Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1805

Brian & Rosalie Gordon v. Tucson Estate No. Two Owner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Fox
Outcome Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party regarding Petition Issues 1 and 4, and Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 2 and 3. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners $1,000.00 of the filing fee. Respondent was also directed to comply with Community Documents and A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward. No Civil Penalty was levied.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Gordon and Rosalie Gordon Counsel —
Respondent Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association Counsel Jason Smith

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article 10; Finance Committee rules
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10
A.R.S. § 33-1805; Bylaws Article 10

Outcome Summary

Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party regarding Petition Issues 1 and 4, and Respondent was deemed the prevailing party regarding Issues 2 and 3. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners $1,000.00 of the filing fee. Respondent was also directed to comply with Community Documents and A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward. No Civil Penalty was levied.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof for Complaints 2 and 3, establishing that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 or failed to abide by Community Documents, because Respondent provided all available records or offered additional reports.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Community Documents by not recording and making available the minutes of all Finance Committee Meetings held in 2023.

Petitioners requested minutes for five 2023 Finance Committee Meetings. The Committee rules required minutes of its meetings as a permanent record of its actions. The Respondent failed to record meeting minutes as required.

Orders: Respondent directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Budget Working Papers) available for review.

Petitioners requested copies of Budget Working Papers. Respondent provided all available documents (unapproved budget, general ledger, and draft), maintaining only one version of a proprietary spreadsheet. Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove Respondent did not make records available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (Accounts Payable journal with GL detail) available for review.

Petitioners requested Accounts Payable journal/reports multiple times. Respondent provided copies of available accounts payable reports (check receipts and general ledger). When Respondent later identified an additional detailed report available for purchase, Petitioners refused it.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Violation by not keeping and making financial and other HOA business documentation (IRS Tax filings and backup documentation) available for review.

Petitioners requested IRS Tax filings. Respondent initially provided only photocopies of two pages of the 1120-h form, missing schedules and backup documentation. Respondent failed to provide full tax returns or backup documentation in a timely manner (within ten business days).

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records dispute, Finance Committee minutes, budget working papers, accounts payable journal, IRS tax filings, record retention, A.R.S. § 33-1805 violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • Bylaws Article 10
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1176916.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:58 (53.5 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1198119.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:02 (203.0 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1200350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:24:06 (37.2 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1176916.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:38 (53.5 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1198119.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:41 (203.0 KB)

24F-H043-REL Decision – 1200350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:45 (37.2 KB)

This case involves a records dispute between Petitioners Brian and Rosalie Gordon (members) and the Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association (Respondent/HOA), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Samuel Fox at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on June 21, 2024. The OAH's authority is limited to adjudicating alleged violations of the Arizona Planned Community Statutes (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16) and the HOA's Community Documents.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners filed a four-issue complaint alleging the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 (requiring records to be made available for examination) and the HOA's Bylaws, primarily by failing to provide specific financial documentation requested in 2022 and 2023.

The four contested issues were:

  1. Finance Committee Minutes: Failure to record and make available minutes of 2023 Finance Committee Meetings.
  2. Budget Working Papers: Refusal to provide copies of draft budget working papers.
  3. Accounts Payable (AP) Journal: Failure to provide AP journals with General Ledger (GL) detail.
  4. Tax Filings Backup: Provision of incomplete IRS tax filings (just two pages of the 1120-h form) and lack of supporting backup documentation.

Key Arguments During the Hearing

Petitioners' Position: The Gordons argued that all financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination by any member under A.R.S. § 33-1805. They contended that the HOA’s own Finance Committee policy required minutes of all its meetings as a permanent record of its "actions". They also claimed that essential documents (budget working papers, AP detail, and full tax backups) either existed and were being withheld, or should have been maintained by the HOA according to policy, even if created by its vendor, AAM.

Respondent's Position: The HOA, represented by Jason Smith, argued that the OAH’s jurisdiction is narrow. They maintained that they provided every document they possessed. For the minutes, they argued the Finance Committee is purely advisory, does not take corporate "action," and therefore minutes are not required. For the budget documents (Issue 2) and AP journal (Issue 3), the HOA claimed that the requested specific documents did not exist (as the budget utilized a single constantly updated spreadsheet, and the AP detail was handled by a third party not required to generate a specific report for the HOA). The HOA stressed that they are not required to create or reorganize information to satisfy a homeowner's request.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ issued a decision on July 10, 2024, finding that the Petitioners prevailed on Issues 1 and 4, while the Respondent prevailed on Issues 2 and 3.

Legal Conclusions:

  • Issue 1 (Finance Minutes): VIOLATION FOUND. The HOA failed to abide by its Community Documents. Although the Finance Committee is advisory, its rules established that its activities (advising, reviewing, making recommendations) constituted "actions" for which minutes were required to be kept.
  • Issue 4 (Tax Filings Backup): VIOLATION FOUND. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the preponderance of evidence showed Petitioners did not receive the complete tax returns or backup documentation in a timely manner (within the required ten business days of their October requests), even though the records were eventually available or accessible through the HOA’s agents.
  • Issues 2 & 3 (Working Papers & AP Journal): NO VIOLATION FOUND. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof, noting that A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the Bylaws do not require the HOA to create documents that it does not possess in response to a request. Respondent was found to have provided all available records related to these complaints.

Order:

The Respondent was ordered to comply with its Community Documents and the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward. The

Questions

Question

Is my HOA required to keep minutes for advisory committees?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community documents (like a committee charter or policy) state that minutes must be kept.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA argues a committee is only 'advisory' and doesn't take 'actions,' the ALJ ruled that activities like advising, reviewing, and recommending constitute 'actions' within the scope of the committee's duties. Therefore, if the committee's rules say minutes must be kept, failing to do so violates the community documents.

Alj Quote

When the Committee advised, assisted, reviewed, analyzed, recommended, or otherwise took action within the parameters of its Responsibilities and Duties, that was an 'action' by the Committee as established by the Board.

Legal Basis

Community Documents / Bylaws

Topic Tags

  • meeting minutes
  • committees
  • record keeping

Question

Can I demand that the HOA create a specific report to answer my financial questions?

Short Answer

No, the HOA is not required to create new documents that do not already exist.

Detailed Answer

The law requires the HOA to make existing records available for examination. It does not compel the HOA to generate new reports, compile data in a specific format, or create documents they do not currently possess to satisfy a homeowner's request.

Alj Quote

It does not require Respondent to provide documents that it does not have nor does it require Respondent to create documents in response to a request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • document creation
  • requests

Question

If the management company holds the records, can the HOA claim they don't have them?

Short Answer

No, records held by the management company are considered to be in the HOA's custody.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ruled that documents in the custody of the management agent (e.g., AAM) are legally in the custody of the HOA. The HOA is obligated to provide them to members upon request.

Alj Quote

Documents in the custody of AAM are in the custody of Respondent, and Respondent is obligated to provide them to members under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • management company
  • record custody
  • access to records

Question

Are personal notes taken by committee members considered official HOA records?

Short Answer

No, personal notes or drafts on personal devices are generally not HOA records.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that notes, drafts, edits, or comments made by committee members on their personal versions of documents were not records of the Association if the Association did not collect, track, or record them.

Alj Quote

Any notes, drafts, edits, or comments that committee members made on their personal versions were not records of Respondent, which did not collect, track, or record the committee members’ individual notes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • personal notes
  • official records
  • committees

Question

Does the HOA have to provide previous drafts of a budget or 'working papers'?

Short Answer

Only if they actually kept them. If they overwrite the file, they don't have to produce previous versions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA used a single spreadsheet that was updated and overwritten as the budget process moved forward. The ALJ ruled that since the HOA did not maintain multiple versions, they were not required to produce previous drafts they no longer possessed.

Alj Quote

Respondent only maintained one version of the spreadsheet, and when changes were made, the spreadsheet was updated… Petitioners failed to meet their burden to support that Respondent did not make records available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • budget
  • draft documents
  • record retention

Question

Is providing the first two pages of a tax return sufficient to fulfill a records request?

Short Answer

No, the HOA must provide the complete tax return and backup documentation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation for providing only the first two pages of Form 1120-H. The homeowner was entitled to the complete tax form and the backup documentation (which the management company or CPA had access to) within 10 days.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Petitioners did not receive full copies of Respondent’s tax returns or backup documentation for the tax returns within ten days of their respective October requests.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • tax returns
  • financial records
  • transparency

Question

Can the ALJ enforce IRS regulations or the Nonprofit Corporation Act during this hearing?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to Planned Community statutes and Community Documents.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly stated that the tribunal is not authorized to adjudicate complaints arising from the Arizona Nonprofit Corporations Act or IRS regulations, only Title 33 (Planned Communities) and the specific HOA documents.

Alj Quote

This Tribunal is not authorized to adjudicate complaints arising from the Arizona Nonprofit Corporations Act, Internal Revenue Service regulations, or other laws or regulations.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • legal authority
  • IRS
  • nonprofit act

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowners prevailed on two of their four issues, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay the homeowners $1,000.00 (half of the $2,000 filing fee).

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
24F-H043-REL
Case Title
Brian Gordon and Rosalie Gordon v. Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association
Decision Date
2024-07-10
Alj Name
Samuel Fox
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is my HOA required to keep minutes for advisory committees?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community documents (like a committee charter or policy) state that minutes must be kept.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA argues a committee is only 'advisory' and doesn't take 'actions,' the ALJ ruled that activities like advising, reviewing, and recommending constitute 'actions' within the scope of the committee's duties. Therefore, if the committee's rules say minutes must be kept, failing to do so violates the community documents.

Alj Quote

When the Committee advised, assisted, reviewed, analyzed, recommended, or otherwise took action within the parameters of its Responsibilities and Duties, that was an 'action' by the Committee as established by the Board.

Legal Basis

Community Documents / Bylaws

Topic Tags

  • meeting minutes
  • committees
  • record keeping

Question

Can I demand that the HOA create a specific report to answer my financial questions?

Short Answer

No, the HOA is not required to create new documents that do not already exist.

Detailed Answer

The law requires the HOA to make existing records available for examination. It does not compel the HOA to generate new reports, compile data in a specific format, or create documents they do not currently possess to satisfy a homeowner's request.

Alj Quote

It does not require Respondent to provide documents that it does not have nor does it require Respondent to create documents in response to a request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • document creation
  • requests

Question

If the management company holds the records, can the HOA claim they don't have them?

Short Answer

No, records held by the management company are considered to be in the HOA's custody.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ruled that documents in the custody of the management agent (e.g., AAM) are legally in the custody of the HOA. The HOA is obligated to provide them to members upon request.

Alj Quote

Documents in the custody of AAM are in the custody of Respondent, and Respondent is obligated to provide them to members under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • management company
  • record custody
  • access to records

Question

Are personal notes taken by committee members considered official HOA records?

Short Answer

No, personal notes or drafts on personal devices are generally not HOA records.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that notes, drafts, edits, or comments made by committee members on their personal versions of documents were not records of the Association if the Association did not collect, track, or record them.

Alj Quote

Any notes, drafts, edits, or comments that committee members made on their personal versions were not records of Respondent, which did not collect, track, or record the committee members’ individual notes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • personal notes
  • official records
  • committees

Question

Does the HOA have to provide previous drafts of a budget or 'working papers'?

Short Answer

Only if they actually kept them. If they overwrite the file, they don't have to produce previous versions.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA used a single spreadsheet that was updated and overwritten as the budget process moved forward. The ALJ ruled that since the HOA did not maintain multiple versions, they were not required to produce previous drafts they no longer possessed.

Alj Quote

Respondent only maintained one version of the spreadsheet, and when changes were made, the spreadsheet was updated… Petitioners failed to meet their burden to support that Respondent did not make records available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • budget
  • draft documents
  • record retention

Question

Is providing the first two pages of a tax return sufficient to fulfill a records request?

Short Answer

No, the HOA must provide the complete tax return and backup documentation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the HOA in violation for providing only the first two pages of Form 1120-H. The homeowner was entitled to the complete tax form and the backup documentation (which the management company or CPA had access to) within 10 days.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Petitioners did not receive full copies of Respondent’s tax returns or backup documentation for the tax returns within ten days of their respective October requests.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • tax returns
  • financial records
  • transparency

Question

Can the ALJ enforce IRS regulations or the Nonprofit Corporation Act during this hearing?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to Planned Community statutes and Community Documents.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge explicitly stated that the tribunal is not authorized to adjudicate complaints arising from the Arizona Nonprofit Corporations Act or IRS regulations, only Title 33 (Planned Communities) and the specific HOA documents.

