March 20, 2018.

5. What was the reason given by the Board’s president, Lance Van Horne, for calling a special recall election for April 24, 2018?

6. What were the specific outcomes for each of the three board members facing recall in the April 24, 2018 election?

7. Which two Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) were at the center of the legal dispute, and what general topics do they cover?

8. What was the HOA’s primary legal argument for why its president was permitted to call the special recall meeting?

9. What legal principle of statutory construction did the Administrative Law Judge use to resolve the conflict between the two statutes?

10. What two things was the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, ordered to do in the final ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, the Petitioner, who is a homeowner and member of the association, and the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner initiated the legal action against the HOA.

2. The Petitioner filed the complaint because the HOA’s president called a special meeting to hold a vote on recalling three recently elected members of the Board of Directors. The Petitioner alleged this action violated A.R.S. § 33-1813, which requires such a recall to be initiated by a petition signed by homeowners.

3. Prior to the March election, reports were made that Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell were going door-to-door disseminating allegedly false information about the HOA’s finances. They were also accused of “harvesting ballots” from members based on this information.

4. The top three candidates elected on March 20, 2018, were Roxanne Gould with 30 votes, Steve Brownell with 26 votes, and Trish Brownell with 25 votes.

5. Board president Lance Van Horne called the special recall election because he felt the election’s outcome was compromised. He believed the dissemination of allegedly false information and the harvesting of votes by the Brownells and Ms. Gould had tainted the results.

6. In the April 24 recall election, Roxanne Gould survived the recall with 27 votes against to 25 for. Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell were both removed from the board, with 27 votes for their recall and 25 against.

7. The statutes at the center of the dispute were A.R.S. § 33-1813 and A.R.S. § 33-1804. A.R.S. § 33-1813 specifically covers the “Removal of board member; special meeting,” while A.R.S. § 33-1804 is a more general statute concerning “Open meetings.”

8. The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 33-1813 was not the only procedure for calling a recall meeting. It contended that the procedures in the more general statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, which allows the president to call a special meeting, could also be used.

9. The judge applied the well-established common law principle that when a general statute and a specific statute on the same subject are in conflict, the specific statute controls. Therefore, the specific procedures for recall in A.R.S. § 33-1813 took precedence over the general meeting rules in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

10. The Carter Ranch HOA was ordered to reinstate the removed board members, Steve Brownell and Trish Brownell. The HOA was also ordered to reimburse the Petitioner for his $500.00 single-issue filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Trace the complete timeline of events described in the decision, beginning with the failed meeting on February 20, 2018, and concluding with the judge’s final order. For each key date, describe the event that occurred, the people involved, and the outcome of the event.

2. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of Arizona state law presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. Explain which specific clauses of A.R.S. § 33-1813 and A.R.S. § 33-1804 each party relied upon to justify their position regarding the legality of the April 24, 2018 recall meeting.

3. The decision states that the case presents a “pure legal issue of statutory interpretation.” Explain what this means and how it affects the burden of proof. Describe in detail the canons of statutory construction cited by the judge and how she applied them to rule in favor of the Petitioner.

4. Discuss the role of the allegations of misconduct (disseminating false information and harvesting ballots) against the newly elected board members. How did these allegations act as a catalyst for the recall election, and what was their ultimate relevance (or lack thereof) to the final legal conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge?

5. Based on the judge’s “Conclusions of Law,” explain the definitive legal procedure for an HOA in Arizona, with 1,000 or fewer members, to initiate the removal of a board member. Detail the petition requirements, signature thresholds, and meeting notice timelines as established by the controlling statute, A.R.S. § 33-1813.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal decisions, in this case, Diane Mihalsky from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the homeowners’ association, elected by the members.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation.

De Novo Review

A type of review where a court or judge decides the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous party in the case. This was applied because the issue was a pure matter of statutory interpretation.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions from HOA members.

Evidentiary Standard

The level of proof required to convince the trier of fact. In this case, the standard was a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that governs the Carter Ranch development, of which all lot owners are members.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings, like the one in this case, are conducted.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, it was homeowner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in which the trier of fact is convinced that a contention is more probably true than not.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at a meeting for the proceedings of that meeting to be valid. In the March 20 election, the quorum was 47 homeowners.

Recall Election

A special vote held to determine whether to remove an elected official (in this case, board members) from office before the end of their term.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, it was the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of an association’s members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled annual meetings. The April 24 recall vote was a special meeting.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The judge used common-law canons of statutory construction to resolve the conflict between the two A.R.S. sections.

Majority Rules? Not in This HOA: How One Homeowner Overturned a Recall Election on a Technicality

The Unruly World of Neighborhood Politics

In the world of Homeowners Associations, a majority vote is typically the final word. But for the Carter Ranch HOA, a 27-to-25 recall vote meant to oust two board members became the start of a legal battle, not the end. This case reveals a crucial lesson in community governance: when a board president’s unilateral action clashes with statutory procedure, the will of the majority can be rendered completely irrelevant.

A Democratic Vote Can Be Completely Ignored

On April 24, 2018, the Carter Ranch HOA held a special recall election targeting three recently elected board members: Roxanne Gould, Steve Brownell, and Trish Brownell. A quorum of 52 homeowners participated, and the vote was a split decision. Roxanne Gould survived the recall attempt, with 27 votes against her removal and 25 for it. However, Steve and Trish Brownell were successfully voted off the board by a clear majority of 27 to 25.

The twist came later, in a judge’s chambers. Despite the democratic outcome, an Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reinstate the Brownells. This counter-intuitive decision wasn’t the result of voter fraud or a miscount. The entire election was nullified because of a critical procedural error made by the HOA president before a single ballot was cast.

An HOA President Can’t Unilaterally Oust Board Members

The conflict began after a heated board election on March 20, 2018. The board president at the time, Lance Van Horne, felt the election’s outcome was “compromised.” He believed three newly elected members had won their seats by disseminating “allegedly false information” and “harvesting of votes.”

In response, Mr. Van Horne took decisive action. Believing he was correcting a wrong, he personally called for a special meeting to hold a recall election. This unilateral action became the sole basis for the legal challenge that followed. While the president’s concerns about election integrity were the catalyst for the drama, the court’s subsequent decision would demonstrate that his motives were entirely irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was the procedure he followed—or in this case, failed to follow.

The “Specific Beats General” Rule Is King

The HOA’s legal defense rested on a general statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, which grants an association’s president the power to call special meetings for various purposes. They argued this general power included the authority to call a recall meeting.

However, the homeowner who challenged the recall pointed to a different, more specific law. A.R.S. § 33-1813 is a statute written exclusively for the purpose of removing board members. This specific law dictates that a recall process can only be initiated upon receipt of a petition signed by a required number of homeowners. The president cannot simply decide to do it alone.

The judge’s decision hinged on a foundational principle of legal interpretation. As cited in the final order:

“When provisions of a general statute are inconsistent with those of a special nature on the same subject, the special statute controls.”

Because the HOA president initiated the recall without first receiving the required petition from the homeowners, he failed to follow the specific procedure mandated by law. As a result, the entire recall election was declared invalid from the start.

One Homeowner Can Successfully Challenge an Entire HOA

This entire case was set in motion not by a group of disgruntled residents, but by a single individual. Homeowner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a “single-issue petition” with the state, challenging the validity of the president’s action. His understanding of the specific rules governing board member removal proved to be the key that unraveled the HOA’s actions.

The final court order was a complete victory for the petitioner:

• His petition was granted.

• The Carter Ranch HOA was ordered to reinstate the two removed board members, Steve and Trish Brownell.

• The HOA was also ordered to reimburse the petitioner for his $500.00 filing fee.

This outcome serves as an empowering example of how a single member, armed with knowledge of the governing documents and statutes, can hold an association’s leadership accountable and ensure that proper procedures are followed.

