Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1805

Colonia Del Rey Homeowners Association v. Gregory Czekaj

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Invalid fee increase due to proxy vote

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide ten-day meeting notice

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Petitioner exceeded rights as member

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

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

19F-H1919054-REL Decision – 720897.pdf

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Obligations vs. Member Demands for Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of Complaints and Outcomes

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

Important Quotes with Context

On Burdensome Record Requests

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

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

On the Definition of Statutory Notice

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

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

On Member Privileges vs. Board Authority

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

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

Actionable Insights

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

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

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

I. Case Overview

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

II. Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Interpretations

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

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

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

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

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

V. Glossary of Important Terms

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

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

1. Introduction: Small Association, Big Legal Stakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The $5 Assessment Increase: Navigating Voting Math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

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

Critical Takeaways for HOA Governance:

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:18 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:31 (149.3 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:19 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:22 (149.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?

4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?

6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?

7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?

8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?

10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.

2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.

4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.

5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.

6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.

7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.

8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.

9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.

10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.

1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.

2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.

3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”

4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.

Respondent

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

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
  • Jonathan Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.

Respondent Side

  • Brian Schoeffler (respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Also identified as a Board Director.
  • Catherine Overby (HOA president / board member)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
  • Lori Loch-Lee (property manager)
    Associated Asset Management (AAM)
    Vice President of Client Services.
  • Amanda Shaw (property manager)
    AAM LLC
    Contact for Respondent.
  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    HOA Coordinator.

Other Participants

  • Gerard Manieri (observer)
    Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
  • Peter Ashkin (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Stephen Banks (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Noah Banks (observer)
    Observed initial hearing.
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing.
  • Abraham Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing.

Michelle Ruffo vs. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-03
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michelle Ruffo Counsel —
Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1248, 33-1803(A), 33-1803(B), 33-1805; CC&Rs §§ 1.36, 1.38, 4.7, 2.8.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the governing documents or relevant statutes in assessing fines for unauthorized parking.

Why this result: Petitioner continually violated CC&R § 4.7 and failed to prove Respondent violated any CC&R or statute, particularly as A.R.S. § 33-1242 did not apply to disputes concerning the use of limited common elements.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of CC&Rs and Statutes by imposing parking fines

Petitioner challenged the HOA's decision to assess continuous fines against her account totaling $2,544.00 for repeatedly parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit 52, arguing the fines and enforcement lacked proper statutory process and violated CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and that the statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1242) concerning property condition notices did not apply to this dispute regarding limited common elements (parking spaces).

Orders: Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: parking violation, fines, HOA enforcement, limited common elements, due process, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 33-1242
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
  • CC&R § 4.7
  • CC&R § 2.8.3

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:12:35 (270.9 KB)

18F-H1818044-REL Decision – 663567.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:18 (270.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, involving Petitioner Michelle Ruffo and Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association. The core of the dispute centers on a series of fines levied by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for repeatedly parking in condominium parking spaces not assigned to her unit.

The Petitioner argued that she had informal written permission from other residents to use their spaces, that the Association’s notices of violation were procedurally flawed, that she was the victim of retaliatory harassment, and that her own assigned space was frequently occupied by others. The Respondent maintained that its actions were in strict accordance with the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which unambiguously require owners to use only their assigned parking spaces and outline a formal process for reallocating them, a process the Petitioner did not follow.

The ALJ ultimately denied the petition, finding that Ms. Ruffo failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision concluded that the Association acted within its rights, that its enforcement actions were consistent with its governing documents, and that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements represented the very “evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” As of the hearing date, the outstanding balance of fines, interest, and fees on the Petitioner’s account totaled $2,544.00.

Case Background

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Representation / Key Details

Petitioner

Michelle Ruffo

Owner of unit 52, assigned parking space #131. Appeared on her own behalf.

Respondent

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Assoc.

The condominium unit owners’ association. Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq. of Brown Olcott, PLLC.

Adjudicator

Diane Mihalsky

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Witnesses

Carol Lundberg

Testified for the Petitioner.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky & Gabino Trejo

Former and current property managers, respectively, who testified for the Respondent.

Core Dispute

The central issue is the Association’s imposition of fines against Ms. Ruffo for violating the community’s parking regulations. On or about April 17, 2018, Ms. Ruffo filed a petition alleging the Association violated its CC&Rs and several Arizona statutes by fining her for parking in spaces #38 and #40, which were not assigned to her unit #52. The Association denied any violation, asserting it was enforcing valid community rules.

Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict escalated over a period of approximately two years, marked by a series of notices, fines, and failed attempts at resolution.

• August 2, 2016: The Association sends a “Friendly Reminder” to Ms. Ruffo to cease parking in space #40 and use her assigned space, #131.

• August 5, 2016: A “Notice of Violation” is sent for the same issue, serving as a second warning.

• March 14, 2017: A “Final Non-Compliance Notice” is issued, noting violations in both space #40 and #38. The notice informs Ms. Ruffo of her right to a hearing with the Board of Directors if requested within 14 days.

• March 30, 2017: The first fine of $50.00 is assessed after Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle is again observed in space #38.

• April 17, 2017: Ms. Ruffo responds in writing, claiming she has permission to use the spaces and requests the fine be waived.

• April 27, 2017: The Association’s Board reviews and denies the waiver request. Ms. Ruffo was invited to address the Board but did not attend.

• June 6, 2017: A $200.00 fine is assessed for two observed violations in space #40.

• June 26, 2017: Another $200.00 fine is assessed for violations in spaces #40 and #38.

• July 11, 2017: The Association warns that access to community amenities (pool, fitness room) will be denied if fines remain unpaid. This action is later taken.

• August 31, 2017: A Board meeting is scheduled for Ms. Ruffo and her attorney, Mark F. Williman, to attend. Neither party attends, and they fail to provide advance notice. The Association incurs a $200 legal fee for its attorney’s attendance.

• September 25, 2017: Fines totaling $1,400.00 are assessed for multiple observed violations.

• September 27, 2017: The Association attempts to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. The attempt is aborted after she refuses to exit the vehicle and calls the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s attorney informs Ms. Ruffo that another hearing will not be scheduled until she reimburses the Association for the $200 legal fee from the missed August 31 meeting.

• October 2017 – January 2018: A series of additional fines are assessed for ongoing violations, and Ms. Ruffo sends multiple letters requesting a hearing and protesting the fines and the $200 reimbursement requirement.

• April 17, 2018: Ms. Ruffo files the formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 18, 2018: The evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Michelle Ruffo)

Ms. Ruffo’s defense was multi-faceted, based on claims of permission, procedural errors by the Association, and alleged harassment.

• Claim of Permission: Ms. Ruffo testified that since 2005, she had been parking in spaces #38 and #40 with written permission. She claimed a 2006 agreement with the Morleys, then owners of unit #56, for space #40. She also submitted a 2018 email from Julie Ruiz, a tenant in unit #53, granting permission to use space #38.

• Allegations of Improper Notices: She argued the Association’s notices violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(C) because they did not always identify the person who observed the violation or provide photographic evidence.

• Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation: Through an attorney, Ms. Ruffo alleged she was being “unlawfully discriminated against and harassed in retaliation for her role related to allegations that HOA President Mitch Treese misappropriated HOA funds.” The ALJ noted that no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this claim.

• Counter-Evidence: Ms. Ruffo submitted photographs dated from October 2016 to July 2017 showing other vehicles, including those of Associa maintenance and a landscaping contractor, parked in her assigned space #131.

• Dispute over Hearing Preconditions: She argued that the Association’s demand for a $200 reimbursement for its attorney’s fees as a condition for a new hearing was unlawful and not permitted under the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Position (The Association)

The Association’s case rested on the explicit language of its governing documents and its adherence to established enforcement procedures.

• Primacy of the CC&Rs: The Association argued that its governing documents are unambiguous. Section 4.7 explicitly forbids owners from parking in any space other than the one assigned to their unit as a Limited Common Element.

• Formal Reallocation Process: Per Section 2.8.3, reallocating a Limited Common Element like a parking space requires a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved and submitted to the Board for approval. Ms. Ruffo never followed this procedure.

• Rejection of Informal Agreements: The property manager testified that such private agreements are not legally binding or enforceable by the Association and create confusion, as evidenced by complaints from subsequent owners and tenants who were unable to use their assigned spaces.

• Adherence to Enforcement Policy: The Association followed its documented Violation Enforcement Policy, starting with a friendly reminder and escalating to formal notices and fines for continued non-compliance.

• Opportunity to Be Heard: Ms. Ruffo was provided opportunities to address the Board on April 27, 2017, and August 31, 2017. She failed to attend either meeting, and her failure to provide notice for the latter caused the Association to incur unnecessary legal fees.

• Witness Testimony: The former property manager, Ms. Chapman, testified that she had personally witnessed all the charged violations.

Governing Documents and Statutes

The case hinged on the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs and relevant Arizona state law.

Key CC&R Provisions

Section

Provision

Relevance

Motor Vehicles: “no Owner, Lessee or Occupant may park any . . . motor vehicle . . . in any Parking Spaces other than the Parking Space assigned to the Unit as a Limited Common Element.”

The central rule that the Petitioner was found to have repeatedly violated.

§ 2.8.3

Reallocation of Limited Common Elements: A reallocation requires a formal, recorded amendment executed by the owners and submitted to the Board.

The official procedure for changing parking space assignments, which the Petitioner did not follow for her informal agreements.

§ 13.1

Enforcement: Grants the Association the right to impose monetary penalties, suspend an owner’s right to use facilities, and tow vehicles in violation of the rules, after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Provides the legal authority within the governing documents for the Association’s actions (fines, suspension of amenity access, attempted tow).

§ 1.36

“Parking Space” Definition: Defines a parking space as a portion of the Limited Common Elements.

Legally classifies the disputed parking spaces, making them subject to the rules governing Limited Common Elements.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 33-1242(C), which requires an association, upon written request from an owner, to provide details of an alleged violation, including the observer’s name and the date. The ALJ determined this statute was inapplicable to the dispute. The judge’s reasoning was that the statute applies specifically to notices regarding the “condition of the property owned by the unit owner” (i.e., her physical condo unit #52), not her use of Limited Common Elements like parking spaces, which she does not own.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was a conclusive denial of the petition, siding entirely with the Association.

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Michelle Ruffo’s petition against Respondent Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association is denied because Petitioner has not established that Respondent violated the CC&Rs or any statute in assessing fines against her for her repeated violations of CC&R § 4.7 by parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit #52.”

Key Legal Conclusions

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so.

• Unambiguous Covenants: The CC&Rs regarding parking are unambiguous and must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. CC&R § 4.7 clearly requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

• Invalidity of Informal Agreements: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s reliance on informal agreements illustrated “the evils that the CC&Rs were designed to prevent.” These undocumented side deals create instability and conflict when properties are sold or new tenants arrive, undermining the security and order of the community’s parking plan.

• Respondent’s Proper Conduct: The Association was found to have followed its own enforcement policy and provided the Petitioner with opportunities to be heard.

• Attorney’s Fee Condition: While the CC&Rs do not explicitly authorize charging an owner for attorney’s fees as a precondition for a hearing, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(18) allows an association to “exercise any . . . powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation.” Furthermore, civil statutes often require a party to pay for fees they cause an opponent to incur unnecessarily.

• Futility of a Board Hearing: The ALJ concluded that, in light of the Petitioner’s arguments and her “continued violation of Respondent’s parking policy over nearly two years,” a hearing before the Association’s Board would not have changed her behavior or the outcome of the matter.

Financial Implications

The conflict resulted in significant financial penalties for the Petitioner. The fines were assessed on an escalating basis for continued violations.

• March 30, 2017: $50.00

• June 6, 2017: $200.00

• June 26, 2017: $200.00

• August 9, 2017: $200.00

• September 25, 2017: $1,400.00

• October 17, 2017: $100.00

• November 6, 2017: $100.00

As of the hearing on September 18, 2018, the total outstanding balance on Ms. Ruffo’s account, including interest and certified letter fees, was $2,544.00.

Study Guide: Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

This guide is designed to review and assess understanding of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1818044-REL, Michelle Ruffo v. Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what is the central dispute between them?

2. What was the Petitioner’s main justification for parking in spaces that were not assigned to her unit?

3. According to the Association’s CC&Rs, what is the formal procedure required to reallocate a Limited Common Element, such as a parking space?

4. Describe the key enforcement actions the Condo Association took against the Petitioner in response to the ongoing parking violations.

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge determine that Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1242(B) and (C) did not apply in this case?

6. Summarize the incident involving the tow truck on September 27, 2017.

7. What reason did the Association’s attorney provide for requiring the Petitioner to pay a $200 fee before another hearing would be scheduled?

8. What evidence did the Petitioner submit to demonstrate that her own assigned parking space, #131, was frequently occupied by others?

9. Identify the two property managers who provided telephonic testimony on behalf of the Respondent.

10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Michelle Ruffo, the Petitioner and owner of unit 52, and Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association, the Respondent. The central dispute is over fines imposed by the Association against Ms. Ruffo for her repeated violations of parking rules by parking in spaces not assigned to her unit.

2. The Petitioner justified her actions by claiming she had long-standing written permission from other unit owners or tenants to use their spaces. Specifically, she cited a 2006 agreement with the owners of unit #56 to use space #40 and more recent permission from a tenant in unit #53 to use space #38.

3. According to Section 2.8.3 of the CC&Rs, reallocating a Limited Common Element requires an amendment to the Declaration. This amendment must be executed by the owners involved, state how the element is being reallocated, and be submitted to the Board of Directors for approval before it can be recorded.

4. The Association’s enforcement actions escalated over time, beginning with a “Friendly Reminder” and moving to a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” Subsequently, the Association assessed escalating monetary fines, suspended the Petitioner’s access to amenities like the pool and fitness room, and attempted to have her vehicle towed.

5. The judge ruled the statute did not apply because it specifically pertains to written notices about the condition of the property owned by the unit owner. The dispute in this case was not about the condition of Ms. Ruffo’s unit (#52) but about her use of Limited Common Elements (parking spaces) that were not assigned to her.

6. On September 27, 2017, the Association attempted to tow the Petitioner’s vehicle from a space not assigned to her. The Petitioner was inside her vehicle and refused to leave, calling the Pima County Sheriff’s Office. The responding officer instructed the tow truck driver to remove the equipment and try again at another time.

7. The Association required the $200 fee to reimburse it for the attorney’s fees it incurred for a Board meeting scheduled on August 31, 2017. The Petitioner and her attorney at the time, Mr. Williman, failed to attend this meeting and did not provide notice of their absence until a few minutes before it was scheduled to begin.

8. The Petitioner submitted a series of dated photographs showing various other vehicles parked in her assigned space, #131. These vehicles included maintenance trucks bearing the Associa logo, a landscaping contractor’s truck and trailer, and several other private cars.

9. The two property managers who testified for the Respondent were Gabino Trejo, the current manager, and Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (referred to as Ms. Chapman), the former manager.

10. The final ruling was a denial of Michelle Ruffo’s petition. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent violated any CC&Rs or statutes, concluding that the Association was justified in assessing fines for her repeated and clear violations of CC&R § 4.7, which requires owners to park in their assigned spaces.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.

1. Analyze the arguments and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the specific CC&R sections, witness testimonies, and exhibits each side used to support their claims, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s position more convincing.

2. The concept of “Limited Common Elements” is central to this case. Using the definitions provided in the CC&Rs (Sections 1.31, 1.36, and 2.8.1(e)), explain the legal significance of this designation in the dispute over parking spaces. How did the specific rules for reallocating these elements (CC&R § 2.8.3) undermine the Petitioner’s primary defense?

