Case Summary
| Case ID |
25F-H025-REL |
| Agency |
ADRE |
| Tribunal |
OAH |
| Decision Date |
2025-05-05 |
| Administrative Law Judge |
Samuel Fox |
| Outcome |
partial |
| Filing Fees Refunded |
$2,000.00 |
| Civil Penalties |
$150.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner |
George Wolchko |
Counsel |
— |
| Respondent |
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association |
Counsel |
Christopher Duren |
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Bylaws, Article III, Section 4
CC&Rs, Section 4.04
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
Outcome Summary
The Petitioner prevailed on three of the four issues: Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents (A.R.S. § 33-1805), Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs (Bylaws/CC&R violation), and operating with fewer than the minimum required number of board members (Bylaws violation). The Petitioner did not prevail on the issue regarding the Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting.
Why this result: Petitioner's request for an “emergency meeting” regarding the wall repair was deemed technically insufficient to qualify as a formal 'special meeting' petition under the Bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents
The HOA failed to provide the Kachina Management contract within the required ten business days for examination or copies, despite numerous requests.
Orders: Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by not making documents available for examination within ten business days of request.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- Bylaws, Article X
- CC&Rs, Section 9.07
Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting
The HOA failed to hold a special meeting requested by a valid petition signed by 25% of members, concerning common wall damage.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
- Bylaws, Article III, Section 4
Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs
The HOA refused to repair a common wall designated as a Common Element after damage was caused by an HOA-sanctioned electrician, failing their maintenance obligation.
Orders: The Board failed to maintain a Common Element (electrical conduit/wall area) in good repair after its hired contractor caused damage, violating Bylaws and CC&R obligations.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- CC&Rs, Section 4.04
- Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3
- A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)
Violations of HOA Elections Procedures and Community Documents (Failure to seat required number of board members)
The HOA Board violated governing documents by operating with only two members, failing to maintain the minimum required number of three directors.
Orders: Respondent violated Bylaws Article IV, Section 1 by not maintaining a Board of Directors composed of no fewer than three persons.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $50.00
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
- Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
- CC&Rs, Section 5.03
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA governance, Document request, Board composition, Common elements maintenance, Filing fee refund, Civil penalty
Additional Citations:
- A.R.S. § 33-1805
- Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
- CC&Rs, Section 4.04
- Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3
- A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Decision Documents
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1268559.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:49 (55.5 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1276022.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:55 (57.0 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1276027.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:00 (7.3 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1282178.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:05 (49.3 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1288973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:09 (52.0 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1290761.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:13 (50.5 KB)
25F-H025-REL Decision – 1301417.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:17 (224.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 25F-H025-REL
Briefing Document: Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key proceedings, arguments, and outcomes of the administrative case George Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association, Case No. 25F-H025-REL, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, George Wolchko, a homeowner, filed a four-issue petition against the Respondent, his Homeowners Association (HOA), alleging violations of Arizona statutes and the community’s governing documents.
The hearing, held on April 14, 2025, resulted in a mixed but largely favorable outcome for the Petitioner. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the HOA in violation on three of the four claims:
1. Failure to Provide Documents: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by not making its management contract with Kachina Management available within the legally mandated ten-business-day period.
2. Failure to Repair Common Wall: The HOA violated its own Bylaws and CC&Rs by failing its duty to maintain and repair a common element (an exterior wall and electrical conduit) after its hired contractor performed improper work, leaving a hole that was not weatherproof.
3. Failure to Fill Board Vacancy: The HOA violated its Bylaws, which mandate a board of no fewer than three members, by operating with only two directors since October 2024.
The HOA prevailed on one claim, Failure to Hold a Special Meeting, as the ALJ determined the Petitioner’s request, while clear in intent, was technically deficient under the Bylaws. The final order deemed Mr. Wolchko the prevailing party on three issues, ordering the HOA to reimburse him $1,500.00 in filing fees, to comply with community documents going forward, and levying a civil penalty of $150.00 against the Association.