Conclusion: Rules, Not Rulers

The Carter Ranch case is a powerful illustration that in community governance, established process is not a technicality—it is the bedrock of legitimacy. The board’s failure to adhere to the specific statute for recalls (A.R.S. § 33-1813) created a fatal procedural flaw that no amount of good intention or majority support could cure. This serves as a stark reminder for all HOA boards: power is derived from the meticulous application of rules, not the perceived authority of rulers. Ignoring this principle doesn’t just invalidate an action; it exposes the association to legal challenges, financial penalties, and a loss of credibility with the community it governs. Do you know the specific rules that govern your own community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Represented Respondent
  • Mary Chaira (Community Manager)
    Witness for Respondent
  • Lance Van Horne (Board President)
    Called the special recall election which led to the petition,,

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received decision
  • Felicia Del Sol (staff)
    Transmitted decision

Other Participants

  • Roxanne Gould (board member)
    Elected board member; subject of recall attempt,,
  • Steve Brownell (board member)
    Elected board member; removed by recall, reinstated by recommended order,,,
  • Trish Brownell (board member)
    Elected board member; removed by recall, reinstated by recommended order,,,
  • Steve F. (candidate)
    Candidate in board election
  • Dave (candidate)
    Candidate in board election

Gary W Moselle vs. Desert Mountain Master Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-05-10
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gary W. Moselle Counsel —
Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association Counsel Curtis Ekmark

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the Petitioner's petition, concluding that the DMMA Communications committee meeting was not subject to the open meetings law because the committee did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, as the committee meeting in question did not meet the definition of a 'regularly scheduled committee meeting' required to be open to members.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the Respondent violated the open meeting statute by closing a committee meeting.

Petitioner alleged that the DMMA Communications committee meeting was improperly closed and subject to open meeting laws. The ALJ determined the committee did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings (defined as meetings occurring at regular intervals) and was therefore not subject to A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
  • Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings Law, Committee Meeting, Regularly Scheduled
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
  • Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817005-REL Decision – 634096.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:35 (106.4 KB)

18F-H1817005-REL Decision – 605190.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:41 (77.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Moselle v. Desert Mountain Master Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Gary W. Moselle (Petitioner) and the Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA/Respondent). The central issue was whether a “closed” meeting of the DMMA Communications Committee on September 6, 2017, violated Arizona’s open meetings law for planned communities, A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The case hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Petitioner argued this meant any meeting scheduled in a normal fashion, while the Respondent contended it applied only to meetings occurring at fixed, regular intervals. The Respondent provided evidence that the committee in question met infrequently and without a set schedule.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding that “regularly scheduled” refers to meetings held at regular intervals. The judge found that the specific language of the statute requiring only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings to be open superseded the statute’s general policy statement in favor of open meetings. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Gary W. Moselle with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the DMMA violated state law by holding a closed committee meeting. The case progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a successful request for a rehearing based on new evidence, and a final binding decision.

September 1, 2017

Gary W. Moselle files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

September 5, 2017

The Department issues a notice to DMMA regarding the petition.

September 6, 2017

The DMMA Communications Committee holds a closed meeting, which Moselle is not permitted to attend.

September 18, 2017

DMMA files an answer to the petition, denying all allegations.

November 17, 2017

The initial hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

December 7, 2017

The Administrative Law Judge issues an initial decision denying the petition.

January 4, 2018

Moselle files a request for a rehearing, citing newly discovered material evidence.

January 26, 2017

The Department grants the request for a rehearing.

April 20, 2018

A rehearing is conducted.

May 10, 2018

The Administrative Law Judge issues a final, binding decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

The Central Legal Question: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804

The core of the dispute was the correct interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(A), which governs open meetings for planned communities. The key statutory language under scrutiny was:

“…all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”

The case required the Administrative Law Judge to define the term “regularly scheduled” in the context of homeowners’ association committee meetings.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Position (Gary W. Moselle)

The Petitioner’s case was built on a broad interpretation of the statute, emphasizing the legislative intent for transparency.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: Moselle argued that “regularly scheduled” should be interpreted to mean “scheduled in a normal fashion,” rather than strictly meaning meetings held at fixed intervals (e.g., monthly or quarterly).

• Legislative Policy: He pointed to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which states a broad policy that “all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly.” He argued this policy statement should guide the interpretation of subsection (A) in favor of openness for all committee meetings.

• Committee Practices: In his prehearing brief, Moselle asserted that five of the six “functioning DMMA committees” meet “at the request of the chair,” implying this was the normal scheduling method and should fall under the statute.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Mountain Master Association)

The Respondent advocated for a narrower, more literal interpretation of the statute.

• Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”: DMMA argued the phrase meant meetings that “occurred at regular intervals, such as on the third Thursday of every month, quarterly, or even annually.”

• Evidence of Infrequent Meetings: DMMA presented testimony that the Communications Committee met infrequently and without a fixed interval. The committee held only four meetings in 2016 and 2017: two in April 2016, one in June 2017, and the contested meeting on September 6, 2017.

• Lack of Board Action: To support the claim that the committee was not conducting core business of the Board, DMMA asserted that a recommendation made by the committee (to send an email blast) was not acted upon by the DMMA Board of Directors.

Judicial Findings and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, denied the petition, siding with the Respondent’s interpretation of the statute. The decision was based on principles of statutory construction and the evidence presented.

1. Statutory Interpretation and Plain Language

The primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent by first looking at the plain language. The Judge concluded that the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) supports the interpretation that “regularly scheduled committee meetings” are those that “occur at regular intervals.” While acknowledging that the phrase could have multiple meanings, this did not preclude an interpretation based on its plain language.

2. Petitioner’s Contradictory Testimony

A key factor in the decision was the Petitioner’s own testimony during cross-examination. When asked about his assertion that five DMMA committees meet at the request of the chair, the Judge noted:

“Petitioner stated that five of the committees listed in the Volunteer Request page ‘meet at the request of the chair and they’re not regularly scheduled.'” (Hearing record 30:52 – 31:15)

The Judge found that in this statement, the Petitioner himself used the phrase “not regularly scheduled” to describe meetings that were called as needed rather than held at fixed intervals, thereby undermining his own legal argument.

3. Specific Language Overrides General Policy

The Judge addressed the Petitioner’s argument regarding the statute’s broad policy statement in favor of open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)). The decision explicitly states:

“The general policy statement in favor of open meetings set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

This conclusion establishes that the specific qualifier “regularly scheduled” in subsection (A) creates a deliberate exception to the general policy for certain committee meetings.

Final Order and Implications

Order: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Conclusion: The Judge concluded that at the time of the September 6, 2017 meeting, the DMMA Communication Committee did not hold “regularly scheduled” meetings as defined by the statute. Therefore, the Respondent’s decision to hold a closed meeting was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

This decision, issued on May 10, 2018, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Moselle v. Desert Mountain Master Association (No. 18F-H1817005-REL-RHG)

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Gary W. Moselle and Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What specific event and action by the Respondent prompted the Petitioner to file his initial petition?

3. What was the Respondent’s primary argument at the November 17, 2017, hearing for why the Communications committee was not subject to the open meetings law?

4. What was the initial outcome of the case following the first hearing, as decided on December 7, 2017?

5. On what grounds did the Petitioner successfully file for a rehearing of the case?

6. How did the Petitioner, Gary W. Moselle, interpret the statutory phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings”?

7. How did the Respondent, DMMA, interpret the same phrase, “regularly scheduled committee meetings”?

8. According to the document, what is the primary goal when construing a statute, and what is the first step in that process?

9. What was the significance of the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding open meetings, and how did the judge rule on its applicability?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on May 10, 2018, and what was its legal effect on the parties?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Gary W. Moselle, a homeowner, and Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA), an association of homeowners in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. Moselle filed a petition against the DMMA.