3. Trace the timeline of communication and escalating enforcement actions taken by the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association against Michelle Ruffo, beginning with the “Friendly Reminder” in August 2016. Evaluate whether the Association followed its own Violation Enforcement Policy and the powers granted to it in the CC&Rs throughout this process.

4. Discuss the role of legal representation and the various attorneys involved in this case (Nathan Tennyson, Mark F. Williman, Eric J. Thomae, Jonathan Olcott). How did their actions, communications, and, in one instance, inaction, impact the proceedings and the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent?

5. The Petitioner argued that her right to due process was violated because the violation notices she received did not contain photographs or identify the person who observed the violation. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting this argument, specifically referencing the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the distinction made between a violation concerning the “condition of the property owned” versus the use of common elements.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Several statutes, including those under Title 33 (Property) and Title 32 (Professions and Occupations), were cited in the case.

Associa Property Management Services

The property management company employed by the Respondent to manage the condominium complex. Both Ms. Chapman and Mr. Trejo were employees of Associa.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or condominium. The CC&Rs define the rights and obligations of the homeowners’ association and its members.

Gabino Trejo

The current property manager for the Respondent at the time of the hearing.

Limited Common Elements

As defined in CC&R § 1.31, a portion of the Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units. Parking spaces are explicitly defined as Limited Common Elements.

Mark F. Williman, Esq.

An attorney and friend of the Petitioner who agreed to help her resolve issues with the Board. He failed to attend a scheduled Board meeting on her behalf on August 31, 2017.

Michelle Ruffo

The Petitioner in the case, owner of condominium unit 52, and member of the Respondent association.

Parking Space

As defined in CC&R § 1.36, a portion of the Limited Common Elements intended for parking a single motor vehicle and allocated to a specific Unit Owner for their exclusive use.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, Michelle Ruffo.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association

The Respondent in the case; the condominium unit owners’ association for the development where the Petitioner resides.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Reflections in the Catalinas Condo Association.

Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (Ms. Chapman)

The former property manager for the Respondent (from 2012 to early 2018) who handled most of the interactions and sent most of the violation notices to the Petitioner.

Violation Enforcement Policy

The Respondent’s official policy that outlines the procedure for addressing violations, including sending a “Friendly Reminder” and a “Notice of Violation,” and provides for a hearing if requested within 14 days.

How a Parking Spot Deal Led to a Tow Truck Standoff and a $2,544 HOA Bill: 4 Lessons

Introduction: The Handshake Deal That Cost a Fortune

It’s a common scenario in community living: you make a friendly, informal agreement with a neighbor. Maybe you agree to switch parking spots for convenience or let them use your guest pass. These simple handshake deals seem harmless, but what happens when they collide with the ironclad rules of a homeowners’ association (HOA)?

The real-life case of Michelle Ruffo and her condo association serves as a stark cautionary tale. A long-standing, informal parking arrangement escalated into a bitter dispute that culminated in a tow truck standoff, loss of amenities, and a final bill for $2,544 in fines and fees. This case reveals several surprising and critical lessons for anyone living in a community governed by an association.

1. Your Neighbor’s Permission Can Be Legally Worthless

The core of the dispute was Ms. Ruffo’s belief that she had the right to park in spaces other than her own. Since 2006, she had an agreement with another owner to use space #40. Later, she began parking in space #38, believing she had permission from that unit’s tenant. From her perspective, she had done her due diligence. This is the core conflict in community living: the perceived authority of a neighbor’s handshake versus the legal authority of the governing documents.

The association, however, operated under its official Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Those documents told a different story.

• Section 4.7 explicitly required owners to park only in their assigned spaces.

• Section 2.8.3 detailed the only valid procedure for changing parking allocations. Because parking spaces are “Limited Common Elements,” any reallocation required a formal, written amendment executed by the unit owners involved, submitted to the Board for approval, and then officially recorded.

Crucially, the property manager testified that the owner of the unit assigned to space #38 had explicitly denied giving Ms. Ruffo permission and reported that his tenants were complaining. Because Ms. Ruffo never followed the formal procedure, her informal agreements were not recognized or enforceable. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision highlighted the critical importance of these rules:

Because Petitioner never submitted any written agreement with another owner regarding reallocation of parking spaces to Respondent’s Board for its tacit approval, as CC&R § 2.8.3 requires, subsequent tenants and owners have no notice of Petitioner’s alleged agreements with their predecessors regarding parking spaces. If everyone adopted Petitioner’s sense of entitlement as to parking spaces at the Reflections, no one would be able to park their car with any security or plan.

2. Ignoring Official Notices Leads to More Than Just Fines

This conflict didn’t begin with a massive fine. The property management company, Associa, followed a documented escalation process that provided Ms. Ruffo with multiple opportunities to comply. For any homeowner, this documented paper trail should have been a five-alarm fire, signaling a problem that required immediate and formal resolution.

The warnings began on August 2, 2016, with a “Friendly Reminder,” followed by a “Notice of Violation” and a “Final Non-Compliance Notice.” The first fine of just $50 wasn’t assessed until March 30, 2017. But as the violations continued, so did the consequences. After a July 11, 2017 letter, the association shut off Ms. Ruffo’s “electric-key access to the pool and fitness center for the community,” a tangible loss of amenities.

The financial penalties then began to skyrocket. Fines of $200 were assessed in June and August. Then, on September 25, 2017, the association dropped the hammer: a single letter assessing $1,400 for 14 separate observed violations. Just two days later, on September 27, the dispute reached its climax. The association attempted to tow Ms. Ruffo’s vehicle. She was inside the car and refused to leave, prompting her to call the Sheriff’s Office to intervene. The situation had moved from letters and fines to a physical standoff in the parking lot.

3. Skipping a Hearing Can Get You a Bill for the HOA’s Lawyer

After retaining an attorney, Ms. Ruffo was scheduled to have her case heard by the Board on August 31, 2017. The association, anticipating a formal legal discussion, also had its own attorney present. In any formal dispute, failing to appear at your own requested hearing is a critical error. In this case, it not only cost Ruffo credibility but also came with an immediate invoice.

Minutes before the meeting, while the Board and its lawyer were waiting, Ruffo’s attorney sent a message that neither he nor his client would be attending. This last-minute cancellation had a direct financial consequence. The association’s attorney charged it $200 for the time spent on the aborted meeting. The Board then refused to schedule another hearing until Ms. Ruffo reimbursed the association for that $200 fee. This failure to engage was immediately followed by the association’s most severe actions: the $1,400 fine and the attempt to tow her vehicle.

4. “But They Do It Too!” Is Not a Winning Legal Defense

A common response to a violation notice is to point out that others are breaking the rules as well. Ms. Ruffo attempted this strategy, presenting photographic evidence that her own assigned space, #131, was frequently occupied by other vehicles, including maintenance vans bearing the property management company’s logo.

While the property manager testified that she had addressed the issue with the maintenance crew, the Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive. The ruling contained a crucial insight: The lesson isn’t just that this defense failed, but why it failed. The Judge noted that Ms. Ruffo “did not present any evidence… that she made any effort to report others parking in her assigned space when there was something that the property manager or Respondent could have done about it.” By failing to formally and properly report her own issue, she undermined her claim that the association was negligent, making it impossible to excuse her own persistent violations.

Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Shake On It

This case serves as a powerful reminder of a fundamental truth of community living: in an HOA, the official, written governing documents are the ultimate authority. Informal “handshake deals,” no matter how reasonable they seem, can lead to serious consequences when they conflict with the rules. This dispute didn’t just involve letters; it led to escalating fines, the loss of amenities, a physical standoff with a tow truck, and ultimately a legal judgment.

This entire conflict, which cost thousands of dollars and countless hours, started with a parking spot—when was the last time you read your community’s rules?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michelle Ruffo (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf.
  • Carol Lundberg (witness)
    Resides in Unit 45; presented testimony by Petitioner.
  • Julie Ruiz (witness)
    Unit 53 Tenant
    Provided email confirming she gave Petitioner permission to park in Unit 53's space.
  • Mark F. Williman (attorney)
    Retained by Petitioner; failed to attend the August 31, 2017 Board meeting.
  • Eric J. Thomae (attorney)
    Retained by Petitioner sometime after October 24, 2017.

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC
  • Vanessa Chapman Lubinsky (property manager)
    Associa Property Management Services
    Former manager; referred to as Ms. Chapman in the decision.
  • Gabino Trejo (property manager)
    Associa Property Management Services
    Current manager.
  • John Pohlig (unit owner)
    Owner of unit assigned space #38; communicated he had not given Petitioner permission to park there.
  • Jonathan Olcott (HOA attorney)
  • Mitch Treese (HOA president)
    Alleged by Petitioner's attorney to have misappropriated HOA funds.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Transmitted decision electronically.

William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide access to association records

The Respondent failed to fulfill the Petitioner's February 6, 2017, records request within 10 business days. The Respondent argued that disclosure was prohibited under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) due to pending criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The ALJ determined that the exception applies only to pending litigation between the association and the member, not a criminal case in which the association was not a party.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days and pay the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, access to records, pending litigation exception, HOA records, planned community
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 575932.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:09 (79.9 KB)

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 578529.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:12 (726.4 KB)

17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 586360.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:15 (95.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative case of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., focusing on a homeowner association’s (HOA) obligation to provide records to a member under Arizona law. The core issue was the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption within A.R.S. § 33-1805, which allows an association to withhold certain records.

Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) denied a records request from its member, William M. Brown, citing a pending criminal case against him. However, Terravita was not a party to this criminal litigation. Mr. Brown contended this denial violated state law, arguing the exemption only applies when the association itself is a party to the litigation. Terravita argued for a broader interpretation, claiming the statute did not require the association to be a party.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of Mr. Brown. The judge concluded that Terravita’s interpretation would lead to an “absurd result,” effectively allowing any HOA to deny records related to any litigation anywhere. The judge established that the sensible and plain meaning of the statute is that the exemption for “pending litigation” applies only to legal disputes between the association and the member.

The Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision in a Final Order. Terravita was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, ordered to produce the requested records, and mandated to reimburse Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee.

Case Timeline and Factual Background

The dispute followed a clear sequence of events, beginning with the records request and culminating in a final administrative order.

February 6, 2017

William M. Brown, a member of Terravita, formally requests records from the association.

February 14, 2017

Terravita sends an email to Mr. Brown denying the request. The denial cites a “pending criminal litigation” against him and invokes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) as justification.

Post-Feb. 6, 2017

Terravita fails to fulfill the records request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.

April 13, 2017

The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives a Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond.

May 2, 2017

Terravita files its response, formally asserting as an affirmative defense that it was not required to disclose the records due to the pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.

May 3, 2017

The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, setting the matter for June 26, 2017, before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

June 26, 2017

The administrative hearing is conducted. Both parties present their arguments.

July 14, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issues a decision finding in favor of the Petitioner, Mr. Brown.

July 24, 2017

Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

Core Dispute: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central conflict was the proper application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. Subsection (A) mandates that records be made available for examination within 10 business days. Subsection (B) provides exemptions, including for records related to “pending litigation.”

Petitioner’s Position (William M. Brown)

Mr. Brown’s argument was straightforward and focused on a narrow interpretation of the statutory exemption.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within the legally mandated 10 business days.

• Limited Scope of Exemption: He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only to litigation in which the association itself is a party.

• Factual Basis: Since Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought against him by the City of Scottsdale, the exemption was inapplicable.

• Legislative Intent: Mr. Brown noted that the statute had been amended to remove the phrase “contemplated litigation,” suggesting the legislature intended to narrow, not broaden, the scope of the exemption.

Respondent’s Position (Terravita Country Club, Inc.)

Terravita argued for a broader interpretation of the statute, asserting that its non-party status was irrelevant.

• “Plain Meaning” of the Statute: Terravita’s position was that the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) does not explicitly require the association to be a party to the pending litigation.

• Relevance of the Litigation: The association argued the criminal case was germane because it was “based upon an allegation that Mr. Brown threated Terravita’s board members and property.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision provided a comprehensive legal analysis, ultimately rejecting Terravita’s interpretation of the law and finding that Mr. Brown had established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Statutory Interpretation and the “Absurd Result” Doctrine

The decision hinged on the principle that legislation must be given a “sensible construction that avoids absurd results.” The judge analyzed the consequences of Terravita’s interpretation:

“Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.”

Based on this reasoning, the judge rejected Terravita’s argument and established a clear standard for applying the exemption.

The Correct Interpretation of the Law

The ALJ articulated the “plain meaning” of the statute, establishing a critical precedent for its application:

“The plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) is that while homeowners’ associations must provide access to financial and other documents to its members within 10 business days, an association may withhold documents that relate to pending litigation between the association and the member.”

Final Conclusion

The judge applied this correct interpretation to the undisputed facts of the case:

1. At the time of Mr. Brown’s request, he was facing criminal charges initiated by the City of Scottsdale.

2. Terravita was not a party to that criminal case.

3. Therefore, the exemption did not apply, and Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill the records request within 10 business days.

Final Order and Mandates

The decision issued by the ALJ on July 14, 2017, became the basis for the Final Order issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017. The Commissioner accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision, making its mandates binding and effective immediately.

The key directives of the order were:

• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was formally deemed the prevailing party.

• Compliance: Terravita was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days of the order.

• Reimbursement of Fees: Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 directly within 30 days of the order.

• No Civil Penalty: The judge found that a civil penalty was not appropriate in the matter.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (No. 17F-H1717032-REL), heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the central conflict, the legal arguments, the statutory interpretations, and the final resolution of the dispute.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

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

1. What was the initial action taken by William M. Brown on February 6, 2017, and what was Terravita Country Club’s response?

2. On what legal grounds did Terravita justify its refusal to provide the requested records?

3. What was William M. Brown’s primary legal argument against Terravita’s position during the hearing?

4. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Terravita’s argument regarding A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2), and why was it rejected?

5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?

6. What key fact regarding the “pending litigation” was central to the Judge’s final decision?

7. What was the final conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge regarding Terravita’s actions?

8. Identify the three specific orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Recommended Order.”

9. What state department adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, making it a “Final Order”?

10. Besides complying with the records request and paying the filing fee, what specific penalty was explicitly not levied against Terravita?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club. On February 14, 2017, Terravita responded via email, refusing to disclose the records because they were allegedly part of pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.

2. Terravita justified its refusal by citing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805(B)(2). The club argued that this statute allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”

3. Mr. Brown’s primary argument was that Terravita had violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide records within 10 business days. He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” in § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only when the association itself is a party to that litigation, which Terravita was not in his criminal case.

4. The Judge interpreted Terravita’s argument to mean that an association could deny any records request if the documents related to pending litigation between any two parties anywhere. This interpretation was rejected because it would lead to the “absurd result” of broadly denying access to records, which was not the statute’s intent.

5. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the evidentiary standard where the trier of fact must be convinced that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that Terravita violated the statute, while the Respondent (Terravita) bore the burden of proving its affirmative defenses.

6. The central fact was that Terravita Country Club was not a party to the criminal case brought against Mr. Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Because the association was not a party, the judge ruled that the statutory exemption for withholding records related to pending litigation did not apply.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Brown had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his records request within the required 10 business days. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

8. The Judge ordered that: (1) the Petitioner (Mr. Brown) be deemed the prevailing party; (2) Terravita must comply with the records request within 10 days of the Order; and (3) Terravita must pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the Order.

9. The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This action, dated July 24, 2017, made the decision a binding Final Order.

10. The Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Final Order, explicitly states that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon the facts, legal principles, and arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) presented by William M. Brown and Terravita Country Club. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to resolve this dispute, including the principle of avoiding “absurd results.”

2. Describe the complete timeline of the case, from the initial records request to the issuance of the Final Order. For each key date, explain the event’s significance to the progression and outcome of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain how this standard was applied to both the Petitioner’s claim and the Respondent’s affirmative defense and why the Judge ultimately found that the Petitioner had met this burden.