Alj Quote

This Tribunal is not authorized to adjudicate complaints arising from the Arizona Nonprofit Corporations Act, Internal Revenue Service regulations, or other laws or regulations.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • legal authority
  • IRS
  • nonprofit act

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the discretion to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowners prevailed on two of their four issues, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay the homeowners $1,000.00 (half of the $2,000 filing fee).

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
24F-H043-REL
Case Title
Brian Gordon and Rosalie Gordon v. Tucson Estate No. Two Owner's Association
Decision Date
2024-07-10
Alj Name
Samuel Fox
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Gordon (petitioner)
  • Rosalie Gordon (petitioner)
  • James Tilly (witness)
    Member of Respondent who testified.
  • Leonard Vidovic (witness)
    Also referred to as Leonard Judbec.

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
    SMITH & WAMSLEY, PLLC
  • Sean K. Moynihan (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
  • Mandy Bates (property manager)
    Associated Asset Management
    Community Manager for Tucson Estates No. Two Owner's Association.
  • Trudy Peterson (finance chair)
    Treasurer and Finance Chair.
  • Rose Spank (board member)
    HOA President in 2012.
  • Janelle Richmond (board member)
    HOA Secretary in 2012.
  • Sharon Matthews (AAM staff)
    AAM
    Referenced in emails regarding accounting procedures (also referred to as Karen Matthews).

Neutral Parties

  • Samuel Fox (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the decision and hearing.
  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed the initial Order Setting Hearing.
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed on transmission/service list.

Tom Barrs V. Desert Ranch Homeowners Assocation (ROOT)

Posted on by
📋 Consolidated cases — This decision resolved 2 consolidated dockets: 22F-H2222050-REL, 22F-H2222054-REL.

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222050-REL
Agency Arizona Department of Real Estate
Tribunal OAH and Maricopa County Superior Court judicial review
Decision Date 2024-08-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark; Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish
Outcome Superior Court reversed the ADRE decision in part and remanded; Barrs prevailed on disclosure of member names and physical property addresses, but not emails/phone numbers, and fees/costs were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded —
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel —
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805; A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)

Outcome Summary

The original OAH/ADRE result denied the membership-roster claim, but Maricopa County Superior Court case LC2023-000179-001 changed the result. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish held that HOA member names and physical property addresses are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and must be disclosed as standard association/corporate records. The court reaffirmed the reversal on August 2, 2024, denied attorneys fees and court costs, and remanded the matter to ADRE.

Why this result: The HOA position failed in Superior Court because the court distinguished public-facing names and property addresses from more private email addresses and phone numbers, and found the ALJ had treated the entire roster as personal information too broadly.

Key Issues & Findings

Membership roster and association records

Tom Barrs requested the HOA membership list and other association records. The HOA and its management company refused to provide the owner directory, and the ALJ initially treated the membership list as protected personal information.

Orders: The Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the ADRE final decision in part and remanded. It held that names and physical property addresses in a membership roster are standard corporate records and are not exempt personal records under A.R.S. § 33-1805, while email addresses and phone numbers may be withheld.

Disposition: Petitioner prevailed on the core membership-roster issue in Superior Court; emails and phone numbers remained protected.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
  • LC2023-000179-001

Meeting recordings and other document requests

Barrs also challenged meeting-recording practices and sought additional EDC, contract, financial, and board-communication records.

Orders: The administrative decision granted some record-request issues in part and denied others. The later Superior Court appeal focused primarily on the membership-list ruling.

Disposition: Mixed administrative result; not the primary basis for the Superior Court reversal.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Attorney fees and court costs after appeal

After the Superior Court reversal, Barrs requested $9,309.57 in attorneys fees and costs, including limited-scope legal work, transcript costs, filing fees, and other expenses.

Orders: On August 2, 2024, the Superior Court reaffirmed the reversal and remand but denied attorneys fees and court costs, finding that the statutory fee provision did not apply to this ADRE administrative-review path.

Disposition: Fees and costs denied; final appealable order entered and the matter remanded to ADRE.

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
  • Rule 31.2, Arizona Supreme Court Rules
  • Boydston v. Strole Development Co.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records requests, membership roster, A.R.S. § 33-1805, superior court reversal, remand
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 10-11601(C)
  • A.R.S. § 10-11604(C)
  • LC2023-000179-001

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:46 (52.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:48 (55.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:51 (295.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:53 (54.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:55 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:57 (55.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T18:59:59 (61.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:02 (8.5 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:04 (45.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 03a70f36-3fe1-495d-9698-092eb794703c.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:07 (162.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 04b57097-5fc0-448c-86d7-da560c293f56.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:09 (219.9 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 06ae9cf4-2a95-4470-933d-cf153537b34f.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:11 (31.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 227ae74d-d75f-4dbe-8efd-f31ccdaaaff4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:18 (6019.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 44e68fd7-82f7-4ba9-a222-19fc3ea95099.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:20 (297.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 54f7ba97-0e3d-461a-bd22-223487748254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:22 (73.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 67a7a92a-c6b5-4184-854f-edc111568186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:24 (110.1 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 6f9d74b4-927a-473c-a08b-aa3db38663c9.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:26 (19.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 704c788f-9635-40d1-8e9a-b853f3ad3d32.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:30 (1546.6 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 72298af4-b36d-4dbd-a2da-f2f038e1cc33.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:32 (125.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 7d88890f-5ea3-4157-92f9-9274626b6827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:34 (19.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 912071f2-a752-478c-8dd7-9e0ed1f30f80.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:36 (129.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9b6c2ad6-c4f8-4f22-91c3-4ebe8b783341.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:38 (578.0 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 9f123523-7d29-46d2-9826-fd908672d67d.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:41 (78.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – Briefing Document_ Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:43 (107.3 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a563ff2f-ce40-4e22-b960-6422ef07a9e6.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:48 (4194.2 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – a98636b9-cc47-4755-bc35-41f84a3be77a.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:50 (38.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – b6eba1f1-989f-4bd9-9766-ef77ad5f5dd4.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:52 (221.4 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – c60149f0-4a01-4d88-bf4a-466ae16701fb.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:55 (1659.8 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – cb68c130-ddc1-4500-a759-f35d321f2553.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:00:57 (57.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – e98b8ade-a214-49c3-92af-f18449da682e.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:02 (4258.7 KB)

22F-H2222050-REL Decision – eff1f8cd-7fc3-4daa-b31b-4601e012458b.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-15T19:01:05 (166.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

The litigation between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee) involves a protracted dispute over Association records, meeting recording integrity, and the production of homeowner information. The matter, overseen by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and subsequently appealed to the Maricopa County Superior Court, centers on actions taken by a previous Board of Directors and their management company, AAM.

Following an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in February 2023, the Association underwent a significant leadership transition. A new Board was elected in April 2023, and the Association moved to a self-managed model after AAM declined to renew its contract. Despite extensive settlement negotiations between the new Board and Barrs, reaching a final resolution proved unsuccessful due to disagreements over the correction of the official record and the payment of attorney fees. The Association currently faces depleted cash reserves, having spent over $29,000 on this matter, and continues to manage ongoing record requests and legal challenges from the Petitioner.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Integrity of Meeting Recordings and Documentation

A central point of contention is whether Association meeting recordings were intentionally edited or merely incomplete due to human error. Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that while recordings might have been stopped and restarted—specifically during an incident in September 2020 involving Mr. Barrs—she never edited any files.

  • Petitioner's Argument: Barrs contends that the recordings are "clearly cut" and that portions discussing him or potential police involvement were intentionally removed. He argues the missing segments (approximately 30 minutes of a one-hour meeting) violate A.R.S. 33-1804(A).
  • Respondent's Argument: The management company maintains that "forgetting to restart a recording is [not] the same thing as editing a recording." They attribute gaps to technical issues or the "human" element of management.
2. Information Access and Privacy Policies

The dispute highlights a conflict between a homeowner's right to access records and the Association's duty to protect private information.

  • Management Files vs. Board Records: Lori Loch-Lee testified that she maintains internal AAM files for "correspondence homeowners" to which the Board has no control or access. She asserted that these are "personal emails" used for day-to-day business and that no policy requires their production to the Board or homeowners.
  • Confidentiality Training: Management applied professional training to withhold homeowner phone numbers and emails, treating them as "private information" protected from production requests.
  • The Membership Roster: Barrs alleged AAM refused to provide the roster within the statutory 10-business-day deadline. While the new Board eventually provided access, Barrs continues to seek a formal acknowledgement that the refusal by the prior management was a violation of A.R.S. 33-1805.
3. Transition to Self-Management and Financial Impact

The Association has experienced a complete shift in its operational structure as a direct result of the ongoing litigation.

  • Management Termination: AAM chose not to renew the management contract due to the "time and hassle" and "continued legal escalations" associated with the Barrs case.
  • Financial Depletion: The Association is currently without cash reserves. To remain solvent, the Board had to borrow $8,000 from the "711 Road Reserves Fund" to cover the General Fund's obligations.
  • Volunteer Burden: The Board members (collectively 33 members in the HOA) have spent "hundreds of hours" managing the case without professional counsel, as they lack the resources to retain an attorney.
4. Settlement Impasse and Attorney Fee Disputes

Extensive negotiations occurred between June and December 2023, but ultimately failed over two primary issues: the correction of the ALJ's findings of fact and the reimbursement of legal costs.

  • Correction of Findings: Barrs insisted on a "line-by-line" correction of the ALJ's February 21, 2023, decision, claiming it was based on "false assertions" by previous counsel. The Board felt uncomfortable changing the ALJ's decision, particularly findings related to a prior Board they did not represent.
  • Attorney Fees: Barrs sought $9,309.57 in costs and fees. The Association argues that because they offered a $2,000 settlement on September 8, 2023, which Barrs rejected, he is barred from seeking fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01(a) as the final judgment (which awarded no damages) was less favorable to him than their offer.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Do you believe that forgetting to restart a recording is the same thing as editing a recording? Absolutely not." Lori Loch-Lee (AAM) testifying about the gaps in the September 2020 meeting audio.
"Homer information of emails and phone numbers are considered private information and I've learned that from different seminars and conferences… my training said not to produce that information." Lori Loch-Lee explaining why homeowner contact details were withheld from Barrs' record requests.
"I am their community manager. I'm not an agent." Loch-Lee's response when questioned about her official capacity and duty to the Association regarding the retention of unedited recordings.
"The Board has been forced to do this, as this litigation has left us without cash reserves." From the Association’s response to the Superior Court, explaining why they are appearing pro se.
"I've said repeatedly that I want to be a part of that positive, forward motion… I'm wondering if it may be helpful… for you to join us during a portion of an Exec Session." Board President Nan Wickman in an email to Tom Barrs (July 6, 2023) attempting to find a settlement path.
"The Board would prefer that this legal action ends here, so that we can spend our volunteered time to get the HOA back to functioning and dealing with all its business properly." Final statement in the Association's legal response regarding the emotional and operational toll of the case.

Timeline of Key Events (2023-2024)

Date Event
January 9-10, 2023 OAH Hearing conducted by ALJ Jenna Clark.
February 21, 2023 ALJ Decision issued regarding the dockets.
April 29, 2023 Annual Member Meeting; new Board of Directors elected (Nan Wickman, Michael Olley, Cynthia Dryden, etc.).
May 23, 2023 Tom Barrs files Appeal for Judicial Review.
June 15, 2023 Court orders case stayed for 90 days pending settlement.
July 13, 2023 Board proposes settlement: $1,000 payment to Barrs, no fault admitted, release of claims.
August 22, 2023 Barrs counters with an agreement requiring a $2,000 payment and agreement to all his corrections of the ALJ decision.
September 8, 2023 Board offers $2,000 settlement; Barrs rejects the amended agreement.
September 15, 2023 Court lifts the stay; litigation resumes.
April 4, 2024 Court finds in favor of Appellant (Barrs) and allows for an affidavit to obtain fees.
May 24, 2024 Association files response questioning the validity and substantiation of Barrs' $9,309.57 fee request.