2. The Petitioner filed his petition after the Chair of the DMMA’s Communications Committee alleged that a scheduled meeting was “closed” and not subject to Arizona’s open meeting statute. The Petitioner was subsequently not allowed to attend the closed committee meeting held on September 6, 2017.

3. The Respondent argued that the Communications committee did not meet regularly and was therefore not subject to the open meetings law. To support this, they presented testimony that the committee had only met four times in 2016 and 2017.

4. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on December 7, 2017, in which the Petitioner’s petition was denied.

5. The Petitioner requested a rehearing based on what he cited as newly discovered material evidence, specifically an email sent by the Respondent after the first hearing concluded. He also argued the initial decision was contrary to law and that the Respondent may have misled the judge.

6. The Petitioner argued that “regularly scheduled” should be interpreted to mean scheduled in a normal or ordinary fashion. He contended that because the September 6, 2017, meeting was scheduled in this manner, it should have been open.

7. The Respondent argued that the phrase “regularly scheduled” meant meetings that occurred at regular intervals, such as on a specific day each month, quarterly, or annually. They contended that since the Communications committee met infrequently and without an established interval, its meetings were not “regularly scheduled.”

8. The primary goal when construing a statute is to ascertain the legislature’s intent. The first step is to look at the text of the statute itself and ascribe its plain meaning if the language is clear.

9. The policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) declares that it is the state’s policy for all meetings of a planned community to be conducted openly. The judge ruled that this general policy statement does not override the specific provision in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings must be open.

10. The final order, issued on May 10, 2018, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. As this order was the result of a rehearing, it was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of “regularly scheduled” as presented by the Petitioner and Respondent. Discuss which argument the Administrative Law Judge found more compelling and explain the legal reasoning provided in the decision.

2. Discuss the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F) in this case. Explain how the Petitioner used this section to support his argument and why the Administrative Law Judge concluded it did not override the specific language in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 1, 2017, to the final order on May 10, 2018. Include key dates, events (hearings, decisions, requests), and the outcomes at each stage.

4. Evaluate the evidence presented by the Respondent regarding the meeting frequency of the DMMA Communication committee. How did this evidence support the Respondent’s legal argument and influence the final decision?

5. Based on the “Conclusions of Law” section, explain the standard of proof required in this proceeding (preponderance of the evidence) and the principles of statutory construction the judge applied to interpret the relevant statute.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision on the matter.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The specific Arizona Revised Statute at the center of the legal dispute. It mandates that meetings of a members’ association, its board of directors, and any “regularly scheduled committee meetings” must be open to all members of the association.

Cross-examination

A phase during the hearing where a party or their representative questions a witness from the opposing side. Petitioner Moselle underwent cross-examination during the April 20, 2018, rehearing.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petitioner filed his initial petition and which has jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and condominium owners associations.

An abbreviation for Desert Mountain Master Association, the Respondent in the case and the homeowners association for a planned community in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Open Meetings Law

The legal requirement, as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804, that certain meetings of a homeowners association must be open to all members, who must be permitted to attend and speak.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the petitioner was homeowner Gary W. Moselle.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA).

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The judge noted that the primary goal is to ascertain legislative intent, first by looking at the plain language of the statute’s text.

Your HOA Can Legally Hold Secret Committee Meetings. Here’s How.

Most homeowners operate under a reasonable assumption: meetings that concern their community association should be open for them to attend. Transparency is a cornerstone of trust between residents and their HOA board. But what if some of those meetings, like committee meetings, could be held in private, entirely legally? The answer, revealed in a contentious Arizona case, lies in a two-word loophole that every homeowner should understand.

A legal case from Scottsdale, Arizona, Moselle vs. Desert Mountain Master Association, hinged on this very issue. It revealed a surprising and important nuance in the law, showing how specific wording can create exceptions to the general rule of open governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Regularly Scheduled” Loophole That Allows for Closed Meetings

The central conflict of the case began when a homeowner, Gary Moselle, was barred from attending a Communications Committee meeting for his HOA, the Desert Mountain Master Association (DMMA). He filed a petition, arguing this action violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities.

But the homeowner’s argument ran into a wall: the precise text of the law. The Administrative Law Judge’s ruling hinged on the wording of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates openness for “any regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The judge found that the Communications Committee meeting was legally closed because it was not “regularly scheduled.”

Everything came down to the court’s interpretation of two words: “regularly scheduled.”

• The Homeowner’s Argument: Mr. Moselle contended that “regularly scheduled” simply meant “scheduled in a normal fashion.”

• The Court’s Conclusion: The HOA and the judge determined that the phrase means meetings that “occur at regular intervals,” such as monthly, quarterly, or annually.

The evidence supported the court’s conclusion. The DMMA Communications committee had only met four times in 2016 and 2017. This ad-hoc pattern was crucial evidence that the meetings were not “regularly scheduled” in the way the law required.

——————————————————————————–

2. Why a Law’s General Policy Doesn’t Always Overrule Its Specific Text

The petitioner argued that the law’s explicit policy statement, which strongly favors open meetings, should have been the guiding principle. He pointed to the text of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F):

It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly… and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

The judge’s conclusion illustrates a fundamental principle of legal interpretation: the specific almost always trumps the general. Despite the clear declaration of policy, the judge found that it did not override the more precise provision in the law. The general policy favoring open meetings could not change the fact that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) explicitly limits the open meeting requirement to only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings.

——————————————————————————–

3. A Petitioner’s Own Words Undercut His Argument

The case took a surprising turn, however, when the petitioner himself handed the association its strongest piece of evidence. While trying to make a point about other committees within the DMMA, Mr. Moselle stated that five of them “meet at the request of the chair and they’re not regularly scheduled.”

This statement was a moment of legal irony that proved devastating to his case. The judge noted in the final decision that the petitioner’s own language aligned perfectly with the court’s ultimate interpretation. In a formal hearing, Mr. Moselle inadvertently defined the key term against his own interest, drawing a clear distinction between meetings called on an as-needed basis (“at the request of the chair”) and those that are “regularly scheduled.” This admission provided the exact plain-language interpretation the judge needed to resolve the ambiguity in the case at hand, significantly weakening the petitioner’s entire position.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Lesson in Legal Precision

The ultimate lesson from this case is that while homeowner transparency laws are powerful, their protections are defined by precise legal wording. Seemingly small details can have significant consequences. In this Arizona case, the distinction between ad-hoc meetings called as needed and those that occur at regular, predictable intervals was the deciding factor that allowed a committee meeting to be held behind closed doors.

This raises a critical question for homeowners and boards alike: Does this legal distinction provide necessary flexibility for informal committee work, or is it a loophole that ultimately undermines the spirit of open governance in our communities?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gary W. Moselle (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; Chair of the Communications Committee

Respondent Side

  • Curtis Ekmark (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
  • Charles Markle (respondent attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Felicia Del Sol (staff)
    Served order upon parties

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)

Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:26 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:32 (736.4 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:48 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:52 (736.4 KB)

Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Mark Virden and Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA, concerning the construction of an internet service tower. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided source documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what does this statute govern?

3. Describe the unique governance structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA as noted in the hearing’s findings of fact.

4. What was the arrangement between AireBeam, Lou Talarico, and Carl Rygg that led to the construction of the internet tower?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific authority was granted to its Architectural Committee?

6. On what key legal basis did the Administrative Law Judge reject the Petitioner’s claim of a conflict of interest violation?

7. What was the Petitioner’s alternative argument regarding the tower not being for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, and how did the Judge rule on it?

8. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

9. What was the final outcome of Mark Virden’s petition, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted?

10. After the Final Order was issued on July 10, 2017, what were the potential next steps for a party wishing to challenge the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Respondent). The central dispute was Virden’s allegation that the HOA improperly allowed the construction of an internet service tower on common property due to an undisclosed conflict of interest involving board members.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. This statute governs contracts and conflicts of interest for an HOA’s board of directors, requiring a board member to declare a conflict in an open meeting if a decision would benefit them or a close family member.