4. Examine the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in resolving disputes within planned communities, as demonstrated by this case. How does the process flow from an initial petition to a binding order?

5. Based on the Judge’s decision, formulate an argument about the balance between a homeowner’s right to access association records and an association’s right to protect its interests in legal matters. How does A.R.S. § 33-1805 attempt to strike this balance, and how did the ruling in this case clarify its limits?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments raised by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. Terravita’s claim that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) exempted them was their affirmative defense.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that requires a planned community association to make financial and other records available for member examination within 10 business days.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

The section of Arizona Revised Statutes that allows an association to withhold books and records from disclosure if the portion withheld relates to “pending litigation.”

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The Arizona statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of statutes or community documents.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. The Petitioner bore the burden to prove the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden to establish its defense.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that received the Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown and ultimately adopted the ALJ’s decision, making it final.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which adopted the ALJ’s Recommended Order. This order is an administrative action and is effective immediately upon service.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where administrative law judges conduct hearings on disputes, such as the one between Mr. Brown and Terravita.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or hearing by filing a petition. In this case, William M. Brown was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents “the greater weight of the evidence.”

Prevailing Party

The party who is successful in a legal case. The Final Order deemed William M. Brown the prevailing party.

Recommended Order

The initial decision and orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. This decision is then sent to the relevant state agency (in this case, the Department of Real Estate) for adoption.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc. was the Respondent.

Your HOA Can’t Use “Pending Litigation” to Hide Records. This Homeowner Proved It.

Introduction: The Wall of Secrecy

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like confronting an organization that operates with total authority and little transparency. Board decisions can seem arbitrary, and getting straight answers or access to official documents can be a frustrating, uphill battle. But what happens when an HOA flatly denies a simple request for records, citing a vague legal reason?

One homeowner decided to find out. The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a fascinating look at how a single individual challenged his HOA’s interpretation of state law. In doing so, he not only won access to the records he sought but also revealed a crucial limit on an HOA’s power to operate in secret.

The Takeaways: Four Lessons from a Landmark HOA Dispute

This case offers several powerful and practical lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt stonewalled by their association’s board.

Takeaway 1: “Pending Litigation” Isn’t a Blank Check to Deny Records

At the heart of the dispute was a simple request. On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown asked his HOA, Terravita, for access to association records. The HOA denied the request, citing an exemption in Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)) that allows an association to withhold records related to “pending litigation.”

Terravita’s argument was that this exemption applied because of a pending criminal case against Mr. Brown. Crucially, they argued this was not just any unrelated case; the criminal charges stemmed from allegations that Mr. Brown had threatened the HOA’s board members and property. From their perspective, the records request was directly linked to a hostile legal situation involving the association’s leadership. However, the critical fact remained that the HOA itself was not a formal party to the criminal case.

The judge’s ruling was definitive and clear: the “pending litigation” exemption can only be used to withhold records if the litigation is between the association and the member. Because Terravita was not a party to Mr. Brown’s criminal case, it had no legal grounds to use that case as an excuse to withhold its records from him. This ruling draws a bright line: The “pending litigation” shield cannot be borrowed from a separate case, even one that feels highly relevant to the HOA.

Takeaway 2: Legal Interpretations Must Be Sensible, Not Absurd

The HOA argued for a literal interpretation of the law, claiming the statute didn’t explicitly state that the association had to be a party to the litigation. Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson rejected this line of reasoning, stating that it would lead to an “absurd result.”

This is a critical lesson for homeowners. Judges are tasked with ensuring laws are applied sensibly. When an HOA’s interpretation of a rule would create an illogical or unfair outcome, it is vulnerable to legal challenge. The judge highlighted the flaw in the HOA’s logic with a powerful statement in her decision:

Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.

Takeaway 3: A Single Homeowner Can Successfully Challenge Their HOA

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of this case is who argued it. The court documents show that while the HOA was represented by legal counsel (“Joshua Bolen, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.”), Mr. Brown represented himself (“Petitioner William M. Brown appeared on behalf of himself”).

Despite being outmatched on paper, Mr. Brown successfully researched the law, presented a logical argument, and held his ground. His victory demonstrates that the legal process is not just for lawyers. A well-researched, logical argument from a homeowner can be more powerful than a law firm’s flawed interpretation of a statute. The judge ultimately found that “Mr. Brown established by a preponderance of the evidence that Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within 10 business days.”

Takeaway 4: Misapplying the Law Can Have Financial Consequences

This wasn’t just a moral victory. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017, came with tangible consequences for the HOA. For its failure to correctly apply the law, Terravita faced direct and tangible consequences.

• The HOA was ordered to provide the requested records within 10 days.

• The homeowner, Mr. Brown, was deemed the “prevailing party.”

• The HOA, Terravita, was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00.

This outcome underscores a critical point: when an HOA oversteps its authority or misinterprets the law, it can be held financially responsible for the costs incurred by the homeowner forced to challenge its actions.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The story of William M. Brown’s dispute with his HOA serves as a powerful reminder that HOAs do not have unlimited power. They are governed by specific state laws, and understanding those laws is the most effective tool a homeowner possesses.

The central lesson is that an HOA’s authority is not absolute, and its interpretation of its own rules—and, more importantly, state law—must be reasonable and sensible. This case affirms the right of members to transparency and proves that a single, well-prepared homeowner can successfully stand up for those rights.

After seeing how one homeowner held his board accountable, will you take the time to learn your rights before you need them?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself

Respondent Side

  • Joshua Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

William M. Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide access to records within the mandated 10 business days. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Joshua Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide access to records within the mandated 10 business days. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute and refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely respond to records request

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to timely respond to his July 30, 2016 records request, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Tribunal found that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill the request for examination of records within 10 business days, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request for records within 10 days of the Order. Respondent is ordered to 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
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Failure to Respond, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:42:37 (87.9 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:42:43 (789.4 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 574630.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:51 (87.9 KB)

17F-H1716005-REL Decision – 575115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:17:55 (789.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative hearing and final order in the case of William M. Brown (Petitioner) versus Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent), Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL. The central issue was Terravita’s failure to respond to a member’s request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioner’s testimony and evidence to be credible, establishing that Mr. Brown submitted a valid records request via e-mail on July 30, 2016, to which Terravita did not timely respond. The ALJ found the testimony of Terravita’s key witness to be unreliable and rejected Terravita’s defenses, which included claims of non-receipt, improper submission procedure, and falsified evidence.

Ultimately, the ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The recommended order, which was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, mandated that Terravita comply with the records request, reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee, and deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party. No civil penalty was assessed.

Case Overview

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

17F-H1716005-REL (OAH) / HO 17-16/005 (DRE)

Petitioner

William M. Brown (Appeared on behalf of himself)

Respondent

Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Represented by Joshua Bolen, Esq.)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Adopting Authority

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Commissioner

Judy Lowe

Hearing Date

June 19, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

July 10, 2017

Final Order Date

July 11, 2017

Chronology of Events

• February 12, 2016: Anita Bell requests records from Terravita via Mr. Brown’s e-mail account. The request is forwarded to General Manager Tom Forbes.

• February 19, 2016: Mr. Forbes informs Ms. Bell that the records will be ready on February 22.

• March 14, 2016: Ms. Bell submits another records request from Mr. Brown’s e-mail account.

• March 18, 2016: Cici Rausch, Terravita’s Director of Administration, informs Ms. Bell when the records can be retrieved.

• July 29, 2016: Date of the records request at the center of the legal dispute.

• July 30, 2016: Mr. Brown e-mails the records request to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley. On the same day, he separately requests records from the Terravita Community Association, Inc. (TCA).

• August 6, 2016: Mr. Brown sends another records request to Ms. Wiley.

• August 8, 2016: TCA responds to Mr. Brown’s July 30 request.

• August 12, 2016: Terravita responds to Mr. Brown’s August 6 request.

• August 18, 2016: Mr. Brown files a Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond to his July 30 request.

• September 9, 2016: Terravita files a response, alleging it did not receive the July 30 records request.

• June 19, 2017: The administrative hearing is held.

• July 10, 2017: The ALJ issues a decision finding in favor of Mr. Brown.

• July 11, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepts the ALJ’s decision and issues a Final Order.

Analysis of the Central Dispute

The core of the case revolved around whether Terravita violated its statutory duty to respond to Mr. Brown’s records request dated July 29, 2016, which he e-mailed on July 30, 2016.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

• Core Allegation: Mr. Brown testified that he sent the records request via e-mail to Terravita’s Secretary, Fran Wiley, on July 30, 2016, and that Terravita failed to respond within the 10-business-day period mandated by law.

• Evidence: Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016 forwarded e-mail (Exhibit P2) that contained the original July 30, 2016 e-mail sent to Ms. Wiley.

• Judicial Finding: The ALJ found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be “credible.”

Respondent’s Defenses and the Court’s Findings

Terravita presented several arguments to contest the allegation, all of which were ultimately unpersuasive to the court.

1. Claim of Non-Receipt: Terravita contended it never received the July 30, 2016 request. Ms. Wiley testified she did not receive a request from Mr. Brown on July 29 or July 30.

◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ found Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be “unreliable.” The decision noted that Ms. Wiley testified that Terravita was “indirectly” informed around August 5 that “perhaps Mr. Brown had made the request,” which undermined the claim of complete non-awareness.

2. Use of an Incorrect E-mail Address: Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the e-mail address to which Mr. Brown sent the request for Terravita affairs, claiming she used a different one in her official capacity as Secretary.

◦ Court’s Finding: This argument was implicitly rejected, as the ALJ concluded that Mr. Brown had successfully proven he submitted the request “to its Secretary, Ms. Wiley.”

3. Allegation of Falsified Evidence: Terravita contended that the forwarded e-mail evidence offered by Mr. Brown was falsified.

◦ Court’s Finding: The ALJ noted an inconsistency in Terravita’s position, stating, “Terravita did not contend that the written evidence of Mr. Brown’s August 5, 2016 records request, sent by e-mail to Ms. Wiley, was falsified.” This weakened the credibility of the falsification claim against the July 30 e-mail.

4. Non-Compliance with Internal Policy: Terravita argued that its own Rules, Policies, and Procedures required members to submit records requests to the General Manager and/or Director of Administration, not the Secretary.

◦ Court’s Finding: The decision focused entirely on the violation of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805, indicating that the statutory obligation superseded the association’s internal procedural preferences.

Legal Framework and Conclusions of Law

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) mandates that a homeowners’ association “shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination” of its financial and other records by a member.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner was required to prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ determined that Mr. Brown successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. He submitted a request for records to Terravita’s Secretary via e-mail on July 30, 2016.

2. Terravita failed to fulfill this request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.

• Final Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that “Terravita violated the charged provision of A.R.S. § 33-1805.” It was also noted that Terravita did not contend that any of the statutory exceptions to disclosure, such as privileged communication or pending litigation, applied.

Final Order and Directives

The ALJ’s decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate on July 11, 2017, making it a Final Order with the following mandates:

• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was deemed the prevailing party.

• Compliance with Request: Terravita was ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding Petitioner’s request of Terravita’s records” within 10 days of the Order.

• Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Terravita was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 directly to him within thirty (30) days.

• Civil Penalty: The court determined that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”

• Effective Date: The Order was made effective five (5) days from the date of its certification. The Final Order itself is effective immediately from the date of service, July 11, 2017.

Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716005-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision concerning William M. Brown’s records request to the Terravita Country Club. The case centers on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided case documents.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what was their established relationship?

2. What specific failure by Terravita Country Club, Inc. led Mr. Brown to file his Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the required timeframe for an association to fulfill a member’s request to examine its records?

4. What were the primary arguments Terravita presented to defend its failure to provide the requested records?

5. How did the Administrative Law Judge assess the credibility of the testimony provided by Mr. Brown and Terravita’s witness, Ms. Fran Wiley?

6. What piece of documentary evidence did Mr. Brown submit to prove he had sent the records request on July 30, 2016?

7. What is the standard of proof required in this hearing, and how is that standard defined in the decision?

8. What two specific actions did the final Recommended Order compel Terravita to take as a result of the ruling?

9. Why was Terravita’s argument that Mr. Brown failed to follow its internal rules for submitting records requests ultimately unsuccessful?

10. What was the role of the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate after the Administrative Law Judge issued her decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was William M. Brown, and the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc. At all times relevant to the matter, Mr. Brown was a member of the Terravita Country Club.

2. Mr. Brown filed the petition because Terravita failed to respond to his July 30, 2016, request for records within the 10-business-day timeframe mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). This failure to provide timely access to the records was the central violation alleged.

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that the association must fulfill a request for examination of its records within ten business days. If copies are requested, the association has ten business days to provide them and may charge up to fifteen cents per page.

4. Terravita argued that it never received the July 30, 2016, request from Mr. Brown. They also contended that his email evidence was falsified and that he failed to comply with their internal policy requiring such requests be sent to the General Manager or Director of Administration.

5. The Administrative Law Judge found Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible. Conversely, the Judge found the testimony of Ms. Wiley, who testified on behalf of Terravita, to be unreliable.

6. Mr. Brown submitted an August 12, 2016, forwarded email that contained his original July 30, 2016, email to Ms. Wiley. This original email contained the records request dated July 29, 2016.

7. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as having “the most convincing force” or “superior evidentiary weight.”

8. The Recommended Order compelled Terravita to pay Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee within thirty days of the order. It also ordered Terravita to comply with the records request and provide the documents within ten days of the order.

9. The argument was unsuccessful because the Judge concluded that Terravita violated the plain meaning of the state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ruling focused on this statutory violation, noting that Terravita did not contend that any of the law’s specific exceptions for withholding records applied.

10. The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, was responsible for reviewing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Commissioner accepted the decision and issued a Final Order, which made the Judge’s recommendations legally binding and enforceable.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses based solely on the provided source documents.

1. Analyze Terravita’s defense strategy. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments regarding not receiving the email, the alleged falsification of evidence, and the club’s internal policies for records requests.

2. Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this standard to the conflicting testimonies of William Brown and Fran Wiley to reach her conclusion?

3. Discuss the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in the context of planned communities. Based on the details in the case, why is a member’s right to access association records important, and what protections does this statute provide?

4. Trace the procedural path of this dispute from Mr. Brown’s initial records request to the Final Order. What roles did the Petitioner, the Respondent, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Real Estate play in this process?

5. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested heavily on findings of credibility. Explore the factors detailed in the case documents that might have led the judge to find Mr. Brown’s testimony “credible” and Ms. Wiley’s “unreliable.”

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Velva Moses-Thompson) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, evaluates evidence and testimony, and issues a recommended decision based on the law.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute at the heart of the case. It mandates that a planned community association must make all financial and other records reasonably available for a member’s examination within ten business days of a request.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove an assertion. The Petitioner (Mr. Brown) bore the burden of proving that the Respondent (Terravita) violated the statute.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency where Mr. Brown filed his Petition for Hearing. Its Commissioner (Judy Lowe) has the authority to accept an ALJ’s decision and issue a final, binding order.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent agency that conducts formal hearings for disputes concerning violations of planned community statutes, as authorized by A.R.S. § 41-1092.01.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this matter, the Petitioner was William M. Brown.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to prove his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”

Prevailing Party

The party who is successful and wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, William M. Brown, to be the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this matter, the Respondent was Terravita Country Club, Inc.

He Sued His HOA Over an Unanswered Email—And Won. Here Are 4 Lessons from the Judge’s Ruling.

1. Introduction: The Black Hole of Bureaucracy

We’ve all been there. You draft a clear, important request, send it to a large organization, and wait. And wait. The silence that follows can feel like your message was sent into a black hole. This frustration is especially common for homeowners dealing with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA), where getting a straight answer or a timely response can seem impossible.