Actionable Insights

  • Documentation Standards: The Association should implement formal policies for recording meetings, including a requirement that any pauses or technical restarts be explicitly noted in the official meeting minutes to prevent allegations of "editing."
  • Management Transition Audit: For self-managed HOAs, a comprehensive audit of all records formerly held by third-party management (like AAM) is necessary to ensure the Board has full custody of "statutory agent" files vs. "personal/internal" management files.
  • Financial Contingency Planning: The depletion of cash reserves for legal fees suggests a need for the Association to evaluate its D&O (Directors and Officers) insurance coverage and legal defense funds for future disputes.
  • Record Request Protocols: Given the Petitioner’s ongoing "frivolous requests" (as characterized by the Board), the Association must maintain a strict, standardized response log that tracks response times and costs incurred per A.R.S. 33-1805 to provide a defense against claims of non-compliance.

Study Guide: Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and administrative matters between Tom Barrs (Petitioner/Appellant) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee). It synthesizes information from hearing transcripts, board meeting minutes, and court filings to outline the core conflicts regarding association management, record-keeping, and litigation.

I. Key Concepts and Themes

1. Management and Agency

A central point of contention in the proceedings is the role of the management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), and its relationship with the Board.

  • Capacity of the Community Manager: Lori Loch-Lee, the community manager from AAM, testified that she acted in a limited capacity as defined by a management agreement. While she acknowledged AAM is a "statutory agent," she distinguished her role as a community manager from that of a general agent of the board.
  • Transition to Self-Management: Following the non-renewal of AAM’s contract (attributed by the Board to the ongoing litigation), the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (DRHOA) transitioned to a self-managed model in early 2023.
2. Record-Keeping and Transparency

The dispute involves allegations of missing or edited evidence, specifically regarding meeting recordings and homeowner correspondence.

  • Editing vs. Omission: A primary legal argument involves whether "forgetting to restart" a recording constitutes "editing." Loch-Lee maintained that pausing a meeting (e.g., due to an interruption) is not the same as editing the record.
  • Access to Records: Tom Barrs sought access to membership rosters and homeowner information. The association initially resisted, citing training that homeowner emails and phone numbers are "private information."
  • Personal vs. Association Files: Loch-Lee testified that her day-to-day "correspondence homeowners" file was an internal AAM file, not accessible or controllable by the Board.
3. Litigation and Settlement Dynamics

The case moved from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to the Superior Court of Maricopa County.

  • The ALJ Decision: An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on February 21, 2023, which Barrs subsequently sought to appeal or amend.
  • Settlement Negotiations: Numerous attempts were made to reach a "Joint Stipulation" to correct alleged errors in the ALJ’s findings of fact. Key issues in settlement included the payment of filing fees, the release of liability for current/former board members, and the accuracy of the membership roster.
  • Recovery of Fees (ARS 12-341.01): The Association argued that Barrs was ineligible for attorney fees because he rejected a settlement offer ($2,000) that was more favorable than the eventual court determination.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who represented Tom Barrs at the January 2023 hearing?
  • Answer: Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
  1. What was the specific AAM policy regarding recording at their business office?
  • Answer: No tape or visual recording was permitted at the AAM business office during record inspections or meetings.
  1. According to Lori Loch-Lee, what two categories of information are considered "private" and excluded from general homeowner requests?
  • Answer: Homeowner email addresses and phone numbers.
  1. What was the "711 Road Reserves Fund" loan used for?
  • Answer: An $8,000 loan was taken from the 711 Road Reserves Fund to the General Fund to maintain solvency and meet the 2023 budget.
  1. Why did the Board claim they had to become self-managed?
  • Answer: Their management company (AAM) chose not to renew the contract due to the continued legal escalations by Tom Barrs.
  1. What happened during the September 15, 2020, meeting recording?
  • Answer: The recording was stopped and restarted twice (at approximately 17:20 and 31:09) following interruptions or rucksacks involving Mr. Barrs.
  1. What was the total amount Tom Barrs claimed for "Limited Scope Representation" from Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.?
  • Answer: $5,480.00.
  1. Who were the four new board members elected on April 29, 2023?
  • Answer: Nan Wickman (President), Michael Olley (Vice President), Cynthia Dryden (Secretary/Treasurer), and David Hughes (At-large). Susan Klinefelter was also elected as an at-large member.

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Ethics of Administrative Record-Keeping: Discuss the implications of a community manager "forgetting" to record portions of a board meeting. Does the distinction between "omission" and "editing" hold legal weight in the context of HOA transparency requirements under Arizona law?
  2. The Impact of Litigation on Small Communities: Using the Desert Ranch HOA as a case study, analyze how prolonged legal disputes between a single homeowner and an association can affect the financial health (e.g., depletion of cash reserves) and the volunteer spirit of the board (e.g., mass resignations).
  3. Privacy vs. Disclosure: Evaluate the conflict between a homeowner's right to access association records (ARS 33-1805) and the management’s duty to protect homeowner privacy (emails and phone numbers). Where should the line be drawn for an "unredacted" membership roster?
  4. Settlement and Good Faith: Analyze the timeline of settlement offers between Barrs and the Board. Did the insistence on correcting the "Findings of Fact" in the ALJ decision, rather than focusing on monetary or policy outcomes, indicate a lack of "good faith" in negotiations as alleged by the Association?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
AAM Associated Asset Management; the professional management company previously contracted by the Desert Ranch HOA.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact in disputes involving state agencies (in this case, the Arizona Department of Real Estate).
ARS 12-341.01 An Arizona statute regarding the recovery of attorney fees in contested actions arising out of a contract.
Joint Stipulation A formal agreement between opposing parties to recognize certain facts as true or to follow a specific course of action in a legal case.
Limited Scope Representation A legal arrangement where an attorney handles only specific parts of a case rather than providing full representation.
Minute Entry A brief written record of the court's actions, orders, or findings during a specific proceeding.
Pro Se Representing oneself in a legal proceeding without the assistance of an attorney.
Statutory Agent An entity (like AAM) designated to receive legal service of process and official communications on behalf of a corporation or association.
Stay Pending Settlement A temporary suspension of court deadlines and proceedings to allow parties to finalize a settlement agreement.

Behind the Minutes: Lessons in Transparency and the Cost of HOA Litigation

1. Introduction: When Governance Becomes a Legal Battlefield

Thirty-three homes, four years of litigation, and a $29,000 legal bill—how did the Desert Ranchers Association find itself in a war over a Zoom recording?

In community governance, the distance between a minor administrative oversight and a catastrophic financial burden is often shorter than most boards realize. The matter of Tom Barrs vs. Desert Ranchers Association serves as a stark case study in the high price of protracted conflict. For an association of only 33 members, the $29,000 spent on this single legal matter (excluding the Petitioner’s personal costs) represents a staggering per-household burden of nearly $880. This dispute, which centered on records requests, membership rosters, and the integrity of meeting recordings from 2020 through early 2024, offers critical lessons for any board seeking to practice "preventative governance."

2. The "Recording" Debate: Human Error vs. Intentional Editing

A cornerstone of this litigation was a technical dispute regarding the September 2020 board meeting recording. The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, alleged that the recording was intentionally edited to omit sensitive discussions. Community Manager Lori Loch-Lee testified that while technical gaps existed, they were the result of "stops and starts" caused by human error or technical interruptions.

The technical timestamps are revealing: the recording stopped at the 17-minute and 31-minute marks. Critically, the transcript indicates that at these specific junctions, the board's conversation shifted to whether they should call the police on Mr. Barrs. This context fueled the Petitioner's allegations of intentional editing; it wasn't just any segment that was missed, but a highly sensitive discussion regarding the Petitioner himself. Loch-Lee maintained that as a "human," she simply forgot to restart the recording after interruptions.

Spotlight: Is It Editing or Forgetting? The Distinction: Management distinguished between editing (altering existing footage) and forgetting (failing to capture a segment). The Legal Risk: In the eyes of a governance expert, "selective recording"—even if unintentional—creates a "transparency gap" that is nearly impossible to defend in court once personal animosity is involved.

3. The Transparency Gap: Internal Files and Agent Boundaries

The case highlighted a significant point of confusion in the HOA industry: the legal status of the management company. During testimony, Lori Loch-Lee initially admitted, "AAM is a statutory agent. Yes." However, when pressed by counsel, she later asserted, "I am their community manager. I’m not an agent."

This contradiction illustrates the tension between a management firm acting as an agent of record and an individual manager acting as a representative of that firm. Loch-Lee argued that her "day-to-day" emails were personal business files kept in an internal AAM file, to which the Board had "absolutely no" control or access. This created a wall between the homeowners and the communications used to conduct association business—a wall that often triggers litigation when members feel that information is being shielded behind "limited capacity" management agreements.

4. The High Price of Standing on Principle

The dispute did more than deplete the association's bank account; it broke the community's leadership structure.

The Financial and Human Toll

Category Impact Details
Legal Spending Over $29,000 spent by the HOA (nearly $880 per household), excluding Tom Barrs' personal costs.
Administrative Burden Hundreds of hours of volunteer time lost to hearings, document preparation, and executive sessions.
Human Cost Resignations of Board members Cynthia Dryden and Nan Wickman due to "mental anguish"; other owners refused to join the "depleted Board" because of the litigation.
Management Impact AAM terminated the contract due to the "time and hassle" represented by the dispute, forcing the HOA into a high-risk self-managed model.
5. The Settlement Slog: A Timeline of Negotiation

Despite the Board’s eventual desire for "closure," the litigation continued long after the original Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision. A key governance failure identified here is that providing the requested records does not always end the conflict if the "integrity of the record" remains at issue.

  • April 29, 2023: New Secretary Cynthia Dryden provides Tom Barrs access to the membership roster. Despite this, Barrs files an appeal on May 23.
  • June 2023: Barrs provides a settlement outline requesting line-by-line corrections to the ALJ’s "findings of fact."
  • July 2023: The HOA offers a $1,000 reimbursement for filing fees with a "no fault" clause.
  • September 2023: The HOA increases the offer to $2,000. Barrs rejects it, insisting on correcting the ALJ record.
  • December 6, 2023: The parties reach a tentative "no-cost" agreement regarding the roster, yet they are unable to agree on the specific settlement language.
  • April 2024: Following a court ruling in Barrs' favor, he submits a final claim for $9,309.57 in costs and fees.
6. Conclusion: Moving Forward and Key Takeaways

Today, the Desert Ranchers Association is self-managed—a state of transition born of necessity rather than choice. When a community becomes a high-liability client, professional management firms often walk away, leaving volunteers to navigate complex legal and financial waters alone. The failure to reach a "no-cost resolution" earlier in the process underscores the danger of allowing a dispute over "findings of fact" to outweigh the pragmatic need for community stability.

Governance Gold Nuggets

  1. Maintain Unedited Recordings: To avoid allegations of tampering, ensure recordings are continuous. If a meeting is paused, the chair must announce the pause and the resumption on the record, with corresponding notes in the minutes.
  2. Adopt a Records Retention and Production Policy: Minimize the "transparency gap" by defining the scope of association records versus management business files before a dispute arises.
  3. Ensure Roster Transparency: Per ARS 33-1805, membership rosters are a fundamental record. Access should be proactive and standardized to prevent "withholding" claims.
  4. Prioritize Early Resolution: The escalation from a $1,000 offer to a $29,000 bill is a cautionary tale. Boards must identify when a dispute has shifted from "governance" to "animosity" and seek mediation before reserves are depleted.