3. The Lakeside Ski Village HOA does not have a traditional board of directors. Instead, its Bylaws state that the affairs of the Association are managed directly by the members, who are authorized to exercise all powers normally held by a board.

4. After the HOA failed to secure enough subscribers for AireBeam to build the tower, Lou Talarico offered to pay the upfront cost. In exchange for his payment, AireBeam agreed to provide free internet service to Mr. Talarico and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg for as long as the tower was operational.

5. The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants the Architectural Committee the authority to “permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

6. The Judge rejected the claim because the HOA’s CC&Rs empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the tower directly, without needing ratification from the members acting as a board. Therefore, the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which apply to actions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors,” were not applicable to the Committee’s decision.

7. The Petitioner argued that because people outside the HOA could subscribe to the service, the tower was not for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, meaning the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. The Judge ruled that the language of the CC&Rs does not require that the system exclusively benefit the HOA.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, Mark Virden, bore the burden of proving his allegations by this standard.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied, concluding that the Architectural Committee’s approval of the tower was proper. This decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it the Final Order.

10. A dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty (30) days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. Alternatively, a party could appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review in court.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs board actions, and the specific powers granted to the Architectural Committee in the Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s CC&Rs. Explain in detail how this conflict, and its interpretation by the Judge, determined the outcome of the case.

2. Discuss the concept of “conflict of interest” as presented in the Petitioner’s complaint. Evaluate whether the actions of the Talaricos and Carl Rygg constituted a conflict of interest, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, referencing the use of the term arguendo in the Conclusions of Law.

3. Explain the procedural journey of this case, from the initial petition filing on or about March 23, 2017, to the Final Order issued on July 10, 2017. Identify the key bodies and officials involved at each stage (e.g., Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge, Commissioner).

4. The Petitioner’s complaint details his frustration with a perceived lack of transparency from board members regarding their compensation agreement with AireBeam. Despite these ethical concerns, the petition failed. Based on the “Conclusions of Law,” explain the legal reasoning that rendered the Petitioner’s arguments about transparency and fairness insufficient to prove a violation under the cited statute.

5. The Final Order outlines eight specific causes for which a rehearing or review could be granted. Choose two of these causes (e.g., “The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” or “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing”) and construct a hypothetical argument that Mark Virden could have made for a rehearing based on them, using the facts presented in the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona legislature. The statute at the center of this case was A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Arguendo

A Latin term meaning “for the sake of argument.” The Judge used this to temporarily accept a point as true (that the free service was compensation) in order to show that even if it were true, the Petitioner’s argument would still fail on other legal grounds.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. These are the governing legal documents that establish the rules and operational framework for a homeowners association.

Common Area

Property within the HOA, such as land for a community tower, that is owned and shared by all members of the association.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that has jurisdiction to hear certain disputes between property owners and their homeowners associations.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community or subdivision that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Mark Virden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing a fact is more probable than not.

Respondent

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

How Two HOA Insiders Got Free Internet For Life—And Why the Law Couldn’t Stop Them

Introduction: The Rules Aren’t Always What They Seem

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowner Association (HOA) is built on a simple assumption: while the rules can be strict, they exist to protect the community from abuses of power. We trust that state laws and an HOA’s own documents prevent board members from using their position for personal enrichment. The concept of a “conflict of interest” seems straightforward—board members can’t vote on deals that benefit themselves or their families.

But what if a deal that looks like a textbook conflict of interest was found to be perfectly legal? This is the cautionary tale of Mark Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA, a shocking case from Arizona that turns our assumptions on their head. It’s a story where insiders secured a deal for free lifetime internet service, and despite a homeowner’s legitimate outrage, the law was powerless to stop them. The case wasn’t decided on fairness or ethics, but on the fine print buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

This case is a crucial lesson for every homeowner. It reveals how seemingly innocuous clauses can be weaponized to bypass transparency laws, effectively legalizing what would otherwise be considered a blatant conflict of interest. It demonstrates that in the world of community associations, power doesn’t always reside where you think it does, and the only thing protecting you is a deep understanding of your own community’s rules.

Takeaway 1: A Committee’s Power Can Sidestep Conflict-of-Interest Laws

The petitioner’s argument was simple and seemed like a slam dunk. An internet company needed to build a service tower on HOA common property but lacked enough subscribers to fund it. Lou Talarico, whose wife Susan was on the HOA’s Architectural Committee, offered to pay the upfront installation costs. In exchange, Mr. Talarico and the HOA’s Vice President, Carl Rygg, would receive free internet service for life.

This arrangement reeks of a conflict of interest, and on its face, appears to be a direct violation of Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811). The law requires that if an action “taken by or on behalf of the board of directors” would benefit a board member’s spouse, the conflict must be declared in an open meeting. Here, no such declaration was made.

But here is the stunning legal twist: the Administrative Law Judge found that the decision to approve the tower was made not by the “board,” but exclusively by the “Architectural Committee.” The HOA’s governing documents explicitly granted this committee the power to approve communication systems. Because the state’s conflict-of-interest law applies specifically to actions taken by the board, it had no jurisdiction over a decision made independently by the committee. In essence, the state law was watching the front door (the board), but the HOA’s documents gave the Architectural Committee a back door—one with no legal supervision for conflicts of interest. This technicality meant the deal, and the conflict of interest at its core, was entirely proper under the law.

Takeaway 2: An HOA ‘Board’ Might Not Be a Board at All

The second critical fact that enabled this outcome was the highly unusual structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA itself. The judge noted that the association “does not have a traditional Board.” Instead, all the members collectively act as the board.

The HOA’s Bylaws lay out this unique governance model:

“[t]he affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

This structure is fundamentally important. State laws governing HOAs are written with a traditional model in mind—a small group of elected directors making decisions for the community. But at Lakeside Ski Village, the power of the “members acting as a board” was limited by specific authority delegated to other entities, most notably the Architectural Committee. This decentralized structure created a loophole the state’s conflict-of-interest law was not designed to close.

The lesson for homeowners is that you can never assume all HOAs are structured alike. The very definition of the “board” and the scope of its power can be radically different from one community to another. Here, that unique structure was the key that unlocked the committee’s unchecked power.

Takeaway 3: The Fine Print Is All That Matters

Ultimately, this entire dispute was decided not by broad principles of transparency or fiduciary duty, but by specific phrases written in the HOA’s founding documents years ago. The petitioner, Mark Virden, expressed understandable outrage that the insiders involved refused to be transparent.

He recounted a particularly telling exchange with the association’s Vice President when he asked about the terms of the internet deal:

When we initially asked the VP what their compensation was, he stated “it’s none of your business”.

While this response would infuriate any homeowner, the court’s final decision effectively proved it right. Because the Architectural Committee was acting within its sole authority, the details of its agreement were not subject to the disclosure rules that govern the board. The response, “it’s none of your business,” turned out to be legally correct.

The petitioner’s frustration was compounded by the professional background of the committee member at the center of the conflict. In his filing, he wrote: “To make things worse, the board member whose spouse paid the upfront fee to the tower company is a licensed realtor, Susan Talarico. If anyone should understand the fiduciary responsibility to owners of a HOA, it’s a realtor serving on a Board of that HOA.” His belief that a real estate professional should have known better underscores the feeling of betrayal.

And in a final, dramatic turn that reinforces the theme of insiders benefiting, the petitioner noted what happened after the deal was done: “She has since resigned but her husband has taken her place on the board.” This illustrates the most vital lesson of all: your sense of what is “fair” is legally irrelevant if the governing documents allow for a specific action. The CC&Rs and Bylaws are the ultimate source of truth and power in any HOA dispute.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know Your Rules?

The case of Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is a world of legal technicalities, where the written word of the founding documents is supreme. It shows how specific, delegated authority can create outcomes that defy the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. What appears to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing can be rendered perfectly permissible by a few key sentences in the bylaws or CC&Rs.