But what if being ignored is more than just frustrating? What if it’s a violation of the law? The case of William M. Brown versus the Terravita Country Club provides a powerful real-world example of one member who fought back against being ignored—and won. His persistence offers crucial lessons for any homeowner who has ever felt powerless against their association’s bureaucracy.

2. Takeaway 1: The “We Never Got the Email” Defense Isn’t Bulletproof

When faced with Mr. Brown’s petition, Terravita’s primary defense was simple: they claimed they never received his July 30, 2016, email requesting association records. They went even further, contending that the email evidence he provided was falsified.

This defense crumbled under scrutiny. Mr. Brown presented a forwarded email as evidence of his original request. In the end, the case came down to witness testimony, and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion was direct and unambiguous. The judge made two critical findings on the credibility of the parties involved:

I find Mr. Brown’s testimony to be credible.

And regarding the testimony from Terravita’s representative, the Secretary Ms. Wiley:

I find Ms. Wiley’s testimony to be unreliable.

The judge’s conclusion was not arbitrary; it was based on a clear contradiction in the evidence. Ms. Wiley testified that she did not use the specific email address where Mr. Brown sent the request for association business. However, evidence presented to the court showed that just a few months prior, she had successfully received and processed two separate records requests sent to that very same email address, proving it was a valid and functioning channel for communication. This detail demonstrates how an individual’s careful documentation can expose an organization’s flawed defense.

3. Takeaway 2: State Law Overrules Internal Red Tape

Terravita offered a second line of defense: even if they had received the email, Mr. Brown hadn’t followed their internal “Rules, Policies and Procedures.” The association argued that members were required to submit records requests to the General Manager or Director of Administration, not the association’s Secretary, whom Mr. Brown had emailed.

This argument was deemed irrelevant by the judge. The decision hinged not on Terravita’s internal rules, but on the plain language of Arizona state law, A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute simply requires the association to make records available within ten business days of a request; it does not specify which officer or employee must receive that request.

By failing to respond, Terravita violated the statute, regardless of its own procedural preferences. This is a critical reminder for all homeowners: your rights are often enshrined in state law, and those rights cannot be diminished or negated by an HOA’s internal bylaws or policies.

4. Takeaway 3: A Simple Request Has a Firm Deadline

The core violation in this case was a failure to meet a specific, legally mandated deadline. Under Arizona law A.R.S. § 33-1805, an association has ten business days to fulfill a member’s request for the examination of records.

The timeline of events was clear:

• Mr. Brown sent his records request via email on July 30, 2016.

• The judge found that “Terravita did not respond to Mr. Brown’s records request within 10 business days.”

Adding weight to this was the fact that the association had previously proven itself more than capable of handling requests sent from Mr. Brown’s email account. Earlier that year, another individual had successfully requested records through the same channel. In those instances, Terravita had been prompt, often acknowledging requests within a day or two and making records available well within the legal deadline. This history undermined any claim of inability to respond. The law’s ten-day deadline is not a vague guideline; it is a specific and enforceable protection for members’ right to information.

5. Takeaway 4: Persistence Can Literally Pay Off

After reviewing the evidence, the judge ruled that Mr. Brown was the “prevailing party.” This victory was not just symbolic; it came with concrete orders that held the association accountable.

The judge’s final decision included the following orders:

• Terravita was ordered to comply with the records request within 10 days.

• Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00.

Mr. Brown’s persistence didn’t just get him the documents he was legally entitled to; it also resulted in the full reimbursement of his filing costs. This outcome serves as a powerful example that standing up for your rights as a homeowner is not always a futile or expensive endeavor. With proper documentation and an understanding of the law, a single member can hold their association accountable.

6. Conclusion: Your Rights Are Written in Law

While homeowners are obligated to follow their HOA’s rules, the association is equally obligated to follow state law. These laws provide clear rights and protections designed to ensure transparency and fairness. The case of William M. Brown is a testament to the power of a single, well-documented request and the importance of understanding the laws that govern your association.

The next time you feel ignored by a large organization, what’s the one simple step you can take to ensure your request is not only heard, but documented?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself
  • Anita Bell (records requester)
    Requested records via Mr. Brown's e-mail account

Respondent Side

  • Joshua Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Appeared for Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Fran Wiley (secretary/witness)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
    Terravita Secretary; testified on behalf of Terravita
  • Tom Forbes (general manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Cici Rausch (director of administration)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Signed the Final Order
  • Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed for rehearing requests and signed mailing notice

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 15F-H1515003-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2015-07-07
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John & Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent The Crossings at Willow Creek Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.

Why this result: For the specific records not awarded, the ALJ found the documents did not exist or were not retained by the Respondent at the time of the request.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report)

Petitioners alleged Respondent failed to provide requested documents (affidavit, insurance records, policy amendments, RV road access, manager's report, and bids) within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide Petitioners with copies of the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager's Report within ten days. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:32 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:41 (64.6 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (64.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law case John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek (No. 15F-H1515003-BFS). The dispute centered on an allegation that the Respondent, a homeowners' association, violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide various association records requested by the Petitioners in January 2015.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute regarding two specific documents: the "Giambanco affidavit" and the "Manager’s Report." While the Respondent argued these documents were either not in their possession or did not contain useful information, the ALJ ruled that accessibility and content utility do not negate the statutory obligation to provide records. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to produce the documents and reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee. The decision was certified as final on August 18, 2015.

Procedural History

  • January 29, 2015: Petitioners emailed a formal records request to the property management company, AMCOR.
  • February 27, 2015: Petitioners filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging statutory violations.
  • June 17, 2015: A formal hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.
  • July 7, 2015: The ALJ issued a decision finding the Respondent in partial violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • August 18, 2015: The decision was certified as the final administrative action after the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Analysis of Records Request and Findings

The following table details the seven items requested by the Petitioners and the ALJ’s findings for each:

Requested Record Respondent’s Defense ALJ Finding / Outcome
1. Giambanco Affidavit (2007) Not in Respondent's possession; questioned the Petitioners' need for it. Violation. The document was an association record accessible via legal counsel. The "need" for the document is irrelevant.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance Records Not in possession initially; later obtained from the carrier and offered to Petitioners. No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
3. Member Notification Policy Amendments No such policy or amendments existed. No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the documents existed.
4. RV Road Access Records Provided a payment document for a sign; did not retain the actual invoice. No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed at the time of the request.
5. Manager’s Report (Jan 21, 2015) Claimed pages were blank or only contained bullet points; utility was questioned. Violation. The report existed in the Board Packet. Content utility is not a basis for denial.
6. Competing Management Bids Bids were destroyed after AMCOR was selected. No Violation. The documents did not exist at the time of the request.
7. Statements per ARS 10.11620 Petitioners conceded this issue was moot. Moot. No ruling required.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Scope of "Association Records" and Accessibility

A central theme of the ruling is that an association’s duty to provide records extends beyond documents physically present in their office. The ALJ clarified that if a record is held by the association’s legal counsel, it is considered "accessible" and remains an association record. The Respondent’s failure to contact their attorneys to retrieve the Giambanco affidavit was a primary factor in the finding of a violation.

2. Physical vs. Electronic Record Management

The case highlighted a transition in the association’s record-keeping. When the Respondent was self-managed, records were stored electronically (Google.docs and thumb drives). However, upon hiring AMCOR, these electronic records were printed into hard copies. The ALJ ruled that while the electronic versions might still exist on the internet, they no longer constituted the "association’s records" once the management company elected to maintain only hard copies for inspection and production.

3. Record Retention vs. Statutory Production

The Petitioners argued that the Respondent violated its own record retention policy by destroying competing bids and failing to keep invoices. However, the ALJ noted that a violation of a retention policy does not automatically constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute governs the production of existing records; it does not mandate the creation or preservation of records that no longer exist, regardless of why they were destroyed.

Important Quotes and Legal Context

Statutory Requirement for Production

"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)

On Accessibility of Records

"While the affidavit may not have been in Respondent’s possession at the time of the request, it was an association record that was accessible to Respondent had it sought to obtain a copy from counsel." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 5

On the Irrelevance of Document Content

"Whether that information would be useful to anyone is not a basis to deny the request. Again, Respondent did not establish that the document was covered by an exception to the statute…" — Conclusion of Law ¶ 6 (regarding the Manager's Report)

On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 2

Recommended Order and Final Action

The ALJ recommended, and the Office of Administrative Hearings certified, the following orders:

  1. Production of Records: Respondent must provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days of the Order.
  2. Financial Restitution: Respondent must pay the Petitioners $550.00 (the cost of the filing fee) within 30 days of the effective date.

Actionable Insights

  • Proactive Document Retrieval: Associations must realize that records held by third-party agents (such as attorneys or past management companies) are still subject to member inspection requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Utility is Not a Defense: Associations cannot withhold records based on the belief that the records contain "useless" information or bullet points, provided the records do not fall under specific statutory exceptions (e.g., privileged legal advice).
  • Proof of Existence: Petitioners in these matters must be prepared to prove that the records they are seeking actually exist. The court cannot order the production of documents that have been destroyed, even if that destruction was arguably in bad faith or against a retention policy.
  • Management Transitions: When moving from self-management to a professional management company, associations should clearly define which medium (electronic or physical) constitutes the official record to ensure compliance with inspection requests.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 15F-H1515003-BFS)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law proceedings regarding a dispute between homeowners and their homeowners association (HOA). It covers the legal standards for records requests, the specific findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the resulting legal obligations.

Key Concepts and Case Summary

1. Legal Basis: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central legal statute in this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the management of records for planned community associations. Under this statute:

  • Availability: All financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
  • Timeframes: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Fees: Associations may charge for copies, but the fee cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.
2. Burden of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioners (the homeowners) bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means they must demonstrate that it is "more probable than not" that the Respondent violated the law.

3. Record Possession vs. Accessibility

A key legal finding in this case was that an association is responsible for records that are "accessible" even if they are not in the association's immediate physical possession. If a document (such as a legal affidavit) is held by the association's counsel, it is still considered an association record that must be produced upon request.

4. Destruction and Existence of Records

The ALJ determined that an association cannot be found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 for failing to produce documents that:

  • Do not exist: Such as policies that were never formally adopted.
  • Have been destroyed: Such as competing bids that were discarded after a contract was awarded.
  • Are not retained: Such as specific invoices for which no copy was kept.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. Who were the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case?
  2. What was the specific statutory violation alleged by the Petitioners?
  3. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an association have to provide requested copies of records?
  4. How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
  5. Why did the ALJ rule that the failure to provide the "Giambanco affidavit" was a violation, even though the Respondent did not have it in their immediate possession?
  6. What happened to the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development?
  7. What was the Respondent’s initial claim regarding pages 21–23 of the Board Package (the Manager’s Report), and how did they later clarify this?
  8. Did the ALJ find that the Respondent was required to allow inspection of electronic records on Google.docs? Why or why not?
  9. What specific documents was the Respondent ordered to provide within ten days of the final Order?
  10. If the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action on the ALJ’s decision by August 12, 2015, what was the legal result?

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The Scope of Association Records

The Respondent argued they did not know why the Petitioners needed the Giambanco affidavit. Analyze the ALJ's conclusion regarding the relevance of a member's motive when requesting records under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Does the association have the legal right to vet the necessity of a request before fulfilling it?

2. Record Retention Policies vs. Statutory Compliance

During the hearing, Mr. Sellers presented a record retention policy that he claimed the Respondent failed to follow. Discuss the ALJ’s distinction between a violation of an internal record retention policy and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. Why did the ALJ rule that the retention policy was not relevant to the statutory determination?

3. Electronic vs. Physical Records Management

The Respondent transitioned from self-management to using a professional management company (AMCOR), during which electronic records were printed into hard copies and the electronic versions were no longer updated. Evaluate the legal implications of this transition as it relates to a member’s right to inspect records. How does the medium (electronic vs. hard copy) affect the association's obligations?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and issues a decision or recommended order.
AMCOR AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc., the property management company hired by The Crossings at Willow Creek.
A.R.S. § 33-1805 The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates the availability of association records to its members.
Association Record Any financial or other document related to the operation of a homeowners association that is subject to member inspection.
Giambanco Affidavit A specific legal document from 2007, signed by a board member, which became a central point of contention in the records request.
Manager’s Report A document (or section of a Board Package) outlining updates from the property management company; in this case, it consisted of specific bullet points for discussion.
Petitioners The parties who file a complaint or petition (in this case, John and Debborah Sellers).
Preponderance of the Evidence The evidentiary standard in civil and administrative cases where a fact is proven if it is more likely than not to be true.
Respondent The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed (in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek).
Statutory Timeframe The legally mandated period within which an action must be taken (e.g., ten business days for record production).

Transparency at The Crossings: A Case Study in Homeowner Rights and Record Access

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Disclosure

In the realm of planned communities, transparency is not a courtesy—it is a statutory mandate. Yet, all too often, homeowners are met with stonewalling and administrative "runarounds" when they attempt to exercise their right to oversight. Such was the case for John and Debborah Sellers, who in early 2015 found themselves locked in a legal battle with "The Crossings at Willow Creek" homeowners association.

The dispute centered on the association’s failure to produce vital records within the ten-business-day window required by Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. What began as a standard records request escalated to a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 17, 2015. The resulting decision, certified as final on August 18, 2015, serves as a landmark reminder that an HOA cannot hide behind its legal counsel or its management company to evade the law.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

The legal backbone of this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which establishes the "Homeowner’s Bill of Rights" regarding association records. As synthesized from the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Conclusions of Law, the statute imposes the following strict obligations:

  • Broad Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • The Ten-Day Mandate: The association has precisely ten business days to fulfill a request for either the examination of records or the delivery of copies.
  • Capped Costs: While the act of reviewing records must be free of charge, the association may charge a copying fee, strictly limited to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
  • Mandatory Disclosure: Unless a document falls under specific, narrow legal exceptions (such as attorney-client privilege or personal privacy), it must be produced regardless of the board's opinion on its utility.

3. The Information Gap: What the Homeowners Requested

On January 29, 2015, the Sellers—one of whom is a trained banker—submitted a written request for seven specific categories of records. Their background in finance made the discrepancies they observed in the 2014 accounts particularly concerning.

Requested Document Brief Description/Context
1. Giambanco Affidavit A November 2007 document signed by Board Member Peter Giambanco, prepared by the association's counsel (Ekmark & Ekmark) for a prior OAH hearing.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance Policy copies and communications regarding additional coverage approved at the October 1, 2013, Board meeting.
3. Notification Policy Amendments Records regarding a June 6, 2013, policy update involving member notification of Board meetings via post.
4. RV Road/Pioneer Park Access Records and invoices regarding the closure of public access to Pioneer Park via the Association-owned RV road.
5. Manager’s Report The report and contemporaneous notes from the January 21, 2015, Board Meeting (pages 21–23 of the Board Package).
6. Competing Management Bids Written proposals from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development (other than the winning firm, AMCOR).
7. A.R.S. § 10-11620 Statements Explanatory statements regarding accounting changes; the Sellers noted the 2014 accounts differed substantially in format. (Later deemed moot during the hearing as info was eventually provided).

4. Defense vs. Reality: The Association’s Arguments

During the proceedings, the Association relied on a defense of "non-existence" and "loss of possession," arguments that the Judge viewed with varying degrees of skepticism.

The Miracle of the Missing Policy

Regarding the "Employee Dishonesty Insurance," the Association initially claimed it had no records. However, once the Sellers filed their petition, the Association "miraculously" contacted the insurance carrier, obtained the documents, and offered them months later. This highlights a common HOA tactic: claiming a record doesn't exist simply because it isn't currently in the desk drawer of the board president.