Ultimately, the goal of a board is the preservation of the community. In Desert Ranchers, the cost of the "battle" was the very peace and professional oversight the board was elected to protect.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (Petitioner)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Homeowner and member of the association
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel for Petitioner)
    Dessaules Law Group
  • Daryl Manhart (Limited Scope Counsel)
    Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
    Retained for the appeal brief
  • Aaron Duell (Limited Scope Counsel)
    Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
    Retained for the appeal brief

Respondent Side

  • B. Austin Baillio (Counsel for Respondent)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Brian Schoeffler (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, Secretary/Treasurer
  • Gerard Mangieri (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, President
  • Lori Loch-Lee (Witness)
    Associated Asset Management
    Community Manager
  • Monte E. Matz (Witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Board Member, Vice President
  • Michelle Aerni (Witness)
    Subpoenaed witness
  • Cynthia Dryden (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected as Secretary/Treasurer in 2023
  • Nan Wickman (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected as President in 2023
  • David Hughes (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected in 2023
  • Michael Olley (Board Member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Elected in 2023
  • Amanda Shaw (Statutory Agent)
    Associated Asset Management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
    Presiding judge for the subsequent appeal
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Katherine Belinsky v. Del Cerro Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine Belinsky Counsel —
Respondent Del Cerro Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide books, records and accounts

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • 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

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:58:54 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:58:58 (114.6 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:58 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:03 (114.6 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning the Petitioner, Katherine Belinsky, versus the Respondent, Del Cerro Condos, Case No. 22F-H2222046-REL, heard on July 1, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The dispute centered on the Petitioner's claim that the Del Cerro Condos Homeowners Association (HOA), a 14-unit association, failed to provide requested books, records, and accounts, constituting a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This petition followed a period of instability within the HOA, which was described as neglected and dating back to 1969, with only $1,000.00 in the reserve account. The conflict intensified after the Board issued a $5,000.00 special assessment per unit in January 2022 to fund necessary maintenance, primarily walkway repairs. The Petitioner testified that she had been requesting documents for three to four years, specifically mentioning invoices, contracts, bank statements, and corporation records, and claimed any disclosures were "doctored".

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Position: Katherine Belinsky (Petitioner) argued that she had received "not one thing" regarding contracts, bids, invoices, or bank statements, and was unaware of how HOA money was being spent. She cited Arizona law, including HB2158 and case law (e.g., *Callaway*), to assert that the special assessment and changes to governing documents were illegal due to lack of transparency and proper member voting.
  1. Respondent's Defense: Alessandra Wisniewski (Vice President) and Amanda Butcher (President) maintained that they, along with their property managers (PMI, and later Community Financials), were prompt in responding to Petitioner's written requests. They testified that documents such as financial statements for recent months (starting September 2021) and governing documents (CCNRs/Bylaws) were sent to the Petitioner via email. For other sensitive or older records (such as receipts, vendor bids, and individual member ledgers), Ms. Wisniewski stated that Petitioner was repeatedly instructed—in writing—to schedule an appointment to review these documents at the management office, which the Petitioner failed to do. The Board asserted they made accommodations for the Petitioner regarding her HOA payments and confirmed they were protecting sensitive information.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 33-1805 mandates that records "shall be made reasonably available for examination".

The ALJ's decision found that the Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. The evidence demonstrated that the Board and property manager provided documents timely and offered the opportunity for the Petitioner to make an appointment to review other requested records, an opportunity she did not utilize. The statute does not grant a unit owner the right to peruse all documents at will, as some may properly be withheld.

Final Decision: The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence 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.'

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?

Short Answer

No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.

Detailed Answer

While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • privacy
  • limitations

Question

If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?

Short Answer

The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.

Detailed Answer

The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.

Alj Quote

Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • compliance
  • in-person review

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?

Short Answer

Within ten business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • statutory requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?

Short Answer

No fee is allowed for the review process itself.

Detailed Answer

The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records access

Question

What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

Fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • copies

Question

Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?

Short Answer

Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

Determined by ALJ Findings

Topic Tags

  • dispute resolution
  • homeowner responsibility

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence 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.'

Legal Basis

Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?

Short Answer

No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.

Detailed Answer

While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • privacy
  • limitations

Question

If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?

Short Answer

The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.

Detailed Answer

The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.

Alj Quote

Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • compliance
  • in-person review

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?

Short Answer

Within ten business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • statutory requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?

Short Answer

No fee is allowed for the review process itself.

Detailed Answer

The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records access

Question

What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?

Short Answer

Fifteen cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • copies

Question

Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?

Short Answer

Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.

Detailed Answer

If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.

Legal Basis

Determined by ALJ Findings

Topic Tags

  • dispute resolution
  • homeowner responsibility

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Katherine Belinsky (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Catherine Valinski, Bolinsky, or Katya/Katcha; unit owner.

Respondent Side

  • Alessandra Wisniewski (VP)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Also referred to as Alexandra; testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Amanda Butcher (President)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Eddie B (property manager)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    President of PMI Lake Havasu; also referred to as Eddie Being.
  • Lisa Modler (property manager assistant)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    Also referred to as Lisa Miam; secretary assistance for PMI.
  • Brady Bowen (property manager)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    Business partner of Eddie B.
  • Fiser (maintenance supervisor)
    PMI Lake Havasu
    No first name provided.
  • Kathy Ein (property manager)
    Community Financials
    Manager for new management company.
  • Moses (board member)
    Del Cerro Condos Board
    Former Treasurer/Secretary on the board.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    OAH
    Transmitted Decision electronically.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents.

Other Participants

  • Eric Needles (former property manager)
    London Dairy
    Former property management/statutory agent.
  • Elizabeth (statutory agent)
    Former statutory agent; last name not provided.
  • Betty Sergeant (former property manager)
    Petitioner took her to court.
  • Todd Sullivan (association manager)
    Viking New Association
    New association manager effective June 1st.
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Transmittal initial on Del Cerro Condo contact document.

Aaron J Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron J. Gragg Counsel —
Respondent Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. Counsel Curtis Ekmark, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.4(a)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
CC&R 2.4(a)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, or CC&R sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to participate in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with CC&R Article 12.4(a) regarding ADR. The ALJ found that CC&R Article 12.4(a) excluded proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from mandatory arbitration.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)

Fraudulent assessment of violations

Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations without observation. Evidence showed Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Failure to produce documents

Petitioner requested documents establishing design review requirements and enforcement authority. The ALJ found Petitioner’s requests were actually legal questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, not requests for specific documents or records.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Selective Enforcement / Similar Treatment

Petitioner alleged selective enforcement because he was required to provide a photograph to prove compliance. The ALJ found Respondent has required photographic verification from other similarly situated non-compliant homeowners since 2010.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement, Landscaping violation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Selective Enforcement, Document Request
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)
  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:48 (123.1 KB)

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:23 (123.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Summary: Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121042-REL)

This matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 29, 2021, and October 19, 2021, concerning a Petition filed by Aaron J. Gragg ("Petitioner") alleging four violations by the Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. ("Respondent").

Key Facts and Background

The core facts revolve around the Petitioner’s failure to complete rear yard landscaping as required by the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) within 120 days of closing escrow in December 2017. Despite multiple plan submissions and approvals between 2018 and 2019, Petitioner did not complete the landscaping. Respondent issued approximately 14 noncompliance notices. In December 2019, and again following Petitioner’s appeal to the Board in March 2021, Respondent requested photographic evidence to verify compliance and close the violation file. Evidence showed that Petitioner’s rear yard was still incomplete in April 2021, and after the initial hearing setting.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioner alleged four violations:

  1. CC&R 12.4(a) (Alternate Dispute Resolution – ADR): Petitioner alleged Respondent refused to participate in ADR.
  2. A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Fraudulent Assessment): Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations that were not actually observed.
  3. A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Document Production): Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with standards for producing documents.
  4. CC&R 2.4(a) (Similar Treatment/Selective Enforcement): Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced rules by requiring photographic proof of compliance.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on all four issues.

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Observed Violations): The credible evidence established that the landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator; thus, Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Document Production): Petitioner’s requests were determined not to be requests for specific records, but rather questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, which Petitioner already possessed. Therefore, Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • CC&R 12.4(a) (ADR): The CC&Rs explicitly exclude proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from the mandatory arbitration requirements of Section 12.4. Furthermore, Respondent had not filed suit or requested arbitration against Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R Section 12.4(a).
  • CC&R 2.4(a) (Similar Treatment): Evidence showed that Respondent had requested photographic verification of compliance from other homeowners who were similarly non-compliant with landscape guidelines since at least 2010. The request made to Petitioner was consistent with past actions for similarly situated homeowners. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R Section 2.4(a).

Final Decision

The ALJ issued an Order denying Petitioner’s Petition on November 1, 2021.

Questions

Question

Can I use a records request to force the HOA to explain their legal authority or justification for fines?

Short Answer

No. A records request must be for existing documents, not a method to pose legal questions to the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that requests asking for 'evidence… supporting justification' or the 'location of explicit CC&Rs' are actually interrogatories (questions) rather than requests for existing records. The HOA is not required to create new documents to answer legal questions under the guise of a records request.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s request was not for documents or records, but rather for answers to legal questions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • legal authority
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA require me to submit photos proving I fixed a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, particularly if there is a history of non-compliance.

Detailed Answer

The decision found it reasonable for an HOA to require a homeowner to submit photographic evidence to close a violation file, especially when the homeowner had failed to comply for an extended period. This requirement does not necessarily constitute unequal treatment.

Alj Quote

Respondent has requested of homeowners that have not been in compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines, to submit photographic evidence when in compliance, in order prove such compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • evidence

Question

Is it discrimination if the HOA asks me for proof of compliance but doesn't ask my neighbors?

Short Answer

Not if you are in a different situation (e.g., non-compliant) than your neighbors.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that homeowners who are not in compliance are not 'similarly situated' to those who completed their obligations on time. Therefore, the HOA can impose different requirements (like submitting photos) on non-compliant owners without violating equal treatment clauses.

Alj Quote

This request is no different than those requests made by Respondent in the past of similarly situated homeowners, i.e., those not in compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • selective enforcement
  • equal treatment

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the HOA violated the law or CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proving their allegations by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, and CC&Rs sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • hearing process
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Does the HOA have to prove they physically saw a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, but testimony regarding routine inspections is sufficient proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner alleged the HOA assessed violations that were not observed. However, the ALJ accepted credible testimony from the Community Standards Administrator that the violations were observed during routine inspections as sufficient proof.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • inspections
  • evidence

Question

Can I sue the HOA for refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) if I didn't try to arbitrate?

Short Answer

No. If you skip the arbitration process required by the CC&Rs, you cannot claim the HOA refused ADR.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed the HOA refused ADR procedures. However, the ALJ found that because the homeowner filed a petition with the Department instead of submitting the dispute to binding arbitration as required by the CC&Rs, the claim was invalid.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, choosing instead to file a Petition with the Department.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 12.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • ADR
  • arbitration
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title
Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I use a records request to force the HOA to explain their legal authority or justification for fines?

Short Answer

No. A records request must be for existing documents, not a method to pose legal questions to the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that requests asking for 'evidence… supporting justification' or the 'location of explicit CC&Rs' are actually interrogatories (questions) rather than requests for existing records. The HOA is not required to create new documents to answer legal questions under the guise of a records request.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s request was not for documents or records, but rather for answers to legal questions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • legal authority
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA require me to submit photos proving I fixed a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, particularly if there is a history of non-compliance.

Detailed Answer

The decision found it reasonable for an HOA to require a homeowner to submit photographic evidence to close a violation file, especially when the homeowner had failed to comply for an extended period. This requirement does not necessarily constitute unequal treatment.

Alj Quote

Respondent has requested of homeowners that have not been in compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines, to submit photographic evidence when in compliance, in order prove such compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • evidence

Question

Is it discrimination if the HOA asks me for proof of compliance but doesn't ask my neighbors?

Short Answer

Not if you are in a different situation (e.g., non-compliant) than your neighbors.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that homeowners who are not in compliance are not 'similarly situated' to those who completed their obligations on time. Therefore, the HOA can impose different requirements (like submitting photos) on non-compliant owners without violating equal treatment clauses.

Alj Quote

This request is no different than those requests made by Respondent in the past of similarly situated homeowners, i.e., those not in compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • selective enforcement
  • equal treatment

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the HOA violated the law or CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proving their allegations by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, and CC&Rs sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • hearing process
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Does the HOA have to prove they physically saw a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, but testimony regarding routine inspections is sufficient proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner alleged the HOA assessed violations that were not observed. However, the ALJ accepted credible testimony from the Community Standards Administrator that the violations were observed during routine inspections as sufficient proof.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • inspections
  • evidence

Question

Can I sue the HOA for refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) if I didn't try to arbitrate?

Short Answer

No. If you skip the arbitration process required by the CC&Rs, you cannot claim the HOA refused ADR.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed the HOA refused ADR procedures. However, the ALJ found that because the homeowner filed a petition with the Department instead of submitting the dispute to binding arbitration as required by the CC&Rs, the claim was invalid.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, choosing instead to file a Petition with the Department.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 12.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • ADR
  • arbitration
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title
Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Aaron J. Gragg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Michelle Haney (community manager)
    Appeared as witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-08
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey D Points Counsel —
Respondent Olive 66 Condominium Association Counsel MacKenzie Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 because evidence of improper notice was lacking and the topic discussed in executive session was likely covered by a statutory exemption.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Records

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide certain requested 2021 invoices that were in existence at the time of the request within the statutory 10-day period.