Case Overview
Case Number
25F-H025-REL
Jurisdiction
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Hearing Date
April 14, 2025
Petitioner
George Wolchko
Respondent
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
Respondent’s Counsel
Christopher Duren (of Gottlieb Law, PLC)
Key Parties and Witnesses
• George Wolchko: The Petitioner, owner of a home in the Victoria Manor community since 2018 and a former board member (2018-2023). Testified on his own behalf.
• Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association: The Respondent, a planned community in Mesa, Arizona, consisting of eight units and seven owners.
• Joseph Kidd: A current HOA board member, serving since November 2022. Testified for the Respondent.
• Michael Mott: A current HOA board member. Was present at the hearing but did not testify.
• Kachina Management, Inc.: The HOA’s management company, contracted in April 2024.
• Chris Jones: Elected to the board in September 2024 but resigned shortly thereafter, creating the board vacancy at the heart of Claim 4.
Analysis of Claims, Evidence, and Findings
Claim 1: Violation of AZ Law on Delivery of Community Documents
• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and its governing documents by failing to provide a copy of the Kachina Management contract despite numerous requests beginning in May 2024.
• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):
◦ Made his first formal email request for the contract on May 6, 2024. He followed up on May 12 and May 26.
◦ The management company, Kachina, responded on May 29, offering an in-person review on June 3 or 4.
◦ Wolchko testified that driving 45 minutes each way was not a “reasonably available” means of access, especially when a digital copy existed and he travels internationally. He noted the CC&Rs explicitly allow for delivery by mail.
◦ After canceling an in-person appointment due to an emergency, his repeated requests for a digital or mailed copy were met with insistence on in-person review.
◦ The contract was finally produced in February 2025, nearly a year after the initial request and only after the petition was filed.
• Respondent’s Position:
◦ Argued that by offering in-person inspection at their office, they fulfilled their statutory obligation to make records “reasonably available for examination.”
◦ Emails from Kachina Management to Wolchko confirmed they had prepared the documents for his review on the dates offered. They stated Wolchko canceled the appointment and never rescheduled.
• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that more than ten business days passed between the initial request on May 6, 2024, and the date the documents were made available for examination on June 3, 2024. This delay constituted a failure to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Claim 2: Failure to Hold a Special HOA Meeting
• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and its Bylaws by failing to hold a special meeting requested via a valid petition signed by 25% of the members (Wolchko and Terrance Greer).
• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):
◦ Submitted a formal, signed request on June 19, 2024, to hold an “emergency HOA meeting to address repairs on a community common wall.”
◦ He argued this was a valid petition for a special meeting and that the Board ignored it.
◦ The Respondent falsely claimed the meeting was held during the September annual meeting, but the annual meeting notice and minutes contained no mention of the special meeting’s purpose.
• Respondent’s Position:
◦ Argued the request was for an “emergency meeting,” which, under statute, can only be called by the Board of Directors, not by member petition.
◦ Contended there is no provision in the governing documents for 25% of members to call an emergency meeting.
◦ Noted that at the annual meeting in September, Wolchko was explicitly asked if he had any issues to discuss and he declined.
• ALJ’s Finding: No Violation. The ALJ found that although the intent was clearly to request a special meeting, the petition was technically deficient. It used the term “emergency meeting,” did not include a place for the meeting, and did not use the phrase “special meeting.” While a “mere technicality,” this was sufficient to deem the petition ineffective. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on this issue.
Claim 3: Failure to Uphold CCRs Regarding Common Wall Repairs
• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA failed its duty to repair a common wall damaged by its own electrician in February 2024.
• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):
◦ In February 2024, an HOA-hired contractor, Blue State Electric, performed work on an electrical conduit on his building’s exterior wall, which the board had previously designated a “true common area” with shared 50/50 maintenance costs.
◦ The work left a hole filled with foam that was not watertight. His immediate notification on March 15, 2024, was dismissed by board member Joseph Kidd, who claimed the hole was a pre-existing condition exposed by the work and therefore not the HOA’s responsibility.
◦ After months of the board refusing to act, he investigated the box himself, discovering an HOA wire running through his wall. He stated he only touched the box to prove it was an HOA issue after being told to “deal with it myself.”
◦ He disputed the validity of an $1,867 invoice from a second contractor (Canyon State), stating it was solicited by the board to blame him for damage he did not cause.
• Respondent’s Testimony & Evidence (Kidd):
◦ The electrical box and conduit are common elements that serve four buildings.
◦ Wolchko is not a licensed Arizona electrician and had no authorization to touch the common element.
◦ Kidd testified that after Wolchko sent a video of himself pulling the box out, the board hired Canyon State to inspect it.
◦ He acknowledged offering to help Wolchko patch the stucco but denied authorizing any electrical work.
• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ determined that the preponderance of evidence supported that the “Board-hired electrician installed the wrong kind of box and left a section of the wall exposed without proper weather proofing.” Because the wall and electrical conduit were common elements, the board had a duty to maintain them in good repair. The board “declined to correct the problem its contractor caused,” thus violating the Bylaws and CC&Rs.
Claim 4: Failure to Maintain Required Number of Board Members
• Petitioner’s Allegation: The HOA violated its Bylaws (Article IV, Section 1), which require a board of “no less than three (3) persons,” by operating with only two members.
• Petitioner’s Testimony & Evidence (Wolchko):
◦ Following the September 19, 2024 election, three members were elected: Joseph Kidd, Michael Mott, and Chris Jones.
◦ Chris Jones resigned almost immediately, leaving the board with two members.
◦ He argued that while the bylaws state a vacancy “may be filled” by the remaining directors, this grants authority, it does not waive the fundamental requirement of having at least three members.
◦ He noted that two other owners (himself and Terrance Greer), representing 25% of the HOA, were willing to serve, so the vacancy could be filled.
• Respondent’s Testimony & Evidence (Kidd):
◦ Confirmed Jones resigned by early October 2024.
◦ Stated the board reached out to other members who expressed no interest in serving.
◦ Testified that Kachina Management advised them that filling the seat was at their discretion.
◦ The Respondent’s legal argument was that the Bylaw’s use of the word “may” (“may be filled”) makes filling the vacancy optional, not mandatory.
• ALJ’s Finding: Violation Found. The ALJ was “not persuasive” by the Respondent’s argument. The decision states: “This provision allows for the appointment, rather than the election, of a Director to a vacant seat. It does not absolve the Board from having the minimum number of Directors.” The preponderance of evidence established that the HOA violated its Bylaws by not having enough Board members.
Final Decision and Order
• Prevailing Party: George Wolchko was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1, 3, and 4. Victoria Manor was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2.
• Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $1,500.00 for filing fees within thirty days.
• Compliance: The Respondent was directed to “comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.”
• Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $150.00 was levied against the Respondent.
• Decision Date: May 5, 2025.
Study Guide – 25F-H025-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H025-REL”, “case_title”: “George Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-05”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “How long does the HOA have to provide records after I request them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request to examine or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, an association must strictly adhere to a ten-business-day timeframe. In this case, providing access nearly a month after the initial request was found to be a violation of state law.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805 provides an association ‘ten business days to fulfill a request for examination’ or ‘to provide copies of the requested records.’ … More than ten business days passed between May 6, 2024, and June 3, 2024. Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent, through Kachina, failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Can homeowners call an ’emergency meeting’ regarding repairs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Homeowners should request a ‘special meeting’ instead, as ’emergency meetings’ are typically reserved for the Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “While homeowners may petition for a meeting, using the correct terminology is critical. In this case, a petition for an ’emergency meeting’ was deemed ineffective because that specific type of meeting is a Board function, whereas homeowners are authorized to request ‘special meetings’.”, “alj_quote”: “In the context of the communications about this meeting, it is clear that Petitioner was requesting a ‘special meeting’ not an ’emergency meeting,’ which can only be called by the Board.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws”, “topic_tags”: [ “meetings”, “procedure”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What specific details must be included in a petition for a special meeting?”, “short_answer”: “The petition must usually include the date, hour, place of the meeting, and the specific purpose or topic.”, “detailed_answer”: “Failure to include all technical details required by the Bylaws—such as the specific place of the meeting or the correct label (‘special meeting’)—can render a petition invalid, even if it has the required number of signatures.”, “alj_quote”: “The petition did not include a place for the meeting, the topic to be discussed, or the phrase ‘special meeting.’ … Petitioner’s special meeting request did not fully comply with the requirements of the Bylaws. Although it is a mere technicality, it is sufficient to deem the petition for a special meeting ineffective.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article III, Section 4”, “topic_tags”: [ “meetings”, “petitions”, “technicalities” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible if a contractor they hired does poor work on a common element?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The HOA has a duty to maintain common elements and correct problems caused by their contractors.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA-hired contractor installs incorrect equipment or leaves a common element exposed to damage (like weather), the Board cannot decline to fix it. They retain the obligation to maintain the area in good repair.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence supports that the Board-hired electrician installed the wrong kind of box and left a section of the wall exposed without proper weather proofing… The Board declined to correct the problem its contractor caused… The preponderance of the evidence supports that the Board failed to maintain this area in good repair in violation of the Bylaws and CC&R.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 3; CC&R Section 4.05(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “common elements”, “contractors” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board operate with fewer members than the Bylaws require?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the Bylaws state a minimum number of directors, the Board must maintain that number.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Board cannot choose to operate with fewer directors than mandated. In this case, operating with two directors when the Bylaws required a minimum of three was a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Article IV, section 1 of the Bylaws require a Board of no fewer than three people. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Board has consisted of two people for some time… The preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent violated the Bylaws by not having enough Board members.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “board composition”, “bylaws”, “vacancies” ] }, { “question”: “Does a Bylaw saying a vacancy ‘may be filled’ mean the Board can choose to leave a seat empty?”, “short_answer”: “No. That language typically describes the method of filling the seat (appointment) rather than permission to leave it vacant below the required minimum.”, “detailed_answer”: “HOAs cannot use the word ‘may’ in vacancy provisions to justify ignoring minimum board size requirements. The provision allows for appointment rather than election to fill the spot, but does not absolve the Board of the duty to have the required number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent argued that Section 5, Vacancies does not require the Board to fill a vacant position… This argument was not persuasive. This provision allows for the appointment, rather than the election, of a Director to a vacant seat. It does not absolve the Board from having the minimum number of Directors.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “board vacancies”, “bylaws” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $1,500.00 filing fee directly to the homeowners within 30 days because the homeowners prevailed on the majority of their issues.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners the filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “reimbursement”, “fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be fined for these violations?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a civil penalty may be levied, though it may be a nominal amount compared to the filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ has the authority to levy civil penalties for violations of statutes or community documents. In this specific case, a penalty of $150.00 was deemed appropriate.”, “alj_quote”: “A Civil Penalty of $150.00 is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “civil penalty”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 25F-H025-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H025-REL”, “case_title”: “George Wolchko v. Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-05”, “alj_name”: “Samuel Fox”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “How long does the HOA have to provide records after I request them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request to examine or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, an association must strictly adhere to a ten-business-day timeframe. In this case, providing access nearly a month after the initial request was found to be a violation of state law.”, “alj_quote”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805 provides an association ‘ten business days to fulfill a request for examination’ or ‘to provide copies of the requested records.’ … More than ten business days passed between May 6, 2024, and June 3, 2024. Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent, through Kachina, failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Can homeowners call an ’emergency meeting’ regarding repairs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Homeowners should request a ‘special meeting’ instead, as ’emergency meetings’ are typically reserved for the Board.”, “detailed_answer”: “While homeowners may petition for a meeting, using the correct terminology is critical. In this case, a petition for an ’emergency meeting’ was deemed ineffective because that specific type of meeting is a Board function, whereas homeowners are authorized to request ‘special meetings’.”, “alj_quote”: “In the context of the communications about this meeting, it is clear that Petitioner was requesting a ‘special meeting’ not an ’emergency meeting,’ which can only be called by the Board.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws”, “topic_tags”: [ “meetings”, “procedure”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “What specific details must be included in a petition for a special meeting?”, “short_answer”: “The petition must usually include the date, hour, place of the meeting, and the specific purpose or topic.”, “detailed_answer”: “Failure to include all technical details required by the Bylaws—such as the specific place of the meeting or the correct label (‘special meeting’)—can render a petition invalid, even if it has the required number of signatures.”, “alj_quote”: “The petition did not include a place for the meeting, the topic to be discussed, or the phrase ‘special meeting.’ … Petitioner’s special meeting request did not fully comply with the requirements of the Bylaws. Although it is a mere technicality, it is sufficient to deem the petition for a special meeting ineffective.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article III, Section 4”, “topic_tags”: [ “meetings”, “petitions”, “technicalities” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible if a contractor they hired does poor work on a common element?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The HOA has a duty to maintain common elements and correct problems caused by their contractors.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA-hired contractor installs incorrect equipment or leaves a common element exposed to damage (like weather), the Board cannot decline to fix it. They retain the obligation to maintain the area in good repair.”, “alj_quote”: “The preponderance of the evidence supports that the Board-hired electrician installed the wrong kind of box and left a section of the wall exposed without proper weather proofing… The Board declined to correct the problem its contractor caused… The preponderance of the evidence supports that the Board failed to maintain this area in good repair in violation of the Bylaws and CC&R.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 3; CC&R Section 4.05(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “common elements”, “contractors” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board operate with fewer members than the Bylaws require?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the Bylaws state a minimum number of directors, the Board must maintain that number.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Board cannot choose to operate with fewer directors than mandated. In this case, operating with two directors when the Bylaws required a minimum of three was a violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Article IV, section 1 of the Bylaws require a Board of no fewer than three people. The preponderance of the evidence established that the Board has consisted of two people for some time… The preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent violated the Bylaws by not having enough Board members.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article IV, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “board composition”, “bylaws”, “vacancies” ] }, { “question”: “Does a Bylaw saying a vacancy ‘may be filled’ mean the Board can choose to leave a seat empty?”, “short_answer”: “No. That language typically describes the method of filling the seat (appointment) rather than permission to leave it vacant below the required minimum.”, “detailed_answer”: “HOAs cannot use the word ‘may’ in vacancy provisions to justify ignoring minimum board size requirements. The provision allows for appointment rather than election to fill the spot, but does not absolve the Board of the duty to have the required number of members.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent argued that Section 5, Vacancies does not require the Board to fill a vacant position… This argument was not persuasive. This provision allows for the appointment, rather than the election, of a Director to a vacant seat. It does not absolve the Board from having the minimum number of Directors.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal interpretation”, “board vacancies”, “bylaws” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $1,500.00 filing fee directly to the homeowners within 30 days because the homeowners prevailed on the majority of their issues.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners the filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “reimbursement”, “fees”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be fined for these violations?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a civil penalty may be levied, though it may be a nominal amount compared to the filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ has the authority to levy civil penalties for violations of statutes or community documents. In this specific case, a penalty of $150.00 was deemed appropriate.”, “alj_quote”: “A Civil Penalty of $150.00 is found to be appropriate in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “civil penalty”, “enforcement” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- George Wolchko (petitioner)
- Terrance Greer (owner/petitioner supporter)
Signed special meeting petition
Respondent Side
- Christopher Duren (HOA attorney)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
Appeared as counsel for Respondent; referenced as Mr. Duran/Durham
- Joseph Kidd (board member/witness)
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
- Michael Mott (board member)
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
- Benjamin L. Gottlieb (HOA attorney)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
- Mark Rounsaville (HOA representative)
Kachina Management
Also referred to as R. Mark Rounsaville; filed written answer for Respondent
- Chris Jones (former board member)
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
Elected September 2024, resigned shortly thereafter
- Ashley Love (property manager)
Tri City Property Management
- Deja Rabone (property manager)
Tri City Property Management
- Amy (law firm staff)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
- Joshua (law firm staff)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
- Chris (law firm staff)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
Distinct from Christopher Duren
- Karen F. (law firm staff)
GOTTLIEB LAW, PLC
Neutral Parties
- Samuel Fox (ALJ)
OAH
- Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- Alexis Madrid (ALJ)
OAH
Other Participants
- Ron Owen (former board member)
Victoria Manor Management & Property Owners Association
- V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- D. Jones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- L. Abril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- M. Neat (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- L. Recchia (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
- G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