The Case of the Destroyed Bids

The Association admitted that once AMCOR was selected as the management company, the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty, and G&D Development were destroyed. While the Judge ruled this was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805—because the records did not exist at the time of the request—this is a cautionary tale for homeowners. The law only requires the production of records that exist; it does not necessarily punish the prior "proper" destruction of documents unless a specific retention statute is proven.

Electronic vs. Hard Copy: A Warning

The Sellers argued that because the records were once maintained on Google.Docs and a thumb drive, they should be accessible electronically. However, management (AMCOR) testified they had converted everything to hard copies. The ALJ ruled that once an HOA chooses to maintain its records in hard copy format to facilitate inspection, it is not legally required to provide them in an electronic format it no longer utilizes.

5. Precedent Set: Why Possession Does Not Equal Ownership

The ALJ found the Association in direct violation of state law regarding two specific items. These rulings set a critical precedent for homeowner rights.

Constructive Possession: The Giambanco Affidavit

The Association tried to deflect responsibility by claiming they didn't have the 2007 affidavit—their lawyers, Ekmark & Ekmark, did. The Judge flatly rejected this, establishing the principle of constructive possession: If a document is held by the Association’s agents (lawyers or managers), it is an accessible "association record." Furthermore, the Association’s query into why the Sellers wanted the affidavit was ruled irrelevant. An HOA is not a gatekeeper of motive; if the record is requested, it must be produced.

The "Useless" Manager’s Report

The Association initially claimed pages 21–23 of the Board Package were blank. They later admitted the pages contained bullet points for the manager’s discussion topics but argued the info wasn't "useful." The Judge ruled that utility is not a legal basis for withholding documents. If the document contains information—even just bullet points—it is a record subject to disclosure.

6. The Final Order: Restoring Accountability

On July 7, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order designed to penalize the Association’s delays and restore the Sellers' rights:

  • Mandatory Production: The Association was ordered to provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days.
  • Cost-Shifting Reimbursement: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Sellers their $550.00 filing fee. While the Association may view this as a penalty, the law views it as a necessary restoration of the homeowners' finances after being forced to litigate for records they were legally entitled to from the start.

7. Conclusion: The Homeowner's Bill of Rights for Record Access

The Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek case is a blueprint for how homeowners can successfully challenge HOA secrecy. The key takeaways form a modern "Bill of Rights" for record access:

  1. Agents’ Files are Association Files: Records held by your HOA's attorney or management company are legally "in the possession" of the HOA.
  2. Motive is Legally Irrelevant: You do not need a "good reason" to see your Association's records. The board cannot demand a justification.
  3. The 10-Day Clock is Absolute: Associations cannot use administrative transitions or lawyer delays to bypass the ten-business-day deadline.
  4. Content Trumps Form: Whether a report is a polished document or a page of bullet points, if it belongs to the Association, it belongs to the members.

Transparency is the only antidote to community mismanagement. When an HOA fails to provide the "paper trail," the law provides the hammer. Homeowners should never hesitate to demand the accountability they are guaranteed by statute.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Brenda Dozier (representative)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Peter Giambanco (board member)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Dennis May (property manager)
    AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
    President of AMCOR
  • Mrs. Giambanco (unknown)
    The Crossings at Willow Creek
    Alleged note keeper for board meetings
  • Robin Thomas (property manager)
    AMCOR Property Professionals Inc
    Copied on final certification

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Debra Blake (Interim Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Debra Blake
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Saxton, Nancy vs. The Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314007-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2014-06-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the case. The Judge found that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to arbitrate disputes under the Association's bylaws, that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired, and that the Respondent had lawfully complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by offering inspection of unredacted records.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy Saxton Counsel Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent The Lakes Community Association Counsel Charles E. Maxwell

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the case. The Judge found that the Petitioner was contractually obligated to arbitrate disputes under the Association's bylaws, that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired, and that the Respondent had lawfully complied with A.R.S. § 33-1805 by offering inspection of unredacted records.

Why this result: Jurisdictional bar due to mandatory arbitration clause; statute of limitations expiration; finding of compliance by Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Request to Review Association Records

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated statutes by providing heavily redacted financial records and failing to provide unredacted copies for review upon demand.

Orders: The matter was dismissed. The Tribunal found the Petitioner was required to arbitrate, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the Respondent had complied with the statute by making records reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 5
  • 37
  • 38
  • 41

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:19 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:23 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:26 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:48:29 (53.4 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 396509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (158.0 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 401319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (58.8 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404479.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:41 (141.7 KB)

13F-H1314007-BFS Decision – 404483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:42 (53.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Nancy Saxton vs. The Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the matter of Nancy Saxton vs. The Lakes Community Association (No. 13F-H1314007-BFS). The case originated from a petition filed by Nancy Saxton, a homeowner at The Lakes Community Association in Tempe, Arizona, alleging that the Association violated state statutes regarding the inspection of financial records (A.R.S. § 33-1805).

Following a hearing held on April 29, 2014, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas recommended the dismissal of the petition. The decision was based on three primary factors: a binding arbitration requirement in the Association's bylaws, the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations, and the finding that the Association had fulfilled its legal obligation to make records "reasonably available." On July 10, 2014, the decision was certified as the final agency action.

Case Overview and Participants

Role Name Representation
Petitioner Nancy Saxton (Homeowner) Steven W. Cheifetz, Esq.
Respondent The Lakes Community Association Charles E. Maxwell, Esq.
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas Office of Administrative Hearings
Final Certifying Official Cliff J. Vanell, Director Office of Administrative Hearings

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

A central issue in the case was whether the Association’s bylaws precluded the Petitioner from filing an administrative action. The Lakes Community Association had amended its bylaws (Article XV) to include an "Agreement to Avoid Litigation."

  • The Provision: The amendment requires parties to submit claims regarding corporate governance to binding arbitration rather than filing suit in court or with an administrative agency.
  • Legal Conclusion: The Tribunal found that arbitration clauses should be construed liberally. It concluded that under the Association's bylaws and Arizona common law, the Petitioner was required to submit her claims to arbitration before seeking administrative relief.
2. Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541(5))

The Respondent moved for dismissal on the grounds that the Petitioner failed to act within the statutory timeframe.

  • Timeline of Accrual: The Petitioner filed her initial demand to inspect records on November 5, 2012. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), the Association had ten business days to fulfill the request. Therefore, the claim accrued no later than mid-November 2012.
  • The Filing: The petition was not filed until November 25, 2013, exceeding the one-year limit for liabilities created by statute.
  • Ruling: The ALJ determined that no evidence existed to toll or extend the one-year statute of limitations, rendering the petition untimely.
3. Records Inspection and Reasonable Availability

The Petitioner alleged that the records provided were heavily redacted and incomplete, preventing a proper evaluation of expenditures.

  • Volume of Production: The Association provided approximately 3,700 pages of documentation and charged the Petitioner 10¢ per page (below the 15¢ statutory maximum).
  • Redaction Justification: The Community Manager, Christine Green Baldanza, testified that redactions were made by the Association’s attorney to protect private homeowner information, payroll data, and personnel records, as permitted by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).
  • The "Impasse": The Association offered to let the Petitioner review un-redacted documents at their attorney’s office. The Petitioner declined, citing potential intimidation and a belief that the visit would be "futile."
  • Legal Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled that by providing the pages and offering an in-person inspection of un-redacted records, the Association made the records "reasonably available" in accordance with the law.

Important Quotes with Context

"The HOA has refused to produce the documents without the improper redactions."

  • Context: Found in the Petitioner's original allegation, this quote highlights the core grievance: the belief that the Association used redactions to shield financial transparency.

"Arbitration clauses should be construed liberally and any doubts as to whether or not the matter in question is subject to arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration."

  • Context: From the Conclusions of Law, explaining why the Association's ADR amendment was enforceable against the Petitioner.

"Ms. Saxton testified that she did not want to go to the Lakes’ attorney’s office because she felt the records would be the same documents that she already had. Ms. Saxton stated that she did not want to be intimidated."

  • Context: This testimony explains the Petitioner's refusal of the Association's compromise offer, which the ALJ ultimately used to determine the Association had met its burden of "reasonable availability."

"The credible evidence of record failed to support a finding that would toll or extend the applicable one-year statute of limitations."

  • Context: Part of the ALJ’s legal reasoning for dismissing the case due to the delay in filing the petition.

Actionable Insights for Planned Communities

  • Bylaw Enforcement of ADR: Associations can effectively use ADR amendments to manage disputes internally and avoid the costs of administrative hearings or litigation. However, these amendments must be "duly enacted" and clearly define what constitutes a "claim."
  • Redaction Protocols: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), Associations are entitled to withhold or redact specific sensitive information, including:
  1. Privileged attorney-client communications.
  2. Pending litigation files.
  3. Personal, health, or financial records of individual members or employees.
  4. Job performance and compensation records.
  • Defining "Reasonably Available": Providing a large volume of records and offering an in-person inspection of un-redacted versions (where the member can verify the necessity of redactions) likely satisfies the statutory requirement for "reasonable availability."
  • Strict Adherence to Timelines: Statutory claims against an Association in Arizona are generally subject to a strict one-year statute of limitations starting from the moment the alleged violation occurs (e.g., ten business days after a records request is made). Failure to file within this window is grounds for dismissal.

Nancy Saxton vs. The Lakes Community Association: Case Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Nancy Saxton vs. The Lakes Community Association (No. 13F-H1314007-BFS). It explores the legal disputes between a homeowner and a homeowners' association (HOA) regarding record inspections, statutes of limitations, and the enforcement of arbitration clauses.

Core Case Overview

Background and Dispute

The Petitioner, Nancy Saxton, a member of The Lakes Community Association (the HOA), filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. She alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete, un-redacted financial records after she made three separate demands.

The HOA moved to dismiss the case based on four primary arguments:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction: The HOA's bylaws required binding arbitration for such disputes.
  2. Statute of Limitations: The claim was filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued.
  3. Prior Compliance: The HOA had already complied with the records request.
  4. Statutory Compliance: The redactions made were permitted by law.
Statutory Framework

The case centers on several Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.):

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805: Governs the inspection of HOA records. It requires associations to make records available within 10 business days and allows for redaction of specific sensitive information (e.g., personal financial info, attorney-client privileged communications).
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5): Establishes a one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute.
  • A.R.S. § 12-501: Validates written agreements to submit controversies to arbitration.
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: Authorizes the Department to hear petitions concerning violations of planned community documents or statutes.

Key Legal Findings

1. The Statute of Limitations

The Tribunal determined that Saxton’s claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-541(5).

  • Accrual Date: Saxton filed her demand on November 5, 2012. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), the HOA was required to provide records within 10 business days. Therefore, the claim accrued no later than mid-November 2012.
  • Filing Date: Saxton did not file her petition until November 25, 2013, exceeding the one-year allowance.
2. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Jurisdiction

The HOA amended its bylaws in 2013 (Article XV) to require that disputes relating to corporate governance be submitted to binding arbitration rather than administrative agencies or courts. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that arbitration clauses should be construed liberally and that Saxton was required to submit her claims to arbitration per the bylaws and Arizona common law.

3. Record Accessibility and Redactions

The HOA provided Saxton with approximately 3,700 pages of documents. While Saxton argued the redactions were excessive, the HOA testified that:

  • Redactions were limited to private and personnel information allowed by statute.
  • The HOA offered to let Saxton review un-redacted documents at their attorney's office.
  • Saxton declined this offer, fearing intimidation and believing it would be futile.

The Tribunal concluded the HOA had made the records "reasonably available" in accordance with the law.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records?
  • Answer: Ten business days.
  1. What is the maximum fee per page an HOA may charge for making copies of records under the statute?
  • Answer: Fifteen cents per page.
  1. What was the specific statute of limitations applied to dismiss Saxton’s petition?
  • Answer: A.R.S. § 12-541(5), which requires actions upon a liability created by statute to be commenced within one year.
  1. Under what circumstances does A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) allow an HOA to withhold or redact information?
  • Answer: Information can be withheld if it relates to privileged attorney-client communication, pending litigation, certain board meeting minutes, personal/health/financial records of individual members or employees, or records relating to employee job performance/complaints.
  1. Why did the ALJ conclude that the HOA had fulfilled its duty to make records available even though the provided documents were redacted?
  • Answer: Because the HOA offered the petitioner the opportunity to review un-redacted documents at the office of the HOA's attorney.
  1. What is the "standard of proof" used in these administrative hearings, and what does it mean?
  • Answer: The standard is "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the fact-finder must be persuaded that the proposition is "more likely true than not."

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. The Balance of Transparency and Privacy: Analyze the conflict between a homeowner's right to inspect financial records and an HOA’s duty to protect the privacy of its employees and other members. Use the categories of redactable information in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) to support your argument.
  2. The Enforceability of Bylaw Amendments: Discuss the implications of an HOA amending its bylaws to include mandatory binding arbitration (ADR). Should such amendments apply to disputes that began before the amendment was passed? Evaluate the ALJ's decision to uphold the arbitration clause in this case.
  3. The "Reasonably Available" Standard: In this case, the HOA provided 3,700 pages of redacted documents and offered an in-person review of un-redacted documents. Evaluate whether this constitutes making records "reasonably available." Does the location of the review (e.g., a lawyer's office) impact the reasonableness of the availability?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
Accrual The point in time when a cause of action or legal claim begins, triggering the start of the statute of limitations.
ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Procedures for settling disputes by means other than litigation, such as arbitration or mediation.
A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Binding Arbitration A process in which a dispute is submitted to a neutral third party (arbitrator) who makes a final, legally enforceable decision.
General Ledger A complete record of all the financial transactions of an association, often central to disputes regarding expenditures.
Preponderance of the Evidence The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases; requires that a claim be more likely true than not true.
Redaction The process of editing a document to obscure or remove sensitive or legally protected information before disclosure.
Statute of Limitations A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
Tolling A legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations.

Transparency vs. Red Tape: Key Lessons from the Saxton v. The Lakes HOA Dispute

Introduction: The Battle Over the Books

For many homeowners, the financial health of their Community Association is a "black box," and the demand for transparency is the primary catalyst for internal conflict. This tension was the driving force in Saxton v. The Lakes Community Association, a case that saw homeowner Nancy Saxton take her Board to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Concerned about expenditures and a perceived lack of openness, Ms. Saxton sought an exhaustive review of the Association’s records. However, what began as a quest for financial clarity ended as a masterclass in the procedural and statutory complexities that govern HOA records requests. For community leaders and residents alike, this case underscores that the right to know is not an absolute right to see everything, exactly how and when one chooses.

The Request: 3,700 Pages and a "Plastic Tub" of Records

The dispute originated on November 5, 2012, when Ms. Saxton delivered a formal demand to inspect the Association’s financial records. The Association responded by producing a massive volume of data. On December 6, 2012, she received the initial batch of reserve studies and audits. By January 8, 2013, the production reached its peak when the Community Manager delivered the general ledgers in a large plastic tub along with several manila envelopes.

While the production totaled approximately 3,700 pages, the homeowner did not pay the associated copying fees—charged at a discounted rate of 10¢ per page—until February 19, 2013. This distinction between the date of delivery (January 8) and the date of payment (February 19) is legally significant, as the "reasonable availability" of records is measured from the time they are provided for inspection, not when the homeowner decides to finalize the transaction. Despite the volume, Ms. Saxton alleged the records were "useless" due to heavy redactions and missing pages, claiming she could not properly evaluate the HOA's spending.

The HOA’s Defense: Privacy and Procedure

During the hearing, Community Manager Christine Green Baldanza testified that the Association’s redaction process was meticulous. Contrary to the homeowner's claims of a "cover-up," the Manager noted that every single financial transaction was included in the ledgers; only specific identities and sensitive details were obscured to comply with the law.