Orders: Respondent must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward. Petitioner reimbursed $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Open Board Meetings

Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the March 25, 2021, board meeting, as the issue regarding notice was not established and the topic discussed (Landscaping Bid Review) likely fell under a statutory exemption.

Orders: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium association, document request, open meeting, executive session, invoices, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:37:01 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:37:11 (117.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:43 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:48 (117.7 KB)

This decision arises from the administrative hearing in the matter of *Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association*. The hearing, held on August 19, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, addressed allegations that the Olive 66 Condominium Association (Respondent) violated Arizona statutes concerning document availability and open meetings.

Key Facts and Legal Framework

The Respondent is a condominium unit owners’ association located in Phoenix, Arizona. The Petitioner, Jeffrey D. Points, alleged violations, initially citing homeowner association (HOA) statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805). Due to the Respondent’s status, the legal focus shifted to the corresponding condominium statutes: A.R.S. § 33-1248 (meetings) and A.R.S. § 33-1258 (records). Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Main Issues and Arguments

The dispute centered on two key issues:

  1. Improper Executive Session (A.R.S. § 33-1248): Petitioner challenged the use of a closed session during the March 25, 2021, Board Meeting, specifically regarding the Landscaping Bid Review. The statute allows meetings to be closed for matters relating to the job performance of or specific complaints against an individual employee of a contractor. Respondent’s witness testified that the review addressed specific performance issues with a landscaping company employee.
  2. Failure to Produce Documents (A.R.S. § 33-1258): Petitioner made numerous requests for association records, including invoices and 1099s. The statute requires financial and other non-privileged records to be made reasonably available within ten business days of a request. Petitioner also asserted a right to examine *all* association documents in person at the office. Respondent argued that allowing unlimited in-person review was unduly burdensome due to the need to remove confidential documents and ongoing COVID-19 concerns.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions of law:

  • Closed Session (A.R.S. § 33-1248): The ALJ found that the Respondent properly considered the landscaping issue in executive session because it fell under the statutory exception concerning the job performance of an individual contractor employee. Petitioner failed to establish that the meeting notice was improper or that the executive session violated A.R.S. § 33-1248.
  • Document Production (A.R.S. § 33-1258): The ALJ rejected Petitioner’s assertion of a right to examine all documents in person. However, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that certain requested 2021 invoices were in existence at the time of the request but were not provided to the Petitioner within the required 10-day statutory period. This failure constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The Final Decision

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part and denied in part. Although a violation of the document production statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) was established, the ALJ found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

The Order required the following remedy:

  1. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner $500.00 of the filing fee for the issue on which the Petitioner prevailed.
  2. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward.

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeffrey D Points (petitioner)
    Appeared on their own behalf

Respondent Side

  • MacKenzie Hill (respondent attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Cathy Hacker (association manager)
    Olive 66 Condominium Association
    Provided testimony as Association Manager,
  • Musa (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices; referred to as 'Musa', and 'M. Sayegh'
  • Lorinda Brown (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Tim (individual)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s/invoices; reportedly 'has not done any work on the property',

Gregory L Czekaj vs. Colonia Del Rey HOA

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

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Records Request Violation

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

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Invalid Fee Increase / Proxy Vote

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

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Meeting Notice Violation

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

Orders: Petitioner's claim denied; HOA prevailed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint One: Records Requests

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

Complaint Two: Fee Increase Validity

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Kenneth W Zablotny v. Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-03-03
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Respondent violated state statute and community bylaws by failing to allow inspection of books and records. The Respondent was ordered to provide the records and refund the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kenneth W Zablotny Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Respondent violated state statute and community bylaws by failing to allow inspection of books and records. The Respondent was ordered to provide the records and refund the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to make books and records reasonably available

Petitioner requested access to the Association's books and records multiple times between 2017 and 2019 to review financial information and other member dues status. The Respondent failed to respond or provide access to the records.

Orders: Respondent shall supply Petitioner with the relevant documents within ten (10) days; Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • Bylaws Article X

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019022-REL Decision – 773049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:18 (90.9 KB)

20F-H2019022-REL Decision – 773049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:43:22 (90.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Kenneth W. Zablotny v. Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision in the matter of Kenneth W. Zablotny v. Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. (Case No. 20F-H2019022-REL). The case centers on a homeowner’s petition alleging that his Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and community bylaws by repeatedly denying access to financial books and records.

Following a hearing on February 13, 2020—which the Respondent (Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.) failed to attend—the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision establishes a clear violation of statutory requirements regarding transparency and mandates the Respondent to provide the requested records and reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory and Bylaw Compliance

The core of the dispute involves the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Article X of the Sycamore Hills Estates Bylaws.

  • Statutory Mandate: Arizona law requires that all financial and other records of an association be made "reasonably available" for examination by members or their designated representatives within ten business days of a request.
  • Bylaw Requirements: The community’s own bylaws reinforce this, stating that records shall be subject to inspection "at all times, during reasonable business hours."
  • The Violation: The ALJ found that the Respondent’s total failure to provide access, despite multiple formal requests, constituted a direct violation of both state law and internal governing documents.
2. Transparency and Accountability

The Petitioner’s request for records was prompted by concerns regarding the financial status of board members and other homeowners during foreclosure proceedings.

  • Conflicting Information: The Association’s manager, Char DuFresne, orally informed the Petitioner that certain homeowners' dues were "up to date." However, the Petitioner later discovered that one homeowner owed $1,600.00 in association fees.
  • Obfuscation Tactics: Even after legal and administrative pressure, the Respondent provided incomplete or unusable information. This included providing data on only one of four accounts and sending a financial statement that was "not legible."
3. Procedural Negligence by the Respondent

A significant theme in this case is the Respondent’s persistent non-responsiveness to both the Petitioner and the legal process.

  • Ignored Communications: Between December 2017 and December 2019, the Respondent ignored a letter from the Petitioner’s attorney, website requests, written requests for in-person viewing, and certified mail.
  • Failure to Appear: Despite receiving a Notice of Hearing from the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Respondent did not appear, did not request a telephonic appearance, and did not seek a continuance. Consequently, the hearing proceeded in their absence, and the Petitioner’s testimony remained uncontested.

Important Quotes and Context

Quote Context
"Except as provided in subsection B… all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member." A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): This defines the baseline legal requirement for HOA transparency in Arizona.
"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination." A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Establishes the specific timeframe within which an HOA must act once a request is made.
"Respondent’s failure to respond and provide dates and times, within reasonable business hours, was in violation of Section X of the Bylaws." ALJ Conclusion of Law #6: The judge explicitly links the Association's silence to a breach of its own governing documents.
"Ms. DuFresne responded that she did not have time to meet with Petitioner and that she would send him what she had. Ms. DuFresne never sent the books and records." Hearing Evidence #12: Illustrates the dismissive nature of the Association's management regarding a member's legal rights.

Detailed Timeline of Requested Access

Date Action taken by Petitioner Result
Nov 20, 2017 Inquired about board member dues at a meeting. Manager claimed finances were current.
Dec 14, 2017 Attorney sent a letter requesting information via A.R.S. § 33-1805. No response from Respondent.
Mar 24, 2019 Requested expenditure statements via Association website. No response from Respondent.
May 20, 2019 Submitted written request to view books in person. No acknowledgment from Respondent.
Jun 10, 2019 Made a second request to view books and records. No response from Respondent.
Aug 19, 2019 Sent a certified mail request. No response from Respondent.
Sep 9, 2019 Sent a certified letter to the Board of Directors. Board informed Petitioner he could not see documents.
Nov 2019 (Post-Petition) Received a financial statement. Document was not legible.
Dec 3, 2019 Final request to meet in person to view records. No response from Respondent.

Actionable Insights and Orders

The ALJ decision resulted in specific mandates that provide a framework for resolving the dispute:

  • Mandatory Document Disclosure: The Respondent is ordered to supply the Petitioner with all relevant documents within ten (10) days of the Order (dated March 3, 2020), specifically citing books and records from 2017 to 2019.
  • Financial Restitution: The Respondent is required to pay the Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the Order.
  • Prevailing Party Status: By being deemed the prevailing party, the Petitioner has a recorded legal victory that may influence future disputes or governance within the community.
  • Adherence to "Reasonable Availability": The ruling clarifies that "reasonable availability" is not satisfied by sending illegible documents or claiming a lack of time to meet; it requires proactive coordination of viewing times or delivery of clear copies.
  • Right to Appeal: The order is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of service. Both parties have the right to request a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

Study Guide: Kenneth W. Zablotny v. Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Kenneth W. Zablotny (Petitioner) and Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. (Respondent). It explores the legal obligations of homeowners associations (HOAs) regarding record transparency, the statutory frameworks governing these disputes, and the specific outcomes of Case No. 20F-H2019022-REL.

Core Themes and Key Concepts

1. Statutory Access to Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805)

Under Arizona law, all financial and other records of a planned community association must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.

  • Response Time: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
  • Fees: An association cannot charge a member for the time spent making materials available for review, but they may charge a fee of up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
  • Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate has the authority to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B).
2. Legal Exceptions to Disclosure

While transparency is required, A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) identifies specific categories of records that may be withheld from disclosure:

  • Privileged communications between the association and its attorney.
  • Information regarding pending litigation.
  • Minutes of board meetings that are not required to be open to all members.
  • Personal, health, or financial records of individual members, association employees, or contractor employees.
  • Records relating to job performance, compensation, or specific complaints against employees.
3. Burden of Proof and Evidence

In administrative proceedings regarding HOA disputes, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

4. Bylaw Obligations

Beyond state statutes, associations are governed by their own Bylaws. In this case, Article X of the Sycamore Hills Estates Bylaws stipulated that association books, records, and papers must be subject to inspection by any member at all times during reasonable business hours.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) The presiding official who conducts the hearing, evaluates evidence, and issues a decision in administrative disputes.
A.R.S. § 33-1805 The Arizona Revised Statute governing the accessibility of financial and other records of a planned community association.
Bylaws The rules and regulations adopted by an organization (like an HOA) for its internal management and government.
Petitioner The party who files the petition or claim; in this case, Kenneth W. Zablotny.
Preponderance of the Evidence Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition.
Respondent The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What initiated the Petitioner’s request to see the association’s books?
  • Answer: After receiving conflicting information from the manager regarding whether certain homeowners (including a board member) were current on their dues during foreclosures, the Petitioner sought to verify the financial records.
  1. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for examination of records?
  • Answer: Ten business days.
  1. What was the Respondent's response to the Petitioner's multiple requests via website, certified mail, and attorney letters?
  • Answer: The Respondent largely ignored the requests, failed to acknowledge the letters, and eventually provided a single financial statement that was illegible.
  1. What happens if a Respondent fails to appear at the scheduled administrative hearing?
  • Answer: The hearing proceeds in the Respondent’s absence, as happened in this case when Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. failed to send an authorized member or attorney.
  1. What were the financial consequences ordered against the Respondent?
  • Answer: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory vs. Internal Governance: Analyze the interplay between A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Article X of the Sycamore Hills Estates Bylaws. How do state laws provide a "floor" for transparency, and how did the Respondent’s failure to respond to "reasonable business hour" requests violate both standards?
  2. The Limits of Privacy in HOAs: Discuss the five categories of records exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Why is it legally necessary to balance member transparency with the privacy of individual employees and the confidentiality of legal counsel?
  3. The Role of the Administrative Law Judge: Evaluate the process of the administrative hearing as described in the document. How does the ALJ determine "preponderance of the evidence" when one party fails to appear and present a defense?
  4. Enforcement and Remedies: The ALJ ordered the Respondent to provide the records and pay a filing fee but did not find a civil penalty appropriate. Discuss the effectiveness of these remedies in ensuring future compliance with association transparency laws.

Knowledge is Power: How One Homeowner Held Their HOA Accountable for Financial Transparency

1. Introduction: The Right to Know

In the world of planned communities, the relationship between homeowners and their Board of Directors is built on a fundamental covenant: owners provide the capital, and the Board provides responsible stewardship. But far too often, this relationship is poisoned by a culture of opacity. When a Board treats financial records like state secrets rather than the "books and records" of the membership, they aren't just being difficult—they are violating the law.