This case was decided on the specific authority granted to a single committee—do you know which committees in your HOA have the power to make decisions without board approval?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mark Virden (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Stewart F. Salwin (attorney)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
  • Susan Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Licensed realtor; spouse of Lou Talarico; resigned but husband took her place on the board
  • Lou Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Spouse of Susan Talarico; paid upfront tower cost; received free internet service; referred to as Treasurer in petition excerpt
  • Carl Rygg (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Vice President; received free internet service
  • Emmett Mitchell (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    President

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Addressee for rehearing requests

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 16F-H1616013-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2016-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John & Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Petitioners because the Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 by appointing board members without a public meeting. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the filing fee, but civil penalties were declined because the violation was based on a mistake of law rather than intentional misconduct.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Open Meeting Law (Board Appointments)

Petitioners alleged the remaining board member appointed new directors to fill vacancies without a public meeting. Respondent admitted the violation but claimed exigent circumstances due to lack of quorum and expiring management contract.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioners' filing fee. No civil penalty imposed as the violation was not intentional or repeated.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

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

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:42 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:58:48 (60.0 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 505356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (77.4 KB)

16F-H1616013-BFS Decision – 513402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:13:22 (60.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the case of John & Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent), Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS.

The dispute centered on the Respondent's violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 regarding open meeting requirements. Following the resignation of three out of four board members in July 2015, the sole remaining board member continued to conduct HOA business and eventually appointed new members in January 2016 without holding public meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted Summary Judgment to the Petitioners, ordering the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners' filing fees. However, the ALJ declined to impose civil penalties, citing the HOA's lack of intentional or routine misconduct and the existence of exigent circumstances. This decision was certified as final by the Department of Real Estate on August 22, 2016, after the department failed to take action to modify or reject the recommendation.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance and Public Meeting Requirements

The core of the legal violation involved A.R.S. § 33-1804, which mandates that meetings of a Homeowners Association board must be open to all members. The Respondent admitted to violating this statute by:

  • Allowing a single remaining board member to conduct business for several months.
  • Appointing interim board members in January 2016 without following the emergency meeting requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).

The Respondent acknowledged that "emergency" exceptions were not properly applied, and they agreed to comply with these requirements moving forward.

2. Discretionary Authority and Civil Penalties

A significant portion of the analysis focused on A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), which states that an ALJ may levy a civil penalty for violations. The use of the word "may" affords the Director discretion rather than a mandate. In determining whether to penalize the HOA, the ALJ compared this case to Dennis J. Legere and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA:

  • The Legere Case: Involved a board that routinely and repeatedly took actions via email to avoid public meetings for its own convenience.
  • The Current Case: The ALJ found that The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA did not repeatedly or routinely violate the law. Instead, the violation was born from "exigent circumstances" and a mistake regarding legal requirements when the board was reduced to a single member.
3. Exigent Circumstances as a Mitigating Factor

The Respondent argued that their actions, while technically in violation of the law, were driven by necessity. The HOA "lacked the required number of Directors under its bylaws" and faced the expiration of its management contract. The ALJ accepted these as mitigating factors, concluding that the remaining board member did not intentionally violate the statute but acted based on a misunderstanding of the law during a crisis.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"The remaining board member continued to conduct Respondent’s business and in January 2016, appointed board members to serve the remaining terms… in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804." The fundamental factual basis for the Petitioners' motion for summary judgment.
"Respondent acknowledged that because the exceptions to the public meetings required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) do not include an emergency… the remaining board member’s actions violated the statute’s requirements." The HOA's formal admission of the statutory violation.
"By use of the word, 'may,' the statute affords the Director… discretion to levy a civil penalty, even in cases where the Respondent homeowners’ association admits a statutory violation." The legal reasoning used to justify why a fine was not mandatory despite the admitted guilt.
"Respondent did not repeatedly or routinely violate the law, but instead took action due to exigent circumstances based upon a mistake about the law’s requirements." The ALJ’s distinction between this case and more severe, intentional violations found in other precedents.
"Because it is on notice of the law’s requirements, if Respondent again violates A.R.S. § 33-1804, a civil penalty should be imposed at that time." A formal warning that the HOA's "mistake" defense will not be valid for future infractions.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Association Boards
  • Adherence to Open Meeting Laws: Boards must strictly follow A.R.S. § 33-1804, even during internal crises. Vacancies do not suspend the requirement for public meetings or proper emergency meeting protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).
  • Documentation of Exigency: If a board must act under pressure, it should still attempt to align with statutory requirements to avoid "notice of violation" which makes future penalties more likely.
  • Immediate Corrective Action: The Respondent’s agreement to reimburse filing fees and commit to future compliance likely helped avoid more severe civil penalties.
For Homeowners (Petitioners)
  • Summary Judgment Strategy: Petitioners can successfully move for summary judgment when an HOA admits to the facts of a statutory violation, even if the HOA claims the violation was unintentional.
  • Recovery of Costs: While civil penalties are discretionary and paid to the state, homeowners can successfully petition for the reimbursement of their filing fees when a violation is confirmed.
  • Precedent as a Tool: Using previous cases (like Legere) is essential in administrative hearings to argue for or against the severity of sanctions.

Final Administrative Status

The Department of Real Estate had until August 10, 2016, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's decision. As no action was taken by that deadline, the decision was officially certified as final on August 22, 2016. This certification triggers the five-day window for the effective date of the order and begins the timeline for any potential requests for rehearing or judicial review in Superior Court.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Case No. 16F-H1616013-BFS)

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case involving John and Debborah Sellers and The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA. It examines the legal requirements for homeowners association (HOA) board actions, the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), and the discretionary power of administrative law judges in levying penalties.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The Dispute

The case originated when John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) filed a petition against The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (Respondent). The Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated state law following the resignation of three out of four board members in July 2015. The remaining board member continued to conduct HOA business and appointed new members in January 2016 without adhering to public meeting requirements.

Central Legal Issues
  1. Public Meeting Requirements: Whether a lone board member can conduct business and appoint new members without a public meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  2. Emergency Exceptions: Whether "exigent circumstances" (such as an expiring management contract and lack of a quorum) justify bypassing statutory requirements for public meetings.
  3. Discretionary Penalties: The criteria used by the Department of Real Estate and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to determine if civil penalties are warranted under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A).

II. Statutory Framework and Legal Precedent

The following table outlines the primary statutes and legal precedents cited in the case:

Reference Summary of Application
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) Requires that HOA meetings be open to all members of the association.
A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2) Sets specific requirements for "emergency" meetings that bypass standard notice/publicity; the Respondent failed to meet these requirements.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A) Grants the ALJ authority to order compliance and "may" levy a civil penalty (not to exceed $500 in specific housing contexts).
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08 Governs the timeline for the Department of Real Estate to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision.
Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows Legal precedent where a board routinely used email for decisions; used in this case to contrast "intentional" vs. "mistaken" violations.

III. Summary of Findings and Decision

The Violation

The Respondent admitted to violating A.R.S. § 33-1804. While they argued the remaining board member acted out of necessity (the next meeting was not until February 2016 and the management contract was expiring), the ALJ ruled that the statutory exceptions to public meetings do not include a general "emergency" unless specific procedures are followed.

The Remedy
  • Summary Judgment: Granted to the Petitioners because the violation was acknowledged.
  • Reimbursement: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners' filing fee.
  • Civil Penalties: The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty. The decision noted that the violation was a "mistake about the law’s requirements" rather than a "routine or repeated" intentional violation like that seen in the Legere case.
Finality of the Decision

The ALJ decision was transmitted on July 6, 2016. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department of Real Estate had until August 10, 2016, to act. Because no action was taken by the Department, the ALJ decision was certified as final on August 22, 2016.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Why did the Petitioners move for summary judgment against the HOA? Answer: Because the HOA's sole remaining board member conducted business and appointed new members in January 2016 without following the public meeting requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

2. What reason did the Respondent give for the board member's unilateral actions? Answer: The HOA argued it lacked the required number of directors under its bylaws and its management contract was set to expire before the next regularly scheduled meeting in February 2016.

3. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A), is an ALJ required to levy a civil penalty if a violation is found? Answer: No. The statute uses the word "may," affording the Director discretion to levy or withhold a penalty based on the circumstances of the violation.

**4. How did the ALJ distinguish this case from the Legere precedent?** Answer: In Legere, the board routinely used email for decisions to serve its own convenience. In this case, the ALJ found the HOA acted due to exigent circumstances and a mistake of law, rather than a routine or intentional effort to bypass the law.

5. What happens if the Department of Real Estate fails to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe? Answer: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Exigent Circumstances vs. Statutory Compliance: Analyze the tension between a board's fiduciary duty to maintain operations (e.g., renewing management contracts) and the strict requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804. Should the law allow for more flexibility when a board loses its quorum?
  2. The Role of Intent in Administrative Sanctions: Discuss why the ALJ determined that a "mistake about the law's requirements" did not warrant a civil penalty. Compare the deterrent effect of a warning versus a financial penalty in the context of HOA governance.
  3. The Certification Process: Explain the procedural journey of an ALJ decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings to final certification by the Department of Real Estate. Why is the timeline for "accepting, rejecting, or modifying" significant for the parties involved?

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona statute governing open meetings for planned communities.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and moves for decisions in administrative law cases.
  • Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ’s recommendation becomes a final, binding agency action.
  • Civil Penalty: A financial sanction levied by a government agency for a violation of laws or regulations.
  • Exigent Circumstances: Situations requiring immediate action or urgency, often used as a defense for bypassing standard procedures.
  • Motion for Summary Judgment: A legal request to the judge to rule in favor of one party without a full trial, based on the fact that the essential facts are not in dispute.
  • Petitioners: The parties (John & Debborah Sellers) who initiated the legal action.
  • Respondent: The party (The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA) against whom the action was brought.
  • Sanctions: Penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law.

When One Board Member Acts Alone: Lessons from Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

1. Introduction: A Board in Crisis

It is a nightmare scenario for community governance: a sudden wave of resignations leaves the Board of Directors without a quorum, effectively creating a "ghost board." In these moments of perceived crisis, the remaining leadership often feels a desperate pressure to act unilaterally to keep the association functional. However, as community association leaders must understand, administrative exigency does not grant a license to bypass Arizona’s open meeting laws.

The case of John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA (No. 16F-H1616013-BFS) serves as a definitive lesson in this balance. This dispute was adjudicated through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which serves as the statutory forum for resolving HOA disputes in Arizona. The central question: Can a single remaining board member legally conduct business and appoint new directors in private?

2. The Conflict: One Member, Multiple Appointments

The conflict began following a leadership vacuum in July 2015, when three out of the four sitting board members resigned. For several months, the community was governed by a sole director. In January 2016, this remaining director took unilateral action to appoint new members to fill the vacancies.

The Association defended these actions by citing a state of emergency. They argued that because the board lacked the minimum number of directors required by its bylaws and the association’s management contract was nearing expiration, immediate action was necessary. As a legal analyst, it is critical to note a fundamental principle here: statutory requirements, such as the Open Meeting Act, override internal bylaws and contractual pressures.

Fact Check: The Association claimed urgency to justify appointments in January 2016, yet a regularly scheduled board meeting was already on the calendar for February 22, 2016. This proves that a legal, public forum for these appointments was less than 30 days away, undermining the "emergency" defense.

3. The Legal Violation: Navigating A.R.S. § 33-1804

Arizona law is unequivocal regarding the transparency of board actions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), all meetings of the association and the board of directors must be open to all members. The Association eventually admitted during legal proceedings that their actions failed to comply with these requirements.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA’s actions illegal based on the following statutory failures:

  • Failure to Meet Emergency Standards: For a meeting to qualify as an "emergency" under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2), the board must provide notice to members "by any means the board deems appropriate" and must "state the emergency" clearly within the meeting minutes. The Respondent failed to provide such notice or documentation.
  • Lack of Broad Exceptions: The ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) does not contain a blanket exception for "emergencies." To bypass the standard notice requirements of the Open Meeting Act, a board must strictly follow the procedural safeguards found in subsection (D).
  • Defining Urgency vs. Convenience: An "emergency" is a legal term of art requiring immediate necessity to protect the community; it is not a subjective tool used for administrative convenience or to bypass the membership.
4. The Ruling: Accountability vs. Intent

In her decision, ALJ Diane Mihalsky granted Summary Judgment to the Petitioners. However, the ruling made a distinct separation between a board's "mistake of law" and "routine bad faith." While the Association was ordered to reimburse the Sellers for their $500 filing fee, the Judge declined to levy additional civil penalties at that time.

The following table compares the Sellers case with the precedent set in Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA:

Feature Legere Case (No. 14F-H1414001) Sellers Case (No. 16F-H1616013)
Nature of Intent Routine and repeated violations for board convenience (conducted via email). Single-instance violation due to exigent circumstances and a mistake of law.
Legal Consequence Civil penalties were levied against the board. No civil penalty at this time; reimbursement of $500 filing fee only.

The Judge reasoned that because the director acted out of a mistaken understanding during a crisis rather than a routine practice of ignoring the law, a civil penalty under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(A) was not yet warranted.

5. Finality and the Path Forward

The timeline of this case highlights the transition of oversight within Arizona’s regulatory agencies. The ALJ's decision was initially transmitted on July 6, 2016, to the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety. However, during the finalization process, these functions were consolidated under the Department of Real Estate.

By August 10, 2016, the Department of Real Estate had taken no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s decision. Consequently, on August 22, 2016, the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department.

In a stern warning to the Association, Judge Mihalsky noted that the HOA is now legally "on notice." The decision explicitly states that if the Association violates A.R.S. § 33-1804 again, "a civil penalty should be imposed at that time," as they can no longer claim ignorance of the statute.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Boards and Homeowners

As an educator in community association law, I advise all boards to distill this case into three primary lessons:

  1. Process Over Expediency: Internal pressures—such as expiring management contracts or bylaw requirements for a minimum number of directors—never justify a violation of state law. Public transparency is the non-negotiable priority.
  2. The "Emergency" High Bar: To bypass standard meeting notices, the situation must be a genuine emergency, and the board must document the emergency in the minutes and provide whatever notice is possible under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)(2).
  3. The Finality of Being "On Notice": Boards often receive leniency for a first-time "mistake of law." However, once an OAH ruling is issued, that leniency vanishes. Future violations by this Association will almost certainly result in aggressive civil penalties.

Homeowners have the statutory right to witness the business of their association. This case reinforces that even in a crisis, the board works for the members, and that work must be done in the light of day.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for The Crossings at Willow Creek HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of electronic transmission
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of final certification
  • Louis Dettorre (Agency Staff)
    Department of Real Estate
    Attn line for Commissioner Lowe
  • F. Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for ALJ
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed transmission for Director Hanchett

Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2015-08-27
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas Satterlee Counsel —
Respondent Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA Counsel Michael Steven Shupe

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles XIII, XIV, XV
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.

Why this result: Petitioner relied on invalid governing documents to assert procedural defects and failed to prove statutory violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Amendment Procedures

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to follow the amendment procedures set forth in the 1992 updated Bylaws/Articles, specifically regarding the format of the ballot. The ALJ found that the 1992 updates were never validly approved by the members, and thus the HOA was not bound by them.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Open Meeting Violation

Petitioner alleged the Board did not provide members sufficient time to review changes or discuss them at the annual meeting. The ALJ found the evidence failed to support a finding that the open meeting requirements were violated.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_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

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:23 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:31 (60.1 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (60.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the case of Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner) vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Respondent), Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS. The dispute centered on whether the Association's Board of Directors violated procedural requirements when amending its governing documents—specifically the Articles of Incorporation, Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), and Bylaws—during an annual meeting on January 29, 2015.

The Petitioner contended that the Board failed to follow amendment procedures established in a 1992 update. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner failed to prove the 1992 update was ever validly adopted by the membership. Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the 1990 CC&Rs remained the governing authority and that the 2015 amendments were legally compliant. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action on October 7, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Validity and Seniority of Governing Documents

The central legal conflict involved determining which version of the Association's documents held authority.

  • The 1990 CC&Rs: Recorded on September 20, 1990, these were established as the last "duly approved" documents. Section XXIII allowed for changes by a majority vote of owners of record.
  • The 1992 Update: Petitioner argued that a document recorded in March 1992 mandated a specific amendment format (citing original sections followed by proposed changes).
  • The Finding: The ALJ determined that recording a document does not equate to valid adoption. Because there was no evidence or certification that the 1992 update was approved by a majority of lot owners—as required by the 1990 CC&Rs—it was deemed invalid.
2. Procedural Compliance in Amendments

The Petitioner’s primary grievance was the "method" of change rather than the substance of the changes. He argued that the Board's failure to provide a side-by-side comparison of old and new text made comparison "virtually impossible."

  • Respondent's Position: The Board argued that because the documents were being "reorganized, revised and updated extensively," a section-by-section comparison was not feasible.
  • Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found that the January 29, 2015, vote complied with the 1990 CC&Rs, which only required a majority agreement of owners, not the specific formatting requested by the Petitioner.
3. Open Meetings and Member Participation

Testimony from the Petitioner and other members (Mr. Simpson and Mr. Koning) suggested a perceived lack of transparency and an aggressive Board "agenda."

  • Member Claims: Allegations included the Board "wanting power," failing to provide sufficient review time, and telling members to "sit down and shut up" during meetings.
  • Statutory Compliance: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona law mandates open meetings and reasonable notice. The evidence showed the Association held three meetings (October 2014, January 8, 2015, and January 29, 2015) where members were invited to review documents and ask questions.
  • The Finding: The ALJ concluded that the Association did not violate open meeting requirements, as the preponderance of evidence showed sufficient opportunity for member engagement.

Important Quotes with Context

On Governing Document Validity

"Petitioner’s complaint asserts that the Association did not follow the requirements for amendments set forth in the 1992 Update; however, Petitioner’s assertion is denied because the 1992 Update is not a valid amendment."

  • Context: Found in the Respondent’s Answer (Section 3.10), this quote encapsulates the core of the Association's defense: a procedural rule cannot be enforced if the document containing it was never legally ratified.
On Administrative Logic and Recording

"Mr. Satterlee asserted that 'no prudent man' would have recorded the updated 1992 Articles of Incorporation unless they had been properly voted on."

  • Context: Petitioner’s testimony (Finding 7). This highlights the Petitioner's reliance on the fact of public recording as proof of validity, an argument the ALJ ultimately rejected in favor of requiring evidence of a membership vote.
On the Burden of Proof

"The preponderance of the evidence failed to support a finding that the March 1992 Changes… were voted on and approved by members of the Association as required by the 1990 CC&RS."

  • Context: Conclusions of Law (Section 5). This demonstrates the legal standard applied: the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the 1992 document's legitimacy and failed to do so.
On State Open Meeting Policy

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided… to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items."

  • Context: A.R.S. § 33-1804(E). This statutory excerpt outlines the legal benchmark the Association had to meet regarding transparency.

Actionable Insights

For Association Governance
  • Verify Document Pedigree: Boards should maintain clear records of membership votes (ballots, certifications, and minutes) for every amendment. As shown in this case, a recorded document may be challenged and nullified decades later if the underlying vote cannot be proven.
  • Comprehensive Overhauls vs. Minor Changes: When documents are "reorganized, revised and updated extensively," the strict "strike-through/underline" format often found in bylaws may be impractical. However, ensuring a majority vote is obtained remains the ultimate safeguard for the legality of the new documents.
  • Documenting Transparency: To defend against claims of "rushed" or "secret" agendas, associations should document all informational sessions, the presence of legal counsel, and the distribution of draft documents well in advance of the final vote.
For Members/Petitioners
  • Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings, the Petitioner must provide more than assertions or logic (e.g., the "prudent man" argument). Tangible evidence of a vote or a certified document is necessary to establish the validity of a governing provision.
  • Standard of Evidence: The "preponderance of the evidence" standard means a claim must be "more likely true than not." Petitioners should focus on factual evidence of statutory or bylaw violations rather than subjective feelings regarding a Board's "power" or "agenda."
Final Disposition Table
Element Status
Petitioner Claim Failure to follow 1992 amendment procedures.
Legal Standard Preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome Petition dismissed; 2015 amendments upheld.
Finality Certified as final agency action on Oct 7, 2015.

Study Guide: Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (No. 15F-H1515008-BFS). It examines the legal dispute regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, the validity of governing document amendments, and the statutory requirements for planned communities in Arizona.

Case Overview and Key Entities

Core Dispute

The Petitioner, Thomas Satterlee, alleged that the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association (the Respondent) violated its own Bylaws and Arizona statutes during a January 2015 vote to rewrite the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), and Bylaws. The central issue was whether the Board followed the correct procedure for amending these documents, specifically regarding the formatting of ballots and the validity of a prior "1992 Update."

Key Entities
Entity Description
Thomas Satterlee The Petitioner; a member and homeowner in Green Valley Vistas.
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA The Respondent; a homeowners' association located in Green Valley, Arizona.
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety The state agency authorized to receive petitions regarding HOA disputes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) The tribunal that heard the case and issued the decision.
M. Douglas The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing.

Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Framework

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner). The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner must persuade the judge that their claims are "more likely true than not."

2. Validity of Governing Documents

The case centered on the hierarchy and validity of different versions of Association documents:

  • 1990 CC&Rs: The original recorded documents which stated that covenants would remain in effect until January 1, 2000, and automatically extend every ten years unless a majority of owners agreed to a change.
  • 1992 Update: A recorded document that Petitioner claimed mandated a specific ballot format (original section followed by the proposed amendment). The court found this update was never properly approved by a vote of the members as required by the 1990 CC&Rs.
  • 2015 Amended Documents: The extensively revised documents adopted by a majority vote on January 29, 2015.
3. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804: Governs open meetings for planned communities. It requires that meetings be open, notices be provided with agendas, and members be allowed to speak before a vote is taken. It emphasizes a policy of transparency.
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: Authorizes homeowners or associations to file petitions for hearings concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08: Outlines the process for the certification of an ALJ decision as a final administrative decision.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

Findings of Fact
  • The Petitioner argued that the 2015 amendment process was invalid because the ballots did not show the original sections being replaced, as allegedly required by the 1992 Update.
  • The Respondent argued the 1992 Update was never validly adopted and that the 2015 changes were necessary to fix "strange things" and mistakes made by previous boards.
  • Witnesses for the Petitioner claimed they were not given enough time to discuss changes and were told to "sit down and shut up" during meetings.
  • Board members testified that three meetings were held to review the changes (October 2014, January 8, 2015, and January 29, 2015) and that the changes were approved by a vast majority of owners.
Conclusions of Law
  1. Failure of Proof on 1992 Update: The Petitioner could not prove that the 1992 Update was ever voted on or approved by the membership. Therefore, its specific requirements for ballot formatting were not legally binding.
  2. Compliance of 2015 Vote: The January 29, 2015, vote complied with the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
  3. No Violation of Open Meeting Laws: The evidence did not support a finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  4. Dismissal: Because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, the petition was dismissed.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who bears the burden of proof in an HOA dispute heard by the OAH?
  • Answer: The party asserting the claim (the Petitioner).
  1. What specific formatting did Thomas Satterlee claim was required for the amendment ballots?
  • Answer: He claimed the ballots must contain the original section proposed to be changed followed by the proposed new section.
  1. Why did the ALJ rule that the "1992 Update" was not a valid amendment?
  • Answer: There was no evidence or certification that it had been voted on or approved by a majority of the members as required by the original 1990 CC&Rs.
  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804, what information must be included in a notice for a special meeting?
  • Answer: The time and place of the meeting, and the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments or changes in assessments.
  1. What happened to the ALJ's decision when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action by October 1, 2015?
  • Answer: The ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Tension Between Recordation and Validity: In this case, the 1992 Update was recorded with the Pima County Recorder, yet the judge found it was not a valid amendment. Analyze the legal distinction between a document being "recorded" and a document being "legally adopted." Why is recordation alone insufficient to make an HOA document binding?
  2. Evaluating Open Meeting Compliance: While the ALJ found no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, witness testimony suggested a contentious environment where members felt silenced. Discuss the "policy of the state" regarding open meetings as defined in the statute. How should boards balance the need for efficient business management with the statutory requirement to allow members to speak?
  3. The Role of Preponderance of Evidence: Explore the impact of the "preponderance of evidence" standard in this case. How did the Petitioner's inability to provide documentation of a 1992 membership vote ultimately determine the outcome of the legal challenge against the 2015 amendments?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
ALJ Administrative Law Judge; an official who presides over hearings and makes legal recommendations in administrative cases.
Bylaws The rules adopted by an organization for its internal governance and management.
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community or neighborhood.
Certification The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final, legally binding action of a state agency.
Member of Record An individual legally recognized as an owner of a lot within the subdivision or association.
Planned Community A real estate development which includes commonly owned property and is governed by an association of owners.
Preponderance of the Evidence A legal standard of proof where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not true.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Green Valley Vistas HOA.
Statute A written law passed by a legislative body.

HOA Governance on Trial: Lessons from the Satterlee vs. Green Valley Vistas Decision

1. Introduction: The Conflict at Country Club Vistas II

On August 14, 2015, the administrative courtroom became a crucible for testing the integrity of community association records. The hearing for Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS brought to light a fundamental tension between a homeowner's expectations and a Board's legal authority. At the heart of the dispute was a challenge by Petitioner Thomas Satterlee, appearing pro se, against the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association (POA), represented by legal counsel Michael Steven Shupe.

Mr. Satterlee sought to invalidate a comprehensive 2015 update to the community's governing documents, arguing that the Board had bypassed mandatory amendment procedures. For governance strategists, this case serves as a masterclass in the "burden of proof" and the critical distinction between a document being merely "recorded" and being legally "valid."

2. The Procedural Dispute: The "1992 Update" Mystery

The Petitioner’s challenge was built upon a document recorded on March 26, 1992, titled the "1992 Update." Mr. Satterlee argued that this document established a rigid protocol for all future amendments. Specifically, he cited Articles XIII, XIV, and XV, which allegedly required the Board to provide a side-by-side comparison—citing original sections followed by proposed changes—on any written ballot.

During testimony, Mr. Satterlee contended that the Board’s failure to provide this "side-by-side" format in the January 2015 update made it "virtually impossible" for members to evaluate the changes. He framed the Board’s actions as a deliberate attempt to limit participation, testifying that they "wanted power" and had "no intention" of allowing meaningful member review. This highlights a common risk for Boards: even when acting in good faith, a failure to address perceived procedural precedents can lead to accusations of bad-faith governance.

3. The Defense: Grounding Governance in Valid Records

Governance professionals must scrutinize the Association’s defense, which successfully dismantled the "recorded document" fallacy. The Respondent argued that the 1992 Update was never a valid amendment. The foundational authority was the original Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded on September 20, 1990.

Section XXIII of the 1990 CC&Rs explicitly stated that the covenants would remain in effect until January 1, 2000, at which point they would automatically extend for successive 10-year periods unless changed by a majority vote. The "smoking gun" in this case was the timeline: the 1992 Update was attempted eight years before the first authorized renewal date.

Furthermore, Board Secretary Linda Clemens testified that exhaustive research yielded no evidence or certification that the membership had ever voted on or approved the 1992 Update. While Mr. Satterlee argued that "no prudent man" would record a document unless it had been properly adopted, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recognized a hard legal truth: Recording is a ministerial act, not a validation of process. A recorded document that lacks proof of proper member adoption is a legal nullity.

4. Legal Analysis: Open Meetings and Member Participation

The case also examined the Association’s adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1804, the statute governing Open Meetings. Arizona policy mandates that meetings be conducted openly and that notices provide "reasonably necessary" information to ensure members have the "ability to speak" before a vote.

The Board established a clear timeline of transparency:

  • October 18, 2014: Initial review meeting with legal counsel.
  • January 8, 2015: Follow-up member meeting.
  • January 29, 2015: The Annual Meeting and final vote.

The hearing included testimony from members Mike Koning and Michael Simpson, who criticized the atmosphere of these meetings. Mr. Koning alleged he was told to "sit down and shut up." However, a strategist’s takeaway here is the distinction between meeting decorum and statutory compliance. While the interactions may have been adversarial, the ALJ found the Board had fulfilled its legal obligation by providing the opportunity to speak. The statute does not mandate a friendly atmosphere; it mandates an open process.

5. The Verdict: Understanding "Preponderance of the Evidence"

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden of proof in an administrative hearing rests on the party asserting the claim. As a pro se petitioner, Mr. Satterlee was required to prove his case by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning he had to demonstrate that his allegations were "more likely true than not."

Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to meet this burden because he could not prove the validity of the very document (the 1992 Update) he sought to enforce. The ALJ's findings were definitive:

  • Validity of the 1990 CC&Rs: These were confirmed as the only duly approved and binding foundational documents.
  • Failure of the 1992 Update: The update was ruled invalid because there was no certification of a member vote and it was attempted prematurely under the 1990 CC&Rs timeline.
  • Legality of the 2015 Vote: The vote on January 29, 2015, was held in full compliance with the requirements of the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
  • Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Association successfully demonstrated that it met the statutory requirements for open meetings and member notice.

The petition was dismissed in its entirety.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Satterlee vs. Green Valley Vistas decision underscores the necessity of professional-grade administrative record-keeping. To avoid the costs and divisiveness of such litigation, associations should implement the following strategies:

Verify Document Validity and the "Chain of Title" Never assume a recorded document is enforceable. Boards must maintain a Permanent Governance File that includes not just the recorded amendment, but the certified election results, meeting minutes, and the specific notice sent to members that authorized the change. This creates a verifiable "Chain of Title" for governance.

Strict Adherence to Procedural Timelines As seen with the January 1, 2000 milestone, CC&Rs often contain "lock-in" periods. Any attempt to amend documents outside of these windows—or without following the specific amendment provisions of the valid foundational document—is void ab initio.

Distinguish Between Decorum and Compliance To withstand challenges under A.R.S. § 33-1804, Boards must ensure the legal requirements of open meetings (notice, agenda, and the opportunity to speak) are documented. While maintaining a professional decorum is a best practice for community harmony, statutory compliance is the Board’s primary shield against legal petitions.

By maintaining clear, verifiable administrative records and grounding all actions in the foundational authority of validly adopted documents, Boards can protect the community from the disruption of "pro se" challenges and ensure the long-term stability of association governance.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Member)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Michael Simpson (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Member for approx 2.5 years; testified regarding insufficient review time
  • Mike Koning (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Testified regarding lack of time to present questions

Respondent Side

  • Michael Steven Shupe (attorney)
    Goldschmidt and Shupe PLLC
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Howard Marvin (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Former President of the Association (2012-2015)
  • Linda Clemens (witness)
    Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
    Board Secretary

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Debra Blake (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Interim Director
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Interim Director; certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/faxed the certification