As a Legal Analyst, it is important to note that the HOA relied on A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) to justify withholding information. Specifically, the Association redacted:

  • Payroll Information and Compensation: Protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5).
  • Private Homeowner Information: Including names and addresses of individual members, protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4).
  • Personnel Records: Specific complaints or job performance data of employees.

To bridge the gap, the HOA offered a compromise: Ms. Saxton could review the un-redacted documents in person at their attorney's office and obtain copies at the statutory rate of 15¢ per page. Ms. Saxton declined, testifying she found the law office "intimidating" and the trip "futile."

The Three Legal Hurdles That Dismissed the Case

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, not necessarily on the quality of the 3,700 pages, but on three critical legal barriers.

Hurdle 1: The Arbitration Clause

The Lakes Community Association had amended its Bylaws to include Article XV, titled "Agreement to Avoid Litigation." This ADR provision required that disputes regarding corporate governance be handled through binding arbitration rather than administrative hearings.

Analyst’s Perspective: Boards should take note that this is a powerful jurisdictional defense. However, the clause included four specific exceptions where litigation is still permitted:

  1. Collection of assessments and fines.
  2. Interpretation or enforcement of CC&Rs and Architectural Rules.
  3. Cases involving indispensable third parties.
  4. Claims that would otherwise be barred by a statute of limitations.

Because Ms. Saxton’s records request involved "governance," the ALJ ruled she had signed away her right to an administrative hearing by virtue of her membership in the Association.

Hurdle 2: The Statute of Limitations

The ALJ applied A.R.S. § 12-541(5), which requires actions based on a "liability created by statute" to be filed within one year of accrual.

  • The Trigger: Ms. Saxton made her demand on November 5, 2012.
  • The Accrual: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), an HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request. Therefore, the "cause of action" accrued in mid-November 2012.
  • The Filing: Ms. Saxton did not file her petition until November 25, 2013.

The ALJ’s ruling underscores the primacy of the one-year limitations period; even if the records were deficient, the homeowner waited too long to seek legal redress.

Hurdle 3: The Standard of "Reasonable Availability"

The final hurdle was the definition of "reasonably available" under A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ALJ concluded that providing 3,700 pages—and offering an in-person review of un-redacted files at a professional office—satisfied the Association's legal duty. The court clarified an essential objective standard: subjective discomfort does not override statutory compliance. The fact that the homeowner felt "intimidated" by the lawyer's office did not mean the records were unavailable.

The Final Verdict and Homeowner Rights

The Lakes Community Association was deemed the prevailing party. In June 2014, the ALJ recommended a total dismissal of the matter. This was officially certified as the final administrative decision by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety in July 2014 after the Department took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Essential Takeaways for Arizona Homeowners

  1. Watch the Clock: A records dispute is a statutory claim. In Arizona, the one-year window to file starts ten business days after your request. Delays for "health reasons" or "community unrest" rarely toll this limit.
  2. Bylaws are Contracts: If your Association has an "Agreement to Avoid Litigation" or ADR amendment, you may be barred from state hearings and forced into private arbitration.
  3. Access Over Location: "Reasonable availability" is an objective legal standard. An HOA is generally not required to mail un-redacted copies if they offer a professional location for inspection.
  4. Privacy is Protected: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) provides explicit grounds for redaction. You have a right to see what was spent, but not necessarily who (in a personnel or private member context) received it.

Conclusion

The Saxton case highlights the delicate balance between a homeowner’s right to oversight and an Association’s duty to protect member privacy. When a records dispute reaches an impasse, "reasonableness" is the yardstick the court will use. Homeowners must understand that while transparency is required, it is bounded by privacy statutes and procedural timelines. To avoid the fate of this litigation, both parties should seek legal counsel the moment communication breaks down, ensuring that procedural deadlines do not permanently close the door on substantive rights.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy Saxton (petitioner)
    The Lakes Community Association (Member)
    Homeowner
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
    Cheifetz, Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C.
    Listed as 'Heifetz' in mailing list

Respondent Side

  • Charles E. Maxwell (attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Christine Green Baldanza (community manager)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Community Manager in 2012 and early 2013

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Cliff J. Vanell (director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Mailed/transmitted decision

Other Participants

  • Marsha Hill (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    CPA; Former chairman of budget and finance committee
  • Maureen Harrison (witness)
    The Lakes Community Association
    Former Board Member (1993-2000, 2011-2012)

Winter, Alexander vs. Cortina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 13F-H1314001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-12-12
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide redacted invoices and failing to make contracts available for review within 10 business days. Respondent was ordered to comply and refund the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Alexander Winter Counsel —
Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw, IV

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide redacted invoices and failing to make contracts available for review within 10 business days. Respondent was ordered to comply and refund the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide requested invoices and contracts within 10 business days. Respondent claimed invoices contained personal info and contracts contained trade secrets.

Orders: Respondent ordered to provide copies of documents (redacted as provided in statute) within 10 days and refund $550 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 44-401

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 374343.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:42 (114.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 378997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:46:46 (59.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 374343.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:01 (114.2 KB)

13F-H1314001-BFS Decision – 378997.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:01 (59.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (Case No. 13F-H1314001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing between Petitioner Alexander Winter and Respondent Cortina Homeowners Association. The dispute centered on the Association’s alleged failure to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 regarding the timely provision and inspection of association records.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the Association fulfilled its duties for certain financial records by making them available for pickup, it violated the statute in two critical areas: the failure to provide redacted invoices for management services and the failure to allow for the inspection of contracts within the mandated 10-business-day window. Consequently, the Association was ordered to provide the records and reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Compliance with Document Requests

The central theme of the case is the strict adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs how planned community associations must handle member requests for records. Under this statute:

  • The 10-Day Rule: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for the examination of records or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Reasonable Availability: Financial and other records must be made "reasonably available" for examination.
  • Fees: Associations may charge up to $0.15 per page for copies but cannot charge for making materials available for review.
2. Redaction vs. Total Withholding

The Association argued that certain invoices from Renaissance Community Partners (the management company) were exempt from disclosure because they contained financial records of individual members, such as assessments and late fees.

The ALJ ruled that while A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) allows for the withholding of personal financial information, it does not permit the total withholding of a document if the sensitive information can be redacted. The Association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than denying the request entirely.

3. The Impact of Management Availability on Inspection Rights

A significant violation occurred when the Association’s manager, Kevin Bishop, informed the Petitioner that he could not inspect contracts until Mr. Bishop returned from vacation.

  • The Request Date: June 12, 2013.
  • The Proposed Appointment: After July 7, 2013 (18 business days later).
  • The Ruling: Personal schedules or vacations of management staff do not waive the statutory 10-business-day deadline. Failure to provide access within the window constitutes a violation.
4. Trade Secrets and Contract Confidentiality

The Association attempted to withhold contract copies by citing "trade secrets" under A.R.S. § 44-401, claiming that the management contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential."

  • Finding: The ALJ did not find it necessary to rule on whether the contracts actually contained trade secrets.
  • Observation: The Petitioner had initialed a form acknowledging that contracts would only be available for inspection and not for copying. Therefore, the violation was not the refusal to provide copies, but the failure to allow the inspection within the required timeframe.

Document Request Status and Disposition

The following table summarizes the specific documents requested by the Petitioner and the ALJ's findings regarding the Association's compliance.

Requested Document Status of Association Compliance ALJ Finding
2012/2013 Budgets Made available for pickup. No Violation. Petitioner’s failure to pick up documents is not an HOA violation.
GL Detail Reports (2012) Made available for pickup. No Violation.
Clean Cut Invoices Made available for pickup (as a compiled report). No Violation.
Renaissance Invoices Withheld due to privacy concerns. Violation. Association was required to provide redacted copies.
Active Contracts Inspection offered 18 business days later. Violation. Failure to meet the 10-business-day statutory window.

Important Quotes with Context

On the Obligation to Redact

"Respondent’s records could be withheld from disclosure 'to the extent that the portion withheld relates to' the financial records and information of individual members… Accordingly, Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies of those documents to Petitioner."

  • Context: This quote explains the ALJ’s legal reasoning for rejecting the Association’s argument that privacy concerns justified a total refusal to produce management company invoices.
On Statutory Deadlines and Manager Vacations

"Even though Petitioner’s request may be interpreted to be seeking only an inspection of the contracts, Respondent failed to make those documents available for review within 10 business days of the request as evidenced by Mr. Bishop’s email reply that he was on vacation… which is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)."

  • Context: This highlights that administrative or personal delays on the part of the HOA’s statutory agent do not excuse non-compliance with the 10-day legal requirement.
On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805… evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."

  • Context: This defines the legal standard used in the Office of Administrative Hearings to determine if the Association was at fault.

Actionable Insights

For Associations and Property Managers
  • Redaction Policy: Establish a clear process for redacting personal, health, or individual financial information from records. Total denial of a records request based on the presence of sensitive data is legally insufficient if redaction is possible.
  • Contingency Planning: Ensure that records inspections can be facilitated by more than one individual. A manager’s vacation does not pause the 10-business-day statutory clock.
  • Evidence of Readiness: If copies are prepared for a member, document the notification sent to the member and keep a record that the documents were ready for pickup to defend against claims of non-delivery.
For Homeowners
  • Specificity in Requests: Clearly distinguish between requests for "copies" and requests for "inspection," as different rules and fee structures may apply.
  • Follow-up Procedures: If an association claims a document is protected by privacy or trade secret laws, request a redacted version rather than accepting a flat denial.
  • Pickup Responsibility: If the association makes documents available for pickup rather than mailing them, the member is responsible for retrieving them; failure to do so may invalidate a claim of non-compliance.

Final Decision Certification

On January 17, 2014, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Cliff J. Vanell, certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. This occurred because the Department did not act to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the timeframe required by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08.

Study Guide: Homeowner Records Access and A.R.S. § 33-1805

This study guide examines the legal requirements for homeowners associations (HOAs) regarding the disclosure of records to members, using the administrative case Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) as a primary case study.

I. Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central statute governing records access in Arizona planned communities is A.R.S. § 33-1805. It establishes the rights of members to examine association records and the obligations of the association to fulfill those requests.

Core Provisions
  • Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member or their designated representative.
  • Timeline: The association has 10 business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
  • Cost: Associations cannot charge for the review of materials but may charge a fee of no more than $0.15 per page for copies.
  • Redaction and Withholding: Records may be withheld if they relate to:
  • Personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.
  • Information that would violate state or federal law if disclosed.
Trade Secrets (A.R.S. § 44-401)

Associations may occasionally argue that contracts contain trade secrets. Under Arizona law, a trade secret must:

  1. Derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable.
  2. Be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

II. Case Study: Winter v. Cortina Homeowners Association

Background

In June 2013, Petitioner Alexander Winter requested several documents from the Cortina Homeowners Association, including budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, active contracts, and invoices for two vendors: Clean Cuts and Renaissance Community Partners.

The Conflict

The association, through its manager Kevin Bishop, raised several objections:

  • Personal Privacy: Claimed Renaissance invoices contained individual member financial data (assessments/late fees).
  • Trade Secrets: Claimed contracts were uniquely structured and provided a marketing advantage, thus disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.
  • Logistics: The manager was on vacation, delaying the inspection of contracts beyond the 10-day statutory limit.
Legal Findings

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

  1. Redaction vs. Withholding: While invoices contained protected individual member data, the association had a statutory obligation to provide redacted copies rather than withholding the documents entirely.
  2. Statutory Deadlines: An association manager’s vacation does not exempt the association from the 10-business-day deadline. Delaying an appointment for 18 business days is a violation.
  3. Member Responsibility: If an association makes documents available for pick-up and the member fails to retrieve them, the association has not violated the statute for those specific documents.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an HOA have to provide copies of records once requested? Answer: 10 business days.

2. What is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies? Answer: $0.15 per page.

3. Under what circumstances can an association legally withhold financial records of an individual member? Answer: Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), an association may withhold records to the extent they relate to the personal, health, or financial records of an individual member.

**4. In Winter v. Cortina HOA, why was the delay in inspecting contracts deemed a violation?** Answer: The manager’s unavailability due to vacation pushed the appointment to 18 business days after the request, exceeding the 10-day limit required by law.

5. If a document contains both public association information and private member data, what is the association's legal obligation? Answer: The association must provide a redacted version of the document, withholding only the protected portions.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Tension Between Transparency and Privacy Analyze the association's duty to provide financial transparency to its members versus its duty to protect the private financial information of individual homeowners. Use the ALJ’s ruling on the Renaissance Community Partners invoices to support your argument.

2. Defining and Protecting Trade Secrets in HOA Contracts Discuss the criteria required for information to be classified as a "trade secret" under A.R.S. § 44-401. Evaluate the manager’s claim in the Winter case that a management contract’s "unique structure" constitutes a trade secret. Should vendor business interests supersede homeowner oversight rights?

3. Administrative Liability and the Burden of Proof In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner bears the "burden of proof." Explain what a "preponderance of the evidence" means in this context and how Alexander Winter successfully met this burden regarding the 10-day rule violation.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1805 The Arizona Revised Statute governing the inspection of records for planned communities.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A judge who conducts hearings and issues decisions for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Burden of Proof The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
General Ledger (GL) A report detailing the history of accounts, including journal entries for operating and reserve funds.
Preponderance of the Evidence A standard of proof meaning that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not (greater than 50% likelihood).
Redaction The process of editing a document to obscure or remove sensitive or protected information before disclosure.
Statutory Agent An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and official correspondence on behalf of a corporation or association.
Trade Secret Information (formula, pattern, technique, etc.) that has economic value because it is not generally known and is kept secret through reasonable efforts.

Your Right to Know: Lessons from a Homeowner’s Legal Victory over an HOA

1. Introduction: The Battle for Transparency

In the world of planned communities, homeowners often find themselves locked in a David-vs-Goliath battle against opaque boards. While these boards act as stewards of community funds, they frequently treat financial records like state secrets. Transparency, however, isn't a courtesy—it is a statutory right.

The case of Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association (No. 13F-H1314001-BFS) stands as a definitive victory for homeowner rights. When Alexander Winter sought to inspect contracts and financial records, he was met with a wall of administrative excuses and "trade secret" defenses. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) saw through the smoke, ruling that the HOA had violated Arizona law. This case serves as a roadmap for any homeowner demanding the accountability they are legally owed.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Why Timelines Matter

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805(A) is clear: an association has a strict window of 10 business days to fulfill a records request. In the Winter case, the HOA attempted to rewrite the law based on their own calendar.

After Mr. Winter submitted his request on June 12, 2013, the HOA’s statutory agent and manager, Kevin Bishop, claimed he could not fulfill the request because he was on vacation. He didn't offer an appointment until July 7—effectively forcing the homeowner to wait 18 business days. The ALJ was unimpressed, explicitly citing Conclusion of Law #11 to dismantle this defense. The law applies to the association as an entity; it does not pause because a specific employee leaves the office.

Administrative absences, such as a manager’s vacation or office scheduling conflicts, do not exempt an association from its 10-business-day statutory deadline. The association has a mandatory legal obligation to ensure records remain accessible.

3. Invoices and Privacy: The Duty to Redact

The most common weapon HOAs use to block transparency is the "privacy" shield. The Cortina HOA refused to provide invoices from Renaissance Community Partners, arguing that because the documents contained private financial data of individual members (protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)), the records were entirely off-limits.

Management even testified that the invoices were so detailed that redacting them would leave the documents useless. The Judge rejected this "all-or-nothing" fallacy. Under Conclusion of Law #6, the association has a "statutory obligation" to provide the documents. If a record contains private info, you don't bury the record; you redact the sensitive parts.

