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
- 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
- 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
- A.R.S. § 33-1804
Analytics Highlights
- 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 – 655766.pdf
18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678304.pdf
18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678305.pdf
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.