Transparency is not a favor granted by a benevolent Board; it is a statutory right. The case of Kenneth W. Zablotny vs. Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019022-REL) stands as a vital reminder that homeowners do not have to settle for bureaucratic stonewalling. This landmark decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings showcases how one persistent homeowner dismantled a wall of silence to reclaim his right to financial transparency.

2. The Spark of Suspicion: Why the Request Was Made

Suspicion rarely arises in a vacuum. For Mr. Zablotny, a real estate agent and dedicated attendee of community meetings, the red flags began waving in November 2017. During a board meeting, the association’s manager, Char DuFresne, claimed that a board member whose home was in public foreclosure was nevertheless "current" on their association dues.

When a second homeowner entered foreclosure, DuFresne doubled down on this narrative, insisting the account was up to date. However, the truth eventually leaked through the cracks of the Board's narrative, revealing a deep-seated discrepancy that demanded investigation.

The $1,600 Trigger: Despite the manager's repeated assurances that accounts were current, the Petitioner discovered evidence that a homeowner allegedly owed $1,600.00 in unpaid assessments. This revelation transformed a neighborly inquiry into a necessary legal pursuit for the community’s financial truth.

3. A Timeline of Persistence: Two Years of Ignored Requests

For over two years, Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. met Mr. Zablotny’s inquiries with a masterclass in bureaucratic delay tactics. The Petitioner’s journey from "neighborly inquiry" to "legal demand" is a roadmap of persistence against a Board that simply refused to govern in the light.

  • December 14, 2017 (The Escalation): Realizing that verbal requests were being ignored, Mr. Zablotny’s attorney sent a formal demand for records pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association responded with total silence.
  • March 24, 2019: Moving to digital channels, the Petitioner requested expenditure statements via the association’s website. No reply.
  • May 20 & June 10, 2019: Two separate written requests were submitted, offering specific dates to view records in person. Both went unacknowledged.
  • August 19 & September 9, 2019: Escalating to certified mail, the Petitioner sent letters to the manager and the Board of Directors. This finally elicited a response—a flat denial stating he was "not permitted" to see the documents.
  • November 2019 (The Obfuscation): After the legal petition was filed, the manager sent partial information on only one of the association's four accounts. When pressed for the others, she claimed she "did not have time" to meet and eventually sent a financial statement that was entirely illegible.
  • December 3, 2019: A final attempt to meet in person was met with the same wall of silence that had characterized the previous 24 months.
4. Decoding the Law: A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Article X

In Arizona, the right to inspect records is protected by a statutory "floor" that no HOA can legally bypass. While a community's Bylaws (referenced by the Judge as Section X, though formally Article X) provide local rules, state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805) provides the teeth for enforcement.

Requirement A.R.S. § 33-1805 (State Law) Article X (Bylaws)
Authority Supersedes all internal HOA rules. Must align with state law.
Availability All financial/other records must be reasonably available. Books/records subject to inspection "at all times."
Timeframe How Fast: Must fulfill request within 10 business days. When: During "reasonable business hours."
Cost No charge for review; max $0.15/page for copies. Copies available at a "reasonable cost."

It is crucial to note that while the law allows an HOA to withhold records under narrow exceptions—such as attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, or personal health/financial records of other members—none of these applied to the general financial books and records Mr. Zablotny requested. The Association’s refusal was not a legal protection; it was a violation.

5. The Verdict: Accountability at the Office of Administrative Hearings

The conflict culminated on February 13, 2020. In a telling display of their attitude toward accountability, Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc. failed to appear at the hearing entirely. This "default" on their responsibilities to the legal system mirrored their two-year default on their responsibilities to their members.

Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera found that Mr. Zablotny proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The HOA's behavior—sending illegible documents, refusing meeting times, and ignoring the 10-day statutory clock—was found to be in clear violation of both state law and their own Bylaws.

The Court’s Order:

  1. Mandatory Production: The HOA was ordered to supply all relevant documents within ten days.
  2. Fee Reimbursement: The HOA was ordered to pay Mr. Zablotny $500.00 to reimburse his filing fee.

While the Judge noted that "No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate," the victory was absolute in its primary goal: the restoration of transparency and the shifting of legal costs back onto the non-compliant Board.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners

The Zablotny victory is a blueprint for every homeowner living under an opaque Board. If your HOA is hiding the numbers, remember these lessons:

  1. Document Everything: Verbal promises mean nothing. Use certified mail to create an undeniable paper trail of your requests and their silence.
  2. State Law is Your Shield: A.R.S. § 33-1805 is the ultimate authority. No HOA manager can "out-rule" the 10-business-day statutory deadline.
  3. Reject "Administrative" Excuses: Claims of being "too busy" or providing "illegible" records are not valid legal defenses. They are admissions of non-compliance.
  4. The ADRE is Your Resource: You don't always need a high-priced Superior Court attorney. The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) provides a formal petition process to bring these disputes before an Administrative Law Judge.

A healthy community cannot survive in the dark. Board members are stewards, not rulers, and as Kenneth Zablotny proved, the law is the ultimate tool for bringing them back into the light.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kenneth W Zablotny (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; real estate agent

Respondent Side

  • Char DuFresne (property manager)
    Sycamore Hills Estates, Inc.
    Respondent's manager

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmitted order

Joan A. Tober, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-15
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joan A. Tober Counsel —
Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association Counsel Diana J. Elston

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because she failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The primary record sought was protected by attorney-client privilege, and her vague request for 'any and all documentation' made it impossible for the HOA to reasonably comply within the 10-day period.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of requirement to provide association records within ten business days.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested documents, including a privileged attorney letter and 'all background information', within the required 10-business day period. The rehearing focused specifically on the timeliness aspect.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The ALJ concluded the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Attorney-Client Privilege, A.R.S. 33-1805, Planned Community, Rehearing, Unreasonably Broad Request, Timeliness of Disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2102
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – 764197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:27 (187.4 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/714863.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:32 (51.7 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/725808.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:37 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Tober v. Civano 1 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Joan A. Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918042-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Joan A. Tober’s demand for records from her Homeowners Association (HOA), specifically a legal opinion letter concerning the “North Ridge wall.”

The Petitioner argued that the HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide this letter and other “background information.” She contended the HOA waived attorney-client privilege by discussing the letter in an open board meeting and, in a subsequent rehearing, failed to provide records within the statutorily required 10-day timeframe.

The HOA maintained that the letter was a privileged communication with its attorney and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). The HOA also argued that the Petitioner’s broader request for “any and all documentation” was overly vague and that she failed to clarify the request when asked.

Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision affirmed that the legal letter was privileged and could be withheld. Crucially, the judge concluded the HOA did not violate the 10-day provision because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification, thereby preventing the HOA from being able to “reasonably make records available.” The HOA was declared the prevailing party in both instances.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter involves a formal dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Name

Joan A. Tober, Petitioner, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

19F-H1918042-REL

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Kay A. Abramsohn

Core Issue

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs member access to association records.

Initial Hearing Date

June 5, 2019

Initial Decision Date

July 29, 2019

Rehearing Date

December 11, 2019

Final Decision Date

January 15, 2020

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Individuals

• Petitioner: Joan A. Tober

◦ A homeowner in the Civano 1 Neighborhood since 2001.

◦ Previously worked for the company that developed the land/homes in the association area.

◦ Has served as a past Board member for the HOA.

◦ Served as an alternate member on the Finance Committee in 2018.

◦ Exhibits a high level of engagement with HOA affairs, having taped and often transcribed every meeting since 2008.

• Respondent: Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (HOA)

◦ The governing body for the planned community.

◦ Represented by Diana J. Elston, Esq., of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.

• Adjudicator: Kay Abramsohn

◦ The Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of the Dispute

Nov 20, 2018

At an HOA Board meeting, the Board President mentions receiving a letter (“the Letter”) from its attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, states it concerns the HOA’s legal responsibility, and suggests it can be sent out to residents.

Nov 26, 2018

Petitioner sends her first email request for a copy of the Letter.

Nov 27, 2018

Petitioner sends a second request. The HOA replies that it is waiting for clarification from its attorney.

Nov 29, 2018

At 4:58 a.m., Petitioner sends a third, formal request citing A.R.S. § 33-1805, demanding “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

Nov 29, 2018

At 9:44 a.m., the HOA responds, stating the President misspoke and the Letter is a privileged legal opinion. The HOA asks if Petitioner needs a copy of “the original engineer report.” The judge later finds no evidence that Petitioner responded to this clarification query.

Dec 13, 2018

Petitioner writes to the Board, stating she will use “all means… to obtain the requested materials, to include a formal complaint.”

Dec 26, 2018

Petitioner files her single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Jan 15-16, 2019

The HOA forwards to Petitioner the “Civano historical erosion reports” (2013 and 2014) and an invoice related to the 2014 study.

June 5, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

July 29, 2019

Initial Decision Issued: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds the Letter is privileged and the HOA is the prevailing party.

Aug 5, 2019

Petitioner files a request for rehearing, arguing the initial decision “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.”

Aug 23, 2019

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

Dec 11, 2019

The rehearing is conducted.

Jan 15, 2020

Final Decision Issued: The ALJ again finds for the HOA, concluding it did not violate the statute because Petitioner’s request was overly broad and she failed to clarify it. The appeal is dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Joan A. Tober)

1. Waiver of Privilege: The Petitioner’s central argument was that the HOA intentionally waived attorney-client privilege regarding the Letter when the Board President mentioned it in an open meeting and offered to distribute it, with the other Board members not objecting, thereby showing “unanimous consent to waive confidentiality.”

2. Right to “Background Information”: Petitioner argued that because the North Ridge wall issue had been ongoing since 2013, her request for “any and all documents” and “background information” was justified, and that more than just two prior engineering reports must exist.

3. Untimely Response (Rehearing Argument): In her request for rehearing, Petitioner’s primary argument shifted to timeliness, asserting that even if the HOA “eventually” provided some records, it failed to do so within the 10-business-day period mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Respondent’s Position (Civano 1 HOA)

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: The HOA’s primary defense was that the Letter constituted “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association,” which may be withheld from members under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

2. No Waiver: The HOA contended that the “mere mention” of the Letter by the Board President at a meeting did not constitute a legal waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

3. Vague and Overly Broad Request: The HOA argued that the Petitioner’s request for “any and all” documents was too broad to know what she wanted.

4. Prior Possession of Documents: The HOA indicated that it could be determined from the Petitioner’s own exhibits that she had already received or possessed copies of key requested documents, such as the 2013 and 2014 erosion reports.

——————————————————————————–

Key Findings of Fact and Evidence

The Administrative Law Judge made several critical findings of fact based on the evidence presented across both hearings.

• The Nature of the “Letter”: The document at the center of the dispute was confirmed to be a legal opinion from the HOA’s attorney. It had been discussed by the Board in an executive session prior to the November 20, 2018 meeting. The letter advised that the HOA was responsible for the land below the wall and recommended hiring a “licensed bonded engineer.”

• Petitioner’s Pre-existing Knowledge: The Petitioner was well-informed on the North Ridge wall issue. She acknowledged at the rehearing that at the time of her November 29, 2018 request, she already possessed copies of the 2013 and 2014 engineering reports, which she had obtained from the city in 2014.

• Petitioner’s Request and Failure to Clarify:

◦ The Petitioner’s initial requests on November 26 and 27 were solely for the attorney’s Letter.

◦ Her formal request on November 29 expanded to “any and all documentation… and all background information.”

◦ On the same day, the HOA asked for clarification, specifically inquiring if she “still need[ed] a copy of the original engineer report.”

◦ The ALJ found “no document supporting” the Petitioner’s claim that she responded to this email. During the rehearing, the Petitioner was unable to produce such a response. This failure to clarify was a key factor in the final ruling.

• Lack of Other Documents: The hearing record contained no evidence of any other erosion reports besides the 2013 and 2014 reports. The HOA President, Mr. Mastrosimone, testified that “there were no documents other than the Letter that would have been responsive” to the request.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Rulings and Conclusions of Law

Initial Decision (July 29, 2019)

• Jurisdiction: The OAH confirmed its authority to hear the dispute under Arizona statutes.

• Privilege: The ALJ concluded that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” may be withheld. Therefore, the HOA was “not statutorily required to provide access or a copy of the Letter to Petitioner.”

• Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA provided records in compliance with the statute and was deemed the prevailing party.

Final Decision on Rehearing (January 15, 2020)

• Issue for Rehearing: The sole issue on rehearing was whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to records within 10 business days.

• Privileged Communication: The ALJ reaffirmed that the Letter was privileged communication and the HOA was not required to provide it “within any time period.”

• Unreasonably Broad Request: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s formal request was “unreasonably broad and remained unclarified.”

• Failure to Clarify: The ruling explicitly states: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available. An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.”

• No Violation of Timeliness: Because the request was unclarified, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the 10-day rule in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The decision notes that the initial ruling “inartfully stated” that the HOA had provided records in compliance, and that it “should have simply stated that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”

• Final Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted in compliance with both subsections (A) and (B) of the statute. The HOA was again declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The decision was declared binding on the parties, subject to judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918042-REL, involving Petitioner Joan A. Tober and Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 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, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

1. What specific event prompted Joan Tober to first request documents from the HOA in November 2018?

2. What was the HOA’s primary legal justification for refusing to provide a copy of “the Letter” to the Petitioner?

3. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what is the required timeframe for an HOA to make records available to a member after a written request?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why the HOA had forfeited its right to keep “the Letter” confidential?

5. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision on July 29, 2019?

6. How did the Petitioner’s document request evolve between her first communication on November 26, 2018, and her third request on November 29, 2018?

7. What crucial step did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner failed to take after the HOA’s email on November 29, 2018?

8. Besides “the Letter,” what other key documents related to the North Ridge wall did the Petitioner already possess when she filed her formal request?

9. Describe the Petitioner’s long-standing involvement and activities within the Civano 1 HOA community.

10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision on Rehearing, issued January 15, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The request was prompted by the HOA Board meeting on November 20, 2018. At this meeting, the Board President mentioned receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, stated its legal conclusion, and indicated, “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

2. The HOA’s primary justification was that the document was a privileged attorney-client communication. The HOA argued that the letter contained legal analysis and advice to the Board and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that a homeowners association has “ten business days” to fulfill a written request for examination of its financial and other records.

4. The Petitioner argued that the HOA had intentionally waived confidentiality. She contended that because the Board President mentioned the letter in an open meeting and the other Board members did not object, they showed unanimous consent to waive the attorney-client privilege.

5. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial Administrative Law Judge ruling “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.” She argued that while the HOA eventually provided access to some records, it had not done so within the required 10-business day period.

6. The Petitioner’s request evolved from a specific ask for a copy of “the Letter” on November 26 and 27 to a much broader request on November 29. Her third request asked for “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

7. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification in its November 29 email. The HOA had asked if she needed a copy of the “original engineer report,” and the Judge found no evidence in the hearing records that the Petitioner ever answered this question, thus preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.

8. The Petitioner already possessed the 2013 Engineering report and the 2014 report concerning erosion issues with the North Ridge wall. She acknowledged at the rehearing that she had obtained these from the city in 2014.

9. The Petitioner worked for the company that developed the land, purchased her home in 2001, and has been a past Board member. At the time of the dispute, she was an alternate member of the Finance Committee and had been taping and often transcribing every HOA meeting since 2008.

10. The final ruling was that the HOA was the prevailing party and had not violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Judge concluded the HOA was not required to provide the privileged letter and that its failure to provide other documents within 10 days was excused because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to clarify it. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-format response. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “waiver” of attorney-client privilege as it was argued in this case. Discuss the Petitioner’s claim that the President’s public comments constituted a waiver and contrast this with the Administrative Law Judge’s implicit and explicit findings on the matter.

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, beginning with the initial petition filing on December 26, 2018, and concluding with the final notice of appeal rights in the January 15, 2020 order. Identify the key legal proceedings, decisions, and dates that marked the progression of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the court documents. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by the Petitioner and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet her burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

4. Examine the role and interpretation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 in this dispute. How did the two key subsections, (A) and (B), create the central legal conflict between the Petitioner’s right to access records and the HOA’s right to withhold privileged information?

5. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s November 29, 2018 request was “unreasonably broad.” How did this determination, combined with the Petitioner’s alleged failure to clarify her request, become the deciding factor in the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions and orders.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute governing access to homeowners’ association records. Subsection (A) requires records be made “reasonably available” within ten business days, while subsection (B) allows for withholding of privileged attorney-client communications.

Attorney-Client Privilege

A legal concept that allows for certain communications between an attorney and their client (in this case, the HOA) to be kept confidential. The HOA cited this privilege as the reason for withholding “the Letter.”

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or community documents.

Executive Session

A private meeting of a board of directors. “The Letter” had been discussed by the HOA Board in an executive session prior to the public meeting where it was mentioned.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The office with the legal authority to hear and decide contested cases involving disputes between homeowners and planned community associations in Arizona.

Petition

The formal, single-issue complaint filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate on December 26, 2018, which initiated the legal proceedings.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Joan A. Tober.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and “the greater weight of the evidence.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine a legal case after an initial decision has been made. A rehearing was granted in this case to address the Petitioner’s claim that the initial ruling did not consider the “timeliness aspect of the law.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

The Letter

The specific document at the heart of the dispute: a privileged legal opinion letter from the HOA’s attorneys to the Board regarding the North Ridge wall, which was “disclosed and discussed” at the November 20, 2018, Board meeting.

She Recorded Every HOA Meeting for a Decade and Still Lost. Here’s What Every Homeowner Can Learn.

Introduction: The Fight for Information

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of seeking information from their Homeowners Association (HOA), only to feel that the board is being less than transparent. It’s a common story that often ends in resignation. But for one Arizona homeowner, it ended in a formal administrative hearing.

This is the story of Joan A. Tober, a remarkably dedicated resident who filed a petition against her HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate over access to documents related to a retaining wall. She was a former board member, sat on the finance committee, and, most astoundingly, had personally recorded and often transcribed every single HOA meeting for over a decade. Yet, despite her exhaustive personal record-keeping, her petition was denied. The surprising and counter-intuitive lessons from her story offer a masterclass for any homeowner navigating a dispute with their association.

1. Takeaway #1: The “Attorney-Client Privilege” Shield is Stronger Than You Think.

The central conflict revolved around a single document: a letter from the HOA’s attorney. During an open board meeting, the Board President mentioned the letter, which concerned the association’s responsibility for a retaining wall, and created an expectation of transparency, stating: “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

Ms. Tober argued that by openly discussing the letter and offering to distribute it, the board had waived its confidentiality, and she was therefore entitled to a copy. It seems like a logical assumption. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, pointing directly to the law. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” can be legally withheld from members.

The tribunal found that the mere mention of the letter in a public meeting—even with the president’s comment—did not break that legal privilege. This is a critical point for homeowners to understand. The law protects the board’s ability to seek and receive candid legal advice to govern the association effectively. While it may feel like a lack of transparency, this shield is a fundamental and legally protected aspect of HOA operations.

2. Takeaway #2: Asking for “Everything” Can Get You Nothing.

Beyond the privileged letter, the evolution and wording of Ms. Tober’s request became a major factor in the denial of her petition. The timeline shows how a homeowner’s frustration can lead to a fatal strategic error. On November 26 and 27, 2018, she made two specific requests for the attorney’s letter. The HOA responded that it was seeking clarification from its attorney.

After this delay, Ms. Tober’s third request, dated November 29, escalated significantly. She now asked for: “any and all documentation to include the letter that was disclosed and discussed… and all background information.”

In response, the HOA asked for clarification, but according to the hearing record, Ms. Tober could not provide evidence that she ever replied to narrow her request. This failure proved fatal. The Administrative Law Judge found the request to be “unreasonably broad.” The judge’s decision on the matter was blunt and serves as a powerful warning:

An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.

The ultimate reason for the denial synthesized both issues: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.” This demonstrates that the legal burden falls squarely on the homeowner to articulate a request the association can reasonably fulfill. As the ALJ noted, an association is not required to be a mind reader.

3. Takeaway #3: Diligence Alone Doesn’t Guarantee a Win.

What makes this story so compelling is the extraordinary diligence of the petitioner. Joan Tober was not a casual observer. The hearing records establish her deep involvement in the community: she was a former Board member, a member of the Finance Committee, and had even worked for the company that originally developed the community.

But one fact, noted in the ALJ’s decision, highlights her stunning level of dedication:

Since 2008, Petitioner has taped every meeting and she often creates a transcript of the meetings.

Despite this decade of meticulous personal record-keeping and her clear passion for the issue, her petition was denied—not just once, but twice, on the initial hearing and again on the rehearing. This presents a sobering reality for all homeowners. While passion, engagement, and even a mountain of personal documentation are valuable, they cannot overcome fundamental legal principles. The outcome of a formal hearing is determined by the strength of the legal argument, not the volume of personal effort expended.

Conclusion: Strategy Over Sheer Effort

The petition of Joan A. Tober is a powerful reminder that when dealing with an HOA, effectiveness is not always measured by effort. Her story provides three critical takeaways for every homeowner: attorney-client privilege provides HOAs with a strong legal shield, record requests must be specific and targeted to be enforceable, and meticulous personal diligence must be paired with a sound legal strategy to succeed in a formal dispute.

This case leaves every homeowner with a critical question: when you have a dispute, are you channeling your energy into the most effective strategy, or simply into the most effort?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joan A. Tober (petitioner)
    Former Board member; current Finance Committee member

Respondent Side

  • Diana J. Elston (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
  • Mr. Mastrosimone (Board President)
    Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association
    Testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (Clerk)
  • Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmittal

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold annual meetings

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Failure to timely provide records

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

Orders: Violation found.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019004-REL Decision – 757066.pdf

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

20F-H2019004-REL Decision – 757066.pdf

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Mandatory Annual Meeting Requirements

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

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

2. Timeliness of Records Production

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

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

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

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

3. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

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

Important Quotes with Context

Statutory Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actionable Insights

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

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

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

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

Key Legal Concepts and Statutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Summary: Findings and Conclusions

The Dispute

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

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

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

The Tribunal’s Decision

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

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

Final Order:

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

Short-Answer Practice Questions

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

  • A: At least once each year.

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

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

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

  • A: Ten business days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

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

Glossary of Important Terms

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

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

1. Introduction: When Homeowners Take a Stand

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

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

2. The Core Obligations: What the Law Requires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Judge’s Ruling: Transparency Prevails

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

Proven Violations:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Every Homeowner

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

Expert Actionable Takeaways:

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Mangus (AKA Gary) L.D. MacLeod Grantor and Trustee v. Mogollon

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919070-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-12-02
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent provided all responsive records in its possession. The tribunal held that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require an association to obtain and produce records it does not have.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mangus (AKA Gary) L.D. MacLeod Grantor and Trustee Counsel —
Respondent Mogollon Airpark, Inc. Counsel Gregory Stein

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent provided all responsive records in its possession. The tribunal held that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require an association to obtain and produce records it does not have.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the ALJ ruled that the statutory requirement to make records available does not extend to records not in the association's possession.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (CD history trail)

Petitioner requested specific historical records regarding four CDs. Respondent provided records in its possession and some obtained from banks, but Petitioner argued Respondent was required to obtain further 'history trails' it did not possess.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919070-REL Decision – 756469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:44 (91.2 KB)

19F-H1919070-REL Decision – 756469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:12 (91.2 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Executive Summary

On December 2, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden issued a decision in the matter of Mangus L.D. MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1919070-REL). The dispute centered on whether the Respondent, Mogollon Airpark, Inc., violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide certain financial records requested by the Petitioner, Mangus MacLeod.

The Petitioner contended that the Association was legally obligated to obtain and produce bank records related to four Certificates of Deposit (CDs) from 2017, even if those records were not currently in the Association's possession. The Respondent maintained that it had provided all responsive records it possessed and had even assisted the Petitioner in obtaining additional records directly from financial institutions.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require an association to procure records it does not have. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

The central legal question was the scope of an association's duty to make "financial and other records" available. The Petitioner argued that because certain records (like bank history trails) are mentioned in an association’s records retention policy, they must be produced upon request regardless of whether the association actually possesses them.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation, noting that:

  • Statutes must be interpreted to provide "fair and sensible" results.
  • The tribunal cannot expand a statute to include requirements not explicitly stated in its provisions.
  • Requiring an association to obtain records it does not possess would constitute an "absurd and unreasonable construction" of the law.
2. Possession vs. Acquisition

The case distinguished between records held by the Association and records held by third-party entities (banks).

  • Respondent's Position: On April 22, 2019, the Association provided all records it currently had, including some newly acquired from banks via the Board president's proactive efforts.
  • Petitioner's Position: The Association was responsible for obtaining the full "history trail" of the CDs from the banks to facilitate a proper audit.

The ALJ found that once the Association provided all records in its possession, it had fulfilled its statutory duty.

3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to:

  • Identify any responsive records that were actually in the Respondent’s possession at the time of the request.
  • Provide substantial evidence that the Respondent failed to comply with a second records request.
4. Good Faith Cooperation

The findings of fact highlight that the Respondent, specifically Board president Craig Albright and the management company (HOAMCO), acted cooperatively. This included:

  • Contacting three banks to solicit records.
  • Directly accompanying the Petitioner to banks in June 2019 to help produce records.
  • Maintaining communication regarding the lack of hardcopy or electronic formats for older 2017 records.

Key Quotes and Contextual Analysis

Quote Source Context Significance
"The 'core' issue in this matter is whether 'other records' as used in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805(A) includes all records listed in that retention policy regardless of whether Respondent actually has those records." Finding of Fact #18 Defines the Petitioner's legal theory: that a retention policy creates an absolute mandate to produce, even if the records must be sought from third parties.
"Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes." Conclusion of Law #4 (Citing State v. McFall) Establishes the judicial boundary for interpreting HOA records laws; the ALJ used this to dismiss the idea that HOAs must "hunt" for missing records.
"Mr. MacLeod acknowledged that he could not identify any records that were responsive to his requests that were in the possession of Respondent when he made those requests." Finding of Fact #20 This admission was fatal to the Petitioner's case, as the statute governs existing records of the association.
"The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent provided Mr. MacLeod with copies of all records it had that were responsive to his first request." Conclusion of Law #8 The ultimate factual finding that cleared the Respondent of the alleged violation.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Associations (HOAs)
  • Possession is the Metric: Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is generally measured by the production of records currently in the association's possession (either physical or electronic).
  • Documentation of Effort: The Respondent’s success was bolstered by the ability to show they contacted banks and worked with the management company (HOAMCO) to find responsive documents. Associations should document all efforts to fulfill record requests.
  • Third-Party Suggestion: When records are held by third parties (like banks), suggesting that the requester contact those entities directly is a valid and helpful response, though not strictly required by the statute to obtain those records for them.
For Petitioners/Members
  • Identifying Possession: Before filing a petition, a member should be able to provide evidence that the association actually holds the records being withheld.
  • Retention Policy vs. Statute: A retention policy dictates what an association should keep, but the statutory penalty for non-production under § 33-1805 applies to what the association has available for examination.
  • Meeting the Standard of Proof: Petitioners must provide "substantial evidence" (evidence that would permit a reasonable person to conclude the finding is substantiated) to prevail in administrative hearings.
Procedural Takeaway
  • Cooperation as Defense: While the hearing involved "hours of testimony" and "a thousand pages of proposed exhibits," the ALJ focused on the Respondent’s cooperative behavior and the credible testimony of the Board president regarding the April 22nd production of documents. This suggests that demonstrating "good faith" can be a powerful defense in administrative disputes.

MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.: A Study Guide on Association Records and Statutory Requirements

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Mangus L.D. MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc. (No. 19F-H1919070-REL). The case centers on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 regarding the duty of a homeowners' association to provide records to its members.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

Core Dispute

The primary issue in this matter is whether an association is legally required to obtain and produce records that are not currently in its possession to satisfy a member’s request under A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner, Mangus MacLeod, sought the "history trail" for four Certificates of Deposit (CDs) held by Mogollon Airpark, Inc. dating back to 2017.

Legal Venue and Parties
  • Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • Petitioner: Mangus (AKA Gary) L.D. MacLeod, Grantor and Trustee.
  • Respondent: Mogollon Airpark, Inc. (managed by HOAMCO).
  • Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden.
Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

This statute governs the availability of association records:

  • Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made reasonably available for examination.
  • Timeline for Examination: The association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
  • Timeline for Copies: The association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon a request for purchase.

Summary of Findings and Legal Conclusions

Factual Timeline
Date Event
April 13 & May 3, 2019 Mr. MacLeod makes formal requests for CD records from 2017.
April 22, 2019 HOAMCO (Respondent's management) provides all records currently in possession.
June 12, 2019 Mr. MacLeod files a petition alleging non-compliance.
June 2019 Board president Craig Albright assists MacLeod by visiting banks to produce further records.
Oct & Nov 2019 Administrative hearings are conducted.
December 2, 2019 Administrative Law Judge issues a decision dismissing the petition.
Judicial Reasoning
  1. Possession of Records: The court found that the Respondent provided all records it had in its possession at the time of the request. The Respondent even went beyond its legal duty by soliciting new records from banks to assist the Petitioner.
  2. Statutory Interpretation: The judge ruled that A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) does not require an association to obtain records it does not have. Expanding the statute to include such a requirement would be "absurd and unreasonable."
  3. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to provide "substantial evidence" that the Respondent withheld any records that were actually in its possession.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Who bears the burden of proof in this administrative hearing? Answer: The Petitioner (Mangus MacLeod).

2. What is the standard of proof required for this case? Answer: Preponderance of the evidence.

3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), how many business days does an association have to provide copies of requested records? Answer: Ten business days.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss Mr. MacLeod’s petition? Answer: Because the Respondent provided all records it possessed that were responsive to the request, and the law does not require associations to obtain records from third parties (like banks) that they do not currently hold.

5. How did the Board president, Craig Albright, demonstrate cooperation after the petition was filed? Answer: He accompanied Mr. MacLeod to several banks in June 2019 to help have records produced directly for him.

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. Statutory Construction and Judicial Restraint

The decision references State ex rel. Morrison v. Anway, stating that a tribunal "may not expand or extend a statute to include that which is not within its provisions." Discuss how this principle applied to the Judge’s interpretation of "other records" in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Why would requiring an association to retrieve third-party records be considered an "absurd and unreasonable" construction of the law?

2. The Definition of "Reasonably Available"

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), records must be made "reasonably available." Based on the findings of fact in this case, evaluate whether Mogollon Airpark, Inc. and its management company, HOAMCO, met this standard. Consider the actions taken by the Board president to contact banks and the information sent via email on April 22, 2019.

3. Evidentiary Weight and Witness Credibility

On the first day of the hearing, witness Craig Albright was described as "confused" regarding when certain bank records were obtained. On the second day, however, the Judge found his testimony "credible." Analyze the importance of witness credibility in administrative hearings and how the final determination of facts (Findings of Fact #15 and #16) influenced the legal outcome.

Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805: The specific Arizona statute governing the inspection and copying of association records by members.
  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who moves over trials and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies.
  • HOAMCO: The management company for Mogollon Airpark, Inc.
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Mangus MacLeod).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof where the evidence has the "most convincing force" and shows that a fact is more likely true than not.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Mogollon Airpark, Inc.).
  • Substantial Evidence: Evidence that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that a proposed finding should be substantiated.
  • Tribunal: A court or forum of justice; in this context, the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Limits of Transparency: Lessons from MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Transparency and Practicality

In the world of community association governance, transparency is a statutory mandate, yet it is frequently tested by the practical realities of record-keeping. A recurring flashpoint for litigation involves a fundamental question: does an association’s duty to provide records extend to documents it does not actually possess?

This tension reached a definitive conclusion in a dispute between homeowner Mangus MacLeod and Mogollon Airpark, Inc. The matter, litigated before the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Case No. 19F-H1919070-REL) and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as a critical boundary-marker for the rights of members and the administrative obligations of boards. The ruling clarifies that while transparency is essential, the law does not require an association to perform the impossible or the extra-statutory.

2. The Request: A Search for the "History Trail"

The conflict began in the spring of 2019. On April 13 and May 3, Petitioner Mangus MacLeod submitted formal requests to Mogollon Airpark, Inc. to examine and copy records dating back to 2017 concerning four Certificates of Deposit (CDs) held by the association. Mr. MacLeod's stated motive was to establish a "history trail" for these assets, which he argued was necessary for a "proper audit" of the association’s financial standing.

In response, Board President Craig Albright took proactive steps to satisfy the request. He coordinated with the association’s treasurer and contacted three separate financial institutions to retrieve the records. While two banks cooperated electronically, a third refused. The gathered documents, combined with records already in the association’s possession, were delivered to MacLeod via the management company, HOAMCO, on April 22, 2019.

Despite these efforts, MacLeod remained dissatisfied. He contended that the association was legally required to obtain the missing 2017 bank records, asserting that the association’s responsibility was not limited by what was currently in its filing cabinets but extended to any records it should have according to its internal policies.

3. Arguments from Both Sides
Petitioner (MacLeod) Respondent (Mogollon Airpark, Inc.)
Statutory Expansion: Argued that the term "other records" in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) should be interpreted to include all documents listed in the HOA’s records retention policy, regardless of whether the HOA actually possesses them. Possession-Based Compliance: Asserted that the association satisfied its legal duty by providing all responsive records currently in its possession or control.
Mandatory Procurement: Claimed the HOA has an affirmative legal obligation to retrieve records from third parties (banks) if a member requests them for an audit. Reasonable Effort: Argued that there is no statutory mandate to "create" a record or "procure" third-party documents that the association does not hold.
The "Audit" Motive: Asserted that the "history trail" was essential for financial oversight and that the HOA’s failure to produce it hindered member transparency. Good Faith Action: Highlighted Board President Albright’s extensive efforts to assist, including personally accompanying the Petitioner to banks to attempt to retrieve the data.
4. The Legal Verdict: Interpreting A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden focused the ruling on the strict construction of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires that association records be made "reasonably available for examination."

In his analysis, the ALJ firmly constrained the scope of the statute, refusing to "legislate from the bench" by expanding the law’s requirements. The court relied on three core legal principles to reach its decision:

  1. Avoidance of Absurdity: Citing Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona and State v. McFall, the ALJ noted that statutes must be interpreted to provide a "fair and sensible result" and that courts must reject "absurd and unreasonable construction."
  2. Statutory Limits: Referencing State ex rel. Morrison v. Anway, the ALJ emphasized that a tribunal may not expand or extend a statute to include requirements not expressly written in its provisions.
  3. Defining "Reasonably Available": The ALJ clarified that "reasonably available" pertains to the manner and timing of access to records the association actually has—it does not create a mandate for the association to hunt down, procure, or produce records held by third parties.

The ALJ concluded that equating a "retention policy" list with a "mandatory production" list was an unreasonable construction of the law.

5. Critical Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The MacLeod decision provides a roadmap for handling records disputes with precision and professional distance:

  • Possession vs. Obligation: A board’s duty is to produce what it has. The law does not require an association to "go hunting" for third-party records. If a record is not in the association's possession or control, the association has no statutory obligation to go out and get it.
  • The Credibility of Good Faith: During the hearing, Board President Albright was initially "confused" about the exact dates some records were obtained. However, because his underlying documentation (Exhibit 11) was solid and his actions—such as accompanying the petitioner to the bank—showed a clear intent to cooperate, the ALJ found his testimony credible.
  • The Burden of Proof is Substantial: Under Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-119, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence." The "smoking gun" in this case was MacLeod’s own admission: he could not identify a single record that the HOA actually possessed that was being withheld.
  • Internal Policies are Not Statutes: While a "records retention policy" is a best-practice internal document, it does not expand the association’s legal liability under A.R.S. § 33-1805. A homeowner cannot use an internal policy to force a board to perform duties that the state legislature did not expressly authorize.
6. Conclusion: A Fair and Sensible Result

The ruling in MacLeod v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc. reinforces a standard of reasonableness. While transparency is the law, it is not an unlimited license for members to demand administrative labor from their boards. By adhering to the "fair and sensible" standard, the ALJ protected community associations from being forced to act as private investigators for individual members. For boards, the takeaway is clear: document your records, cooperate in good faith, and rest assured that your legal obligations end where your actual possession of records begins.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mangus (AKA Gary) L.D. MacLeod (Petitioner)
    Appeared and testified

Respondent Side

  • Gregory Stein (Attorney for Respondent)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Craig Albright (Board President)
    Mogollon Airpark, Inc.
    Witness; testified
  • Brian Dye (Community Manager)
    HOAMCO

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the order
  • Felicia Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the order