The Renaissance Invoice Dispute:

  • What the Invoices Contained: Granular details on homeowner assessments, late fees, and specific individual financial matters.
  • The Association's Legal Obligation: The HOA must provide redacted copies. They are only permitted to withhold specific portions related to private data, not the entire invoice.
4. The "Trade Secrets" Defense and Contract Access

In a desperate attempt to shield their contracts, the HOA claimed that their agreement with Renaissance Community Partners contained "trade secrets." They argued that the contract’s unique structure provided a "marketing differential" and that disclosure could harm the vendor’s business.

The board’s hesitancy was fueled by the Petitioner’s professional life; Mr. Winter owned a landscaping management company and assisted his ex-wife with her property management firm. The HOA essentially argued that providing records to a "competitor" was a risk. However, the ALJ bypassed the "trade secret" debate entirely. Because the HOA had already committed a procedural violation by failing the 10-day availability test, the trade secret defense was secondary. A "marketing differential" does not overrule a statutory deadline.

5. The "Legal Trap": Why Homeowners Must Follow Through

As an advocate, I must warn: even when the law is on your side, you can lose by being a passive participant. The HOA successfully avoided violations on several items—the 2012/2013 budgets, General Ledger (GL) reports, and Clean Cut invoices—because they actually had them ready.

Because the HOA notified Mr. Winter that these specific records were "ready for pickup" and he failed to collect them, the Judge ruled there was no violation for those documents.

Warning to Homeowners:

  • Pick Up the Records: If the HOA says records are ready, go get them. Don't hand the board an easy win by failing to show up.
  • Written Trails Only: Mr. Winter testified about a phone call to the management office where a staffer knew nothing of his request. The Judge found this testimony insufficient (Conclusion of Law #5). Never rely on phone calls. If it isn't in an email or a letter, it didn't happen in the eyes of the court.
6. The Final Verdict and Financial Consequences

The ALJ’s Recommended Order was a total rebuke of the HOA’s delay tactics. The Cortina HOA was ordered to provide all requested documents—redacted where necessary—within ten days.

The board’s obstructionism also came with a price tag. The Association was ordered to reimburse Mr. Winter his $550.00 filing fee. When HOAs play games with records, the homeowners end up paying for the board's mistakes.

**Final Certification: The decision in Alexander Winter vs. Cortina Homeowners Association was officially certified as the final administrative decision on January 17, 2014.**

7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners
  1. Redaction Over Rejection: If a board says "we can't show you this because of privacy," remind them of their statutory duty to redact. They cannot block entire documents based on a few lines of private data.
  2. Statutory Deadlines are Firm: A manager’s vacation is not a legal excuse. The 10-business-day rule is a hard deadline.
  3. Watch the Fine Print on Request Forms: In this case, Mr. Winter initialed a pre-printed HOA form acknowledging that contracts were for "inspection only." This almost cost him his right to copies. Always read—and if necessary, amend—the association’s own request forms before signing.
8. Conclusion: Empowerment Through Information

The Winter vs. Cortina victory reinforces A.R.S. § 33-1805 as the "sunshine law" of planned communities. These statutes exist to prevent boards from operating in the shadows. By understanding legal precedents like this, you can stop being a spectator in your own community and start being an informed advocate for your rights. Accountability begins with the right to look at the books.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Alexander Winter (Petitioner)
    Homeowner; owns a landscaping management company

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw, IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Represented Cortina Homeowners Association
  • Kevin Bishop (property manager)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    Statutory agent and Manager for Respondent; provided testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director listed on distribution
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on distribution for Gene Palma
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed mailing certification

Knight, Edmund R. vs. Springfield Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Edmund R. Knight Counsel —
Respondent Springfield Community Association Counsel Chad Miesen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.

Why this result: The requested record fell under a statutory exception (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)) protecting employee compensation data.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide complete employment contract

Petitioner requested a copy of the manager's employment contract. Respondent provided a redacted copy with compensation details removed. Petitioner argued he was entitled to full financial records.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
  • 11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:29 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:44:33 (59.0 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (59.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Knight v. Springfield Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association (No. 12F-H1213008-BFS). The dispute centered on a homeowner’s request for the complete employment contract of a community manager and the subsequent redaction of compensation details by the homeowners' association (HOA).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805, associations are legally permitted to withhold specific portions of records relating to the compensation of individual employees. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to prove a statutory violation, and the petition was dismissed. This decision was certified as the final administrative action on March 13, 2013.

Case Background

The Springfield Community Association is a planned community of homeowners located in Chandler, Arizona. The conflict began in May 2012 when Petitioner Edmund R. Knight sought access to the employment contract of the association’s manager.

Timeline of Document Requests
Date Action Result
May 14, 2012 Petitioner submits written request for the manager’s contract. Respondent provides a word processing document with compensation deleted.
June 8, 2012 Petitioner's counsel (J. Roger Wood, Esq.) requests a complete, unredacted copy. Counsel argues A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) does not justify withholding data.
June 26, 2012 Respondent's counsel (Chad Miesen, Esq.) replies. Respondent provides the original signed contract with compensation redacted.
October 4, 2012 Petitioner files a formal Petition. Petitioner pays a $550.00 filing fee to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Analysis of Key Themes

Statutory Transparency vs. Privacy Exemptions

The core of the dispute involved the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the records of planned communities.

  • The Right to Access: Subsection A generally requires that all financial and other records of an association be made "reasonably available for examination by any member."
  • The Right to Withhold: Subsection B provides specific exemptions where records may be withheld from disclosure.

The Petitioner argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to "all financial" records to ensure a full understanding of the association's financial standing. However, the Respondent relied on A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which explicitly allows an association to withhold records relating to the "compensation of… an individual employee of the association."

Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the Petitioner, Edmund Knight bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Springfield Community Association violated the law. Under the legal definition used in this case, "preponderance of the evidence" refers to evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition's, making the sought-after fact "more probable than not."

The ALJ determined that because the manager was an employee of the association, the association acted within its legal rights to redact the compensation information. Therefore, the Petitioner could not meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding the Right to Withhold Records

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: . . . 5. Records relating to the . . . compensation of . . . an individual employee of the association…"

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), as cited in the Conclusions of Law.

Context: This statutory excerpt was the primary legal basis for the ALJ's decision. It serves as a specific exception to the general rule that association records must be open to members.

Regarding the Petitioner’s Argument

"Petitioner alleged that as a homeowner, he was entitled to the information he requested so he would have a full understanding of the financial standing of the association."

— Conclusion of Law No. 5.

Context: This highlights the Petitioner's motivation. He viewed the manager's salary not as private employee data, but as a critical component of the association's overall financial transparency.

The Final Ruling

"As the manager is an employee of the association, Respondent was entitled to redact compensation information from the records provided. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805."

— Conclusions of Law No. 7 and 8.

Context: This represents the ALJ's application of the law to the facts, concluding that the association's actions were legally protected.

Actionable Insights

  • Employee Privacy Protections: Planned community associations in Arizona are not required to disclose individual employee compensation to members. While general financial records must be transparent, the specific pay of individuals (whether employees of the HOA or employees of a contractor) is protected under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5).
  • Redaction Practice: When responding to records requests that contain protected information, associations may provide the requested document with the sensitive portions (such as salary figures) redacted, rather than withholding the entire document.
  • Filing Consequences: Petitioners should be aware that filing a dispute involves a significant fee (in this case, $550.00). If the Petitioner fails to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the petition will be dismissed without any required action from the Respondent.
  • Finality of ALJ Decisions: If the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety does not accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision within a specific timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

Final Administrative Action

The ALJ decision was transmitted on February 4, 2013. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until March 11, 2013, to take action. As no action was received by that date, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the decision as final on March 13, 2013. Parties retain the right to request a rehearing or seek review by the Superior Court, subject to specific statutory timelines.

Case Study: Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association

This study guide examines the administrative law case of Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association (No. 12F-H1213008-BFS). The case centers on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding a homeowner's right to access association records versus the association's right to protect employee compensation information.

I. Key Concepts and Case Overview

Core Dispute

The primary issue in this case was whether the Springfield Community Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing a redacted copy of a property manager's employment contract to Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner). The Respondent withheld specific portions of the contract pertaining to the manager's compensation.

Legal Framework

The ruling was dictated by specific Arizona Revised Statutes and Administrative Codes:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): General mandate that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5): A specific exception that allows an association to withhold records relating to the compensation of an individual employee or a contractor's employee working under the association's direction.
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B): Grants the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119: Establishes that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Procedural History and Timeline
Date Event
May 14, 2012 Petitioner submits a written request for the association manager’s contract.
May 17, 2012 Respondent provides a word processing document with compensation details deleted.
June 8, 2012 Petitioner’s counsel requests a complete copy, arguing A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) does not justify withholding.
June 26, 2012 Respondent provides the original signed contract with compensation information redacted.
Oct 4, 2012 Petitioner files a formal Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Jan 15, 2013 Administrative hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer.
Jan 31, 2013 ALJ issues decision recommending dismissal of the Petition.
Mar 11, 2013 Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ decision.
Mar 13, 2013 ALJ decision certified as the final administrative decision due to Department inaction.

II. Glossary of Important Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified statutory laws of the state of Arizona.
  • Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide enough evidence to support their claim.
  • Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ's decision becomes final, often occurring if the supervising agency takes no action within a statutory timeframe.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard of proof meaning the evidence shows that the fact sought to be proved is "more probable than not."
  • Redaction: The process of censoring or obscuring part of a text for legal or confidentiality reasons.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (here, the Springfield Community Association).

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the specific filing fee paid by Edmund R. Knight to initiate his petition?
  2. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), which state department has the jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and planned community associations?
  3. Why did the Respondent argue they were legally permitted to redact the manager's contract?
  4. What definition did the Administrative Law Judge use for "Preponderance of the Evidence"?
  5. What happened when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety failed to act on the ALJ decision by March 11, 2013?
  6. Who represented the Springfield Community Association during the proceedings?
  7. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for wanting the full, unredacted financial information of the manager's contract?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Interpretation: Compare the general disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) with the exceptions listed in A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Discuss how the Administrative Law Judge balanced the member's right to "all financial records" against the association's right to withhold "compensation" information.
  2. The Administrative Process: Analyze the timeline of this case from the initial record request in May 2012 to the final certification in March 2013. Discuss the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety in resolving homeowner association disputes.
  3. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Explain the significance of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in this case. Why did the ALJ conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden despite the Respondent admitting to redacting the document?
  4. Rights of Appeal: Based on the Certification of Decision, what are the subsequent legal options for a party who disagrees with the final administrative decision? Include references to the role of the Superior Court and requests for rehearing.

V. Answer Key (Short-Answer)

  1. $550.00.
  2. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
  3. They cited A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which allows associations to withhold records relating to the compensation of an individual employee.
  4. "Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." (Source: Black’s Law Dictionary).
  5. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department.
  6. Chad Miesen, Esq.
  7. He argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to the information to have a full understanding of the financial standing of the association.

Transparency vs. Privacy: A Deep Dive into HOA Records Disputes

For many homeowners, the internal finances of their Homeowners Association (HOA) are a black box they feel entitled to open. But as one Arizona homeowner learned the hard way, that curiosity can come with a $550 "sticker shock" and a sobering lesson in the limits of statutory transparency. The case of Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association highlights the high-stakes friction between a member’s right to oversee association management and the privacy rights of the people running the community. At the heart of the battle was a singular, contested question: Can an HOA legally withhold or redact specific compensation figures from an employment contract requested by a member?

The Timeline of the Dispute

The road from a simple document request to a formal administrative hearing was paved with repeated attempts at disclosure and escalating legal demands. The following timeline outlines the transition from a neighborly inquiry to a litigated dispute:

  • May 14, 2012: Petitioner Edmund Knight submits a written request to the Springfield Community Association for a copy of the property manager’s employment contract.
  • May 17, 2012: The Association provides a word-processing version of the contract, but compensation details are deleted prior to printing.
  • June 8, 2012: Petitioner’s counsel, J. Roger Wood, Esq., demands a complete, unredacted copy, arguing that the statutes do not justify withholding the information.
  • June 26, 2012: The Association provides the original signed contract but redacts all portions relating to the manager's compensation.
  • October 4, 2012: Seeking a definitive win, Mr. Knight files a formal Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, paying a $550.00 filing fee to initiate the process.
  • January 15, 2013: A formal hearing is convened before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine if the Association’s redactions violated state law.

The Legal Tug-of-War: A.R.S. § 33-1805 Explained

The dispute centered on the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805. This statute serves as the "open books" law for HOAs, but it contains specific carve-outs designed to protect sensitive data. The "tug-of-war" in this case involved a strategic legal maneuver: Petitioner’s counsel argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)—which typically protects privileged communications between the board and its attorney—did not justify the Association's secrecy. However, the Association countered by pointing to a different, more specific shield: Section (B)(5).

The Legal Framework of A.R.S. § 33-1805
Right to Disclosure (Section A) Right to Withhold (Section B, Item 5)
The General Rule: Mandates that all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member. The Privacy Exception: Permits an association to withhold books and records to the extent they relate to the compensation of an individual employee.

Mr. Knight argued that "all financial records" must include the exact cost of the manager's salary so that homeowners can fulfill their duty to monitor the association’s financial health. He posited that the broad mandate for transparency in Section A should override any privacy concerns regarding the contract.

The Administrative Law Judge’s Verdict

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over the hearing. To prevail, Mr. Knight had to meet a specific legal threshold, a standard he ultimately failed to reach.

"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.'" — Black's Law Dictionary

Judge Eigenheer’s reasoning was anchored in the manager’s status as an "individual employee" of the Association. Because the manager held this specific status, the Association was legally entitled to redact compensation figures. The Judge found that the Association had acted within its rights by providing the signed contract while withholding the protected financial data, leading to a recommendation that the petition be dismissed.

Final Certification and Procedural Outcomes

In the Arizona administrative system, an ALJ issues a Recommended Order. This recommendation is then reviewed by a state agency—in this case, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety—which acts as the final decision-making body. The Department has the authority to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s findings.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08, the Department had until March 11, 2013, to take action on Judge Eigenheer's recommendation. When the deadline passed in silence, the ALJ’s decision was automatically certified as final. On March 13, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued the final certification, formally dismissing Mr. Knight's claims and concluding the litigation.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Associations

The Knight vs. Springfield case offers essential insights for anyone navigating the complex world of community governance:

  1. The Limits of Transparency: While the phrase "all financial records" sounds absolute, it is subject to statutory exceptions. Transparency in an HOA is a qualified right, not a blank check for all information.
  2. The Right to Redact Includes Contractors: The privacy protection under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5) is broad. It covers not only direct employees of the association but also employees of a contractor (such as a management company) who work under the association's direction.
  3. The Burden of Proof: The homeowner (Petitioner) always carries the burden of proving a violation. If an association can point to a specific statutory exception, the homeowner must provide "more convincing" evidence to the contrary—a high bar in the face of clear privacy laws.

Conclusion

The dismissal of the petition in Edmund R. Knight vs. Springfield Community Association stands as a firm reminder that employee privacy is a primary concern under Arizona law. While homeowners have a legitimate interest in the fiscal management of their communities, that interest stops at the individual’s paycheck. Before spending hundreds of dollars in filing fees and engaging in a formal legal battle, homeowners should carefully review state statutes like A.R.S. § 33-1805 to ensure the "missing" information they seek isn't actually protected by law.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • J. Roger Wood (attorney)
    Sent a request on behalf of Petitioner on June 8, 2012

Respondent Side

  • Chad Miesen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Represented Springfield Community Association

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Agency Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Joni Cage (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212002-BFS, 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or governing documents; specific exceptions for non-regularly scheduled meetings and privileged records applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged that the ARC failed to notice and conduct meetings publicly. The HOA argued ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled and occur only as necessary, thus not requiring notice.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA denied the request based on attorney-client privilege.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:42 (126.6 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:39:45 (58.9 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (58.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative litigation (Case Nos. 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS) involving John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The disputes, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on two primary allegations: the Association’s failure to notice and conduct public Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings, and the Association’s refusal to provide specific records, including attorney invoices and third-party communications.

Following hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas issued a decision on January 17, 2013, dismissing both petitions. The ALJ concluded that the ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and therefore not subject to statutory notice requirements. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the records withheld by the Association were protected under attorney-client privilege and pending litigation exceptions. This decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on February 28, 2013.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Distinction of "Regularly Scheduled" Meetings

A central theme of the litigation was the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to all members. The Petitioners argued that the ARC’s failure to notice these meetings violated both state law and community documents.

However, testimony from Association representatives established a different operational reality:

  • Ad Hoc Scheduling: ARC meetings were described as occurring "from time to time as necessary" or "on demand," depending entirely on the submission of architectural applications.
  • Bylaw Compliance: The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI Section 3) explicitly state the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary."
  • Informal Venue: Testimony revealed that meetings often took place at committee members' residences and, while not formally noticed, had never been closed to a member who specifically requested to attend.

The ALJ determined that because the meetings were irregular and demand-driven rather than "regularly scheduled," the Association was not legally obligated to provide public notice.

2. Statutory Records Disclosure vs. Legal Privilege

The second major theme involved the balance between a homeowner's right to examine Association records (A.R.S. § 33-1805) and the Association's right to protect sensitive legal information. The Petitioners sought invoices from the Association’s attorneys and communications with third parties, arguing these did not constitute privileged material.

The Association successfully defended its refusal to disclose these documents by citing:

  • Pending Litigation: The City of Prescott was involved in civil litigation with the Association at the time of the hearing.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: The Association argued that the withheld documents related to legal advice or pending/contemplated litigation.
  • Statutory Exceptions: A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) explicitly allows associations to withhold records related to privileged communications and pending litigation.

The ALJ found that the Association’s refusal was consistent with these statutory protections, and the Petitioners failed to prove that the refusal violated the law or community documents.

3. Burden of Proof in Administrative Proceedings

The case highlights the procedural requirement that the party asserting a claim—in this case, the Petitioners—bears the "burden of proof." Under Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the petitioner must prove their claims are "more likely true than not." The ALJ repeatedly noted that the Petitioners failed to meet this threshold for both the meeting notice and the records disclosure claims.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding ARC Meeting Frequency

"The Architectural Review Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder… The Committee shall keep and maintain a written record of all actions taken by it at such meetings or otherwise."

— Crossings’ Bylaws, Article XI Section 3 (Context: This provision was used to establish that the ARC was not required to have a regular, predictable schedule).

"ARC meetings are not noticed but are open to all members… the committee has never denied access to any member to attend an ARC meeting… the committee has never received a request from an owner to attend an ARC meeting."

— Brenda Doziar, Board and ARC Member (Context: Testimony provided to show the Association did not intentionally exclude members, but rather operated informally based on submission volume).

Regarding Open Meeting Statutes

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

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) (Context: The legal baseline for the Petitioners’ argument, which ultimately failed because the ARC meetings were deemed not "regularly scheduled").

Regarding Records Exceptions

"Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association. 2. Pending litigation."

— A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (Context: The legal justification used by the Association to deny the Petitioners' request for attorney invoices and third-party correspondence).

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, the following insights can be derived regarding Association governance and member rights:

  • Definition of Committee Schedules: Associations can avoid the statutory requirement for public meeting notices if committees (like the ARC) meet on an "as-needed" basis rather than on a "regularly scheduled" basis. If a committee meeting is not on a fixed recurring schedule, it may not trigger the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
  • Documentation of "As-Needed" Status: To defend against claims of secret meetings, Associations should ensure their Bylaws or CC&Rs explicitly state that committees meet "as necessary" or "from time to time," and they should maintain minutes of these meetings to document all actions taken.
  • Protection of Legal Records: Associations are within their rights to withhold attorney invoices and correspondence if they relate to pending litigation or legal advice. Homeowners seeking such records face a high bar to prove that such documents do not fall under the statutory exceptions of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Member Requests for Attendance: While notice may not be required for ad hoc meetings, refusing a member's specific request to attend an open session could create legal vulnerability. In this case, the Association’s defense was strengthened by the fact that they had never denied a request for attendance.
  • Burden of Evidence: Petitioners in administrative hearings must provide concrete evidence that a violation occurred. Mere allegations of non-compliance are insufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard required to prevail against an Association.

Study Guide: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between John and Debborah Sellers and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association. It examines the application of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, open meeting requirements, and the disclosure of association records.

1. Case Overview and Key Entities

The consolidated cases (No. 12F-H1212002-BFS and No. 12F-H1212009-BFS) involve a dispute over the transparency of committee meetings and the accessibility of specific legal and financial records within a planned community.

Key Parties and Entities
Entity Role/Description
John and Debborah Sellers Petitioners; homeowners and members of the Crossings at Willow Creek.
Crossings at Willow Creek POA Respondent; the homeowners' association (HOA) governing the community in Prescott, Arizona.
Office of Administrative Hearings The Arizona state agency responsible for conducting the hearing and issuing the decision.
Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety The state department authorized to receive petitions from HOA members and associations.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing property applications and architectural guidelines.
Significant Individuals
  • M. Douglas: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearings and issued the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
  • G. Eugene Neil: Interim City Attorney for Prescott; testified regarding public records and ongoing litigation between the City and the HOA.
  • Brenda Doziar: HOA Board member and ARC member; provided testimony on ARC meeting procedures.
  • Robert Balzano: Former statutory agent and manager of the HOA; testified regarding the lack of regularly scheduled ARC meetings.
  • Cliff J. Vanell: Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings; certified the ALJ decision as the final administrative decision.

2. Core Legal Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: ARC Meeting Transparency

The Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to notice and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings publicly, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

  • Petitioner Argument: ARC meetings should be noticed and open to the public.
  • Respondent Argument: ARC meetings are not "regularly scheduled" but occur "on demand" based on submissions; therefore, statutory notice requirements for regularly scheduled meetings do not apply.
Issue 2: Access to Records

The Petitioners alleged the HOA refused to provide specific records, specifically attorney invoices and communications between HOA attorneys and third parties.

  • Petitioner Argument: Communications with third parties are not protected by attorney-client privilege. They also sought invoices to understand the HOA's legal expenditures.
  • Respondent Argument: The withheld records were protected under attorney-client privilege and related to pending litigation, which are statutory exceptions to the disclosure requirement.

3. Statutory Framework and Bylaws

The case relies heavily on specific Arizona statutes and the HOA's internal bylaws:

A.R.S. § 33-1804: Open Meetings
  • General Rule: All meetings of the association, the board, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings are open to all members or their designated representatives.
  • Executive Session Exceptions: Meetings may be closed only for specific reasons, including legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/health/financial info of members or employees, and job performance discussions.
A.R.S. § 33-1805: Association Records
  • General Rule: Financial and other records must be made reasonably available for examination within ten business days.
  • Withholding Exceptions: Records may be withheld if they relate to privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, or specific personal/health/financial records of individuals.
A.R.S. § 12-2234: Attorney-Client Privilege
  • In civil actions, attorneys and their staff cannot be examined regarding communications made by the client or advice given during professional employment without the client's consent.
HOA Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3)
  • The ARC is directed to meet "from time to time as necessary."
  • The committee must maintain a written record of all actions taken.

4. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to the ALJ's decision, why did the ARC meetings not require public notice? Answer: The meetings were found to be held "as necessary" or "on demand" rather than being "regularly scheduled." A.R.S. § 33-1804 only mandates notice and open access for regularly scheduled committee meetings.

2. What is the "burden of proof" in this administrative hearing, and who carries it? Answer: The burden of proof falls on the party asserting a claim (the Petitioners). The standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence."

3. What does "preponderance of the evidence" mean in a legal context? Answer: It means the evidence must be sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is "more likely true than not."

4. Name two reasons an HOA board may legally close a portion of a meeting (Executive Session). Answer: Possible answers include: Legal advice from an attorney, pending or contemplated litigation, personal/financial information of a member/employee, or matters relating to employee job performance.

5. How many business days does an association have to fulfill a request for the examination of records? Answer: Ten business days.

6. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, what is the maximum per-page fee an association can charge for copies of records? Answer: Fifteen cents per page.

5. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Distinction Between "Regularly Scheduled" and "As Necessary": Analyze how the distinction between "regularly scheduled" and meetings held "from time to time" impacted the outcome of Case No. 12F-H1212002-BFS. Discuss whether this distinction creates a potential loophole for HOAs to avoid transparency, or if it serves as a practical necessity for committees with fluctuating workloads.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of HOA Governance: The Petitioners argued that communications between HOA attorneys and third parties should not be privileged. Based on A.R.S. § 12-2234 and the ALJ's conclusions, evaluate the scope of attorney-client privilege. How does the law balance a homeowner's right to financial transparency (specifically regarding legal invoices) with the association’s right to confidential legal strategy?

3. The Role of Testimony in Establishing Facts: Examine the testimony of Brenda Doziar and Robert Balzano. How did their descriptions of the ARC's operational habits (e.g., meeting at private residences, lack of a formal schedule) influence the ALJ’s Findings of Fact? Contrast their testimony with the Petitioners' claims to show why the Petitioners failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.

6. Glossary of Terms

  • Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and makes findings of fact and legal conclusions.
  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the State of Arizona.
  • Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a trial or hearing to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
  • Community Documents: The collective term for an HOA's declaration, bylaws, and other governing rules.
  • Executive Session: A portion of a meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or confidential matters as defined by statute.
  • Member: In the context of an HOA, a property owner who is subject to the association's governing documents and holds voting rights.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not (greater than 50% probability).
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Crossings at Willow Creek POA.
  • Statutory Agent: An individual or entity designated to receive legal documents and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association.

HOA Transparency and Member Rights: Lessons from Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek

1. Introduction: The Tension Between Homeowners and Associations

Friction between homeowners and Property Owners Associations (POAs) often centers on the perceived "black box" of governance. Many homeowners feel that critical decisions—especially those regarding the aesthetic and structural integrity of the community—are made behind closed doors without proper oversight. Conversely, volunteer boards and their agents often struggle to navigate the granular requirements of state law while managing the day-to-day administrative needs of the association.

This tension is perfectly encapsulated in the consolidated cases of John and Debborah Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (2013). By analyzing this administrative ruling, we can gain a clearer understanding of how Arizona law distinguishes between "open meetings" and "access to records." For homeowners and board members alike, this case serves as a vital lesson in the nuances of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the high evidentiary bar required to prove a violation of member rights.

2. The Conflict Over Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Meetings

In the first petition (12F-H1212002-BFS), the Sellers alleged that the Crossings at Willow Creek failed to provide notice for and conduct Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings in a public forum. They contended that the lack of formal notice violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 and the community’s governing documents.

The Association’s defense relied on the operational reality of the committee. Brenda Doziar, a member of both the Board and the ARC, testified that the committee’s process was not a standard deliberative assembly but a functional review of applications. Specifically, she noted that the ARC meets to review plans alongside the association’s professional architect to determine if a project should be accepted, modified, or rejected.

Robert Balzano, the former manager and statutory agent for the Association, further testified that the ARC did not follow a fixed calendar. Instead, meetings were held "on-demand" at private residences based on the volume of architectural submissions. The legal pivot point of the case was the specific language found in Arizona's open meeting law for planned communities:

"Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…" — A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

3. Defining "Regularly Scheduled": The Legal Turning Point

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) focused on the distinction between a "regularly scheduled" meeting and one that occurs intermittently. The Association’s Bylaws (Article XI, Section 3) explicitly state that the ARC shall meet "from time to time as necessary" to perform its duties. Because the meetings were contingent upon the receipt of homeowner applications rather than a set monthly or quarterly schedule, they did not fall under the statutory mandate for public notice.

The ALJ dismissed the complaint regarding meeting notices based on these factors:

  • Contingent Nature of Meetings: Evidence showed that meetings depended entirely on architectural submissions; in some months, the committee met multiple times, while in others, it did not meet at all.
  • Adherence to Bylaws: The Association followed its own governing documents, which authorized the committee to act "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a regular schedule.
  • Professional Consultation: Testimony established that the meetings involved technical reviews with an architect, a process that is functionally different from a standard board meeting.
  • Accessibility Without Formal Notice: The committee never denied a member’s request to attend, and the specific applicant was always invited to the meeting where their plans were discussed.

4. The Records Dispute: What Can Homeowners Actually See?

The second petition (12F-H1212009-BFS) concerned the Sellers' demand for records, specifically invoices from the association’s legal counsel—the firm of Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC—and communications between those attorneys and third parties. The Sellers argued that third-party communications, by definition, cannot be protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Association successfully countered this by invoking A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs association records, and A.R.S. § 12-2234, which protects attorney-client communications. The sensitivity of these records was heightened by a pending Declaratory Action—a legal proceeding initiated by the City of Prescott against the association members to determine the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The case established a clear hierarchy of record accessibility:

  • Public Records: The City of Prescott provided the Petitioners with ninety pages of documents via subpoena. As these were public records held by a municipality, they were fully accessible.
  • Privileged Association Records: Internal documents, including attorney invoices and correspondence with the insurance agent, Larry Harding, were protected. Mr. Harding testified that such correspondence typically relates to potential insurance claims, which are sensitive legal matters. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), the Association is permitted to withhold records that "tip its hand" regarding pending litigation or privileged legal advice.

5. Final Verdict: The ALJ Decision

On January 17, 2013, ALJ M. Douglas issued a decision dismissing both petitions, a ruling later certified by Director Cliff J. Vanell. The decision was rooted in the burden of proof established by the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R2-19-119, which requires the party asserting a claim to prove their case by a "Preponderance of the Evidence."

In simple terms, the Sellers were required to prove that their allegations were "more likely true than not." The ALJ concluded they failed to meet this burden. The Association proved that its ARC meetings were not "regularly scheduled" and that the withheld legal records fell squarely within the statutory exceptions for attorney-client privilege and pending litigation.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek case serves as a definitive guide for interpreting A.R.S. Title 33. Homeowners and board members should internalize the following lessons:

  1. The "Regularly Scheduled" Threshold: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), only committee meetings that occur on a set, recurring basis require formal notice to the membership. "On-demand" or "as-necessary" meetings are legally distinct and do not carry the same notice requirements.
  2. Statutory Symmetry in Confidentiality: There is a direct parallel between the reasons a board may close a meeting under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1-5) and the reasons it may withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). Legal advice and pending litigation are strictly protected in both contexts to preserve the association's legal position.
  3. The Importance of Precise Bylaws: The phrase "from time to time as necessary" in the Crossings' Bylaws was a primary factor in the Association's victory. Boards must ensure their governing documents are aligned with state statutes to provide maximum operational flexibility.
  4. The Burden of Proof is on the Accuser: Per A.A.C. R2-19-119, the association is not required to prove it followed the law; rather, the homeowner must provide credible evidence that a violation occurred. Mere disagreement with a board's administrative style does not constitute a legal violation.

As a homeowner, you have a right to transparency, but that right is not unlimited. As a board member, you have a duty to be open, but you also have a duty to protect the association’s legal interests. Review your community’s bylaws and A.R.S. Title 33 immediately. Understanding these boundaries is the only way to ensure your community remains governed by law rather than by conflict.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    appeared through John Sellers
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Testified; interior designer

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Attorney for Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
  • Brenda Doziar (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    ARC member
  • Robert Balzano (witness)
    Former statutory agent and manager of Crossings
  • Kenneth Burnett (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • G. Eugene Neil (witness)
    City of Prescott
    Interim City Attorney
  • Larry Harding (witness)
    Commercial insurance agent for Crossings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Director who certified the decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy