Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1808

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joyce H Monsanto Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both statutory and CC&R violations,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of application to install two flagpoles for US and military flags, and alleged failure to follow CC&R appeal process.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of her request to install two flagpoles, arguing the restriction violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 (flag statute) and that the Board failed to provide a written decision on her appeal within 45 days as required by CC&R § 7.9, which she argued meant the request was deemed approved. The ALJ found the single flagpole restriction reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and determined the Board satisfied the CC&R § 7.9 requirement by posting the decision in the meeting minutes within 45 days,.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish that the Respondent's Board should not have denied her application under A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • CC&R § 7.9
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R § 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:16 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:19 (163.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal reasoning from the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Joyce H. Monsanto versus the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The central conflict revolves around the HOA’s denial of Ms. Monsanto’s request to install two separate flagpoles on her home to display the United States flag and the United States Marine Corps flag. The petitioner alleged this denial violated Arizona state law and the HOA’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision established two critical points: first, that the HOA’s rule limiting homeowners to a single flagpole is a “reasonable” regulation on the “placement and manner of display” explicitly permitted under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1808(B), and does not constitute a prohibition of flag display. Second, the HOA was found to have complied with its own appeal process as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ concluded that an oral denial at a board meeting, later documented in publicly posted meeting minutes, satisfied the CC&R’s requirement to “render its written decision” within a 45-day timeframe. The ruling affirms an HOA’s authority to enforce uniform aesthetic standards, provided they are reasonable and applied according to the association’s governing documents.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by homeowner Joyce H. Monsanto (“Petitioner”) against her HOA, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (“Respondent”).

• Initial Petition: On March 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and its CC&Rs (§ 7.9) by refusing to approve her request for two flagpoles.

• First Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019, after which the ALJ found that the Petitioner had not proven any violation by the HOA.

• Rehearing: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing on August 22, 2019. This rehearing took place on October 21, 2019.

• Amended Decision: On November 18, 2019, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision, again denying the Petitioner’s petition and affirming the previous findings. The amendment was issued to correct a typographical error and clarify the parties’ appeal rights.

The Core Dispute: A Request for Two Flagpoles

The petitioner, whose husband and two sons have long careers in the U.S. Marines and Coast Guard, sought to display both the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag on her home.

• The Application: On August 31, 2018, she submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house, flanking her front door.

• The Rationale: The Petitioner stated her desire for two separate poles was for aesthetic reasons, believing the display would look better. She also expressed concern that a single, larger flagpole installed in her front yard would obstruct the view from her front window.

• The Denial: On September 22, 2018, the HOA’s Architectural Committee issued a written Notice of Disapproval, citing the Architectural Guidelines which permit only one flagpole per lot.

• The Appeal: On October 1, 2018, the Petitioner submitted a written appeal to the HOA Board, arguing the denial was unreasonable, that the guidelines were not uniformly enforced, and that the board could grant a waiver under CC&R § 7.6.

Governing Rules and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of Arizona state law and the HOA’s specific governing documents.

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808

This statute governs the right of homeowners to display certain flags.

• Protection of Display: Subsection A states that an association “shall not prohibit the outdoor… display” of the American flag or a military flag, among others.

• Right to Regulate: Subsection B grants associations the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display.” It explicitly allows rules that “regulate the location and size of flagpoles,” “limit the member to displaying no more than two flags at once,” and limit flagpole height, while not prohibiting their installation.

HOA Architectural Guidelines

The community’s rules regarding flagpoles evolved but consistently maintained a key restriction.

• Original Guideline (May 24, 2016): “Poles must not exceed 12’ in height, and only one flagpole is permitted per Lot.”

• Amended Guideline (November 8, 2018): The board increased the maximum pole height to 20′ and added rules for nighttime illumination and inclement weather, but explicitly “did not change the limit of one flagpole per lot.”

HOA CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The procedural requirements for architectural review and appeals were central to the Petitioner’s claim.

• Section 7.8 (Board Approval): Pertaining to initial applications, this section requires the Board to provide the owner with a “written response within sixty (60) days,” otherwise the request is deemed approved.

• Section 7.9 (Appeal): Pertaining to appeals, this section requires the Board to consult with the Architectural Committee and “render its written decision” within 45 days. A failure by the Board to render a decision in this period “shall be deemed approval.” This section does not contain the same explicit language as § 7.8 requiring the response be provided to the owner.

Analysis of the Appeal Process and Conflicting Testimonies

A significant portion of the dispute centered on the events of the November 8, 2018, HOA Board meeting, where the Petitioner’s appeal was to be considered. The accounts of what transpired at this meeting were contradictory.

Petitioner’s Testimony (Joyce H. Monsanto)

Respondent’s Testimony (Anthony Nunziato, Board President)

Consultation

The board did not consult the Architectural Committee.

The board consulted with the Architectural Committee before the meeting.

Decision

The board did not consider or make any decision on her appeal.

The board considered the appeal and made a decision.

Notification

She was never told her appeal was denied at the meeting.

He was certain the board verbally informed the Petitioner that her appeal was denied at the meeting.

On December 4, 2018, draft minutes from the November 8 meeting were posted on the HOA’s website. The Petitioner acknowledged seeing them. These minutes included the following entry:

“[Petitioner’s] last request was for a waiver that would allow her to have two flagpoles on her property (one to fly the American flag and the other to fly the Marine flag). The Board rejected this request since our CC&Rs allow for the flying of both flags on a single flagpole.”

The Petitioner argued that these publicly posted draft minutes, which were not sent directly to her, did not constitute a valid written denial of her appeal under the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s claims, relying on witness credibility, statutory interpretation, and contract construction principles.

Credibility Assessment

The ALJ made a clear determination on the conflicting testimonies regarding the November 8 meeting.

• Mr. Nunziato’s testimony that the board made a decision and informed the Petitioner was found to be “credible and supported by the minutes of the meeting.”

• The Petitioner’s testimony that the board made no decision on her appeal was deemed “incredible.”

Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1808 (State Flag Law)

The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s one-flagpole rule did not violate state law.

• The rule was found to be a “reasonable rule or regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B).”

• Because the Architectural Guidelines allow for flying two flags from a single flagpole up to 20′ long, the HOA was not prohibiting the display of flags, merely regulating the manner.

• The ALJ characterized the core issue as the “Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.”

Ruling on CC&R § 7.9 (Appeal Process)

The ALJ found that the HOA had followed the procedure required by its own CC&Rs.

• Consultation: Based on Mr. Nunziato’s credible testimony, the board fulfilled its duty to consult with the Architectural Committee.

• “Render a Decision”: The board “rendered a decision on her appeal at the November 8, 2018 board meeting” when it orally reached a decision.

• “Written Decision”: The board created a “writing memorializing its decision” by documenting it in the meeting minutes. Because the Petitioner saw these minutes on December 4, 2018, this action occurred within the 45-day window following her October 1, 2018 appeal.

• No Delivery Requirement: The ALJ applied the “negative implication cannon of contract construction.” By comparing CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) with § 7.8 (initial applications), the judge noted that § 7.9 lacks the explicit requirement to provide the written decision to the owner. Therefore, posting the minutes was sufficient, and the Petitioner’s request was not “deemed approved.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued a final, binding order.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that the Respondent’s Board should not have denied her application to install two flagpoles on her property.

The decision concludes with a notice informing the parties that the order is binding and that any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This study guide provides a detailed review of the legal case Joyce H. Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG, as detailed in the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision dated November 18, 2019. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action did the Petitioner request from the Respondent that initiated this dispute?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent’s Architectural Committee initially deny the Petitioner’s request on September 22, 2018?

4. Identify the key Arizona statute cited in the case and explain its two main provisions regarding flag displays.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the Respondent’s handling of her appeal under CC&R § 7.9?

6. According to the testimony of Board President Tony Nunziato, how did the Board address the Petitioner’s appeal at the November 8, 2018 meeting?

7. What documentary evidence did the Respondent use to support the claim that a decision on the appeal was made and written down within the required timeframe?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the Respondent’s one-flagpole rule to be legally permissible?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner in this case, and did she meet it according to the ALJ?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case and its practical consequence for the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Joyce H. Monsanto, a homeowner. The Respondent is the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). Ms. Monsanto is a member of the Respondent HOA because she owns a house within its development in Sun City, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house. She intended to fly the United States flag from one pole and the United States Marine Corps flag from the other.

3. The Architectural Committee denied the request because the community’s Architectural Guidelines only permitted one flagpole per lot. The written Notice of Disapproval explicitly stated this rule as the reason for the denial.

4. The key statute is A.R.S. § 33-1808. Its first provision, § 33-1808(A), prohibits an HOA from banning the display of the American flag and various military flags. The second provision, § 33-1808(B), allows an HOA to adopt reasonable rules regulating the placement, size, and number of flagpoles, explicitly permitting a limit of one flagpole per property.

5. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated CC&R § 7.9 because it failed to provide her with a formal written decision denying her appeal within the 45-day period. She contended that because she never received a dedicated letter, the request should have been “deemed approved” as stipulated in the CC&R for failure to render a timely decision.

6. Tony Nunziato testified that the Board did consult with the Architectural Committee regarding the appeal before the meeting. He stated with certainty that at the November 8, 2018 meeting, the Board considered the appeal and verbally informed Ms. Monsanto that her request for a waiver was denied.

7. The Respondent presented the draft minutes from the November 8, 2018 Board meeting, which were posted on the HOA’s website on December 4, 2018. These minutes explicitly stated that the Board rejected the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to have two flagpoles, fulfilling the requirement to have a written record of the decision within 45 days of her October 1 appeal.

8. The ALJ found the rule permissible because A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) explicitly grants HOAs the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” which may “regulate the location and size of flagpoles” and “shall not prohibit the installation of a flagpole.” Since the HOA’s guidelines allowed for one flagpole up to 20 feet long, capable of flying two flags, the judge concluded the rule was reasonable under the statute.

9. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that her contention was more probably true than not. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or its own CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition. The practical consequence is that the HOA’s denial of her application for two flagpoles was upheld, and the Board could therefore properly find her in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1808(A), which protects a homeowner’s right to display military flags, and § 33-1808(B), which grants HOAs regulatory power. How did the Administrative Law Judge balance these two provisions to reach a conclusion in this case?

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the Petitioner. Detail the specific claims made by Joyce Monsanto and explain why, according to the legal decision, she failed to establish them by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

3. Examine the procedural dispute surrounding CC&R § 7.9. Contrast the Petitioner’s interpretation of a “written decision” with the interpretation ultimately adopted by the Administrative Law Judge, referencing the role of the verbal notification and the meeting minutes.

4. Evaluate the role of testimony and credibility in this administrative hearing. Compare and contrast the testimony provided by Petitioner Joyce Monsanto and Respondent’s Board President Tony Nunziato regarding the events of the November 8, 2018 board meeting, and explain why the judge found Mr. Nunziato’s account more credible.

5. Based on the facts presented, construct an argument that the HOA’s actions, while legally permissible according to the judge, were inconsistent with the patriotic values of its community, which includes many retired military members. Conversely, construct an argument defending the Board’s decision as a necessary and fair application of rules essential for maintaining community standards.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

An Arizona Revised Statute that governs the display of flags in planned communities. It forbids HOAs from prohibiting certain flags (like the U.S. and military flags) but permits them to establish reasonable rules regarding the number, size, and location of flagpoles.

Architectural Committee

A committee established by the HOA’s CC&Rs responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving homeowners’ applications for external modifications to their property, such as installing flagpoles.

Architectural Guidelines

The specific rules adopted by the HOA that set forth requirements for property modifications. In this case, the guidelines limited each lot to one flagpole, with a maximum height of 20 feet.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The Petitioner, Joyce Monsanto, bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the law or its own rules.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that create the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9, which outlines the appeal process for disapproved architectural applications.

Declarant

The original developer of a planned community who establishes the initial CC&Rs. In this case, K. Hovnanian was the Declarant for Four Seasons at the Manor.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization in a planned community responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and managing common areas. The Respondent, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, is an HOA.

Negative Implication

A principle of legal interpretation which holds that the explicit inclusion of one thing implies the intentional exclusion of another. The ALJ used this to argue that because CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) does not specify that a written decision must be sent to the owner, unlike CC&R § 7.8 (initial applications), that requirement should not be read into the appeal rule.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum to resolve disputes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Joyce H. Monsanto is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required in this civil case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact (the judge) that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Restrictive Covenant

A legally enforceable rule within the CC&Rs that limits what a homeowner can do with their property. The rule limiting homes to one flagpole is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Waiver

The act of intentionally relinquishing a known right or claim. The Petitioner argued that the HOA board could, and should, have waived the one-flagpole rule for her under CC&R § 7.6.

HOA vs. Military Family: 4 Lessons from a Legal Battle Over a Flagpole

For Joyce Monsanto, a member of a dedicated military family, displaying her patriotism was a matter of pride. Her husband served 25 years in the Marines, and her two sons have spent decades in the Marines and the Coast Guard. Naturally, she wanted to fly both the flag of the United States and the flag of the U.S. Marine Corps at her Arizona home. But when she submitted her plan to her Homeowners Association (HOA), she was met with a firm “no.”

The conflict wasn’t about the flags themselves. The Four Seasons at the Manor HOA had no issue with her displaying both. The dispute centered on how she wanted to display them. It was a disagreement over her vision for a symmetrical, two-pole display versus the HOA’s “one flagpole per lot” rule. This architectural dispute escalated from a simple request into a formal administrative hearing.

Ms. Monsanto’s fight reveals several surprising truths about the power of HOA rules and the specific language written into state law. Her case ultimately failed on two fronts—a substantive challenge to the rule itself, and a procedural challenge to how the HOA handled her appeal. Here’s what every homeowner can learn from each.

1. Your Right to Fly the Flag Has Limits—And They’re Written into Law.

Many homeowners believe the right to fly the American flag is unconditional. However, the legal reality is more nuanced. While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1808) prevents an HOA from outright prohibiting the display of U.S. or military flags, it explicitly allows the association to create “reasonable rules and regulations” for their placement and manner of display.

The statute is specific about what these rules can cover. An HOA can legally regulate the size and location of flagpoles and can limit a homeowner to displaying no more than two flags at once. In this case, the HOA’s architectural guidelines permitted two flags, but only on a single flagpole. The Administrative Law Judge found this “one flagpole per lot” rule was a “reasonable” regulation and therefore perfectly legal. To underscore that the HOA’s stance was not about a lack of patriotism, the judge noted testimony that the HOA president himself “placed 140 small flags on his property” for Memorial Day. The issue was about the uniform enforcement of an architectural rule, not the patriotic display itself.

2. Your Personal Taste Is No Match for the Community Rulebook.

During the hearing, Ms. Monsanto acknowledged that she could fly both of her flags from a single pole as the HOA rules allowed. Her reason for wanting two poles was a matter of personal preference. She testified that she “wanted to install two flagpoles for aesthetic reasons” and also felt that a single pole placed in the middle of her lot would block the view from her front window.

The judge was unmoved by this line of reasoning. In the final decision, the response was direct and unambiguous:

Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.

This is a foundational principle of community association law: homeowners trade a degree of personal autonomy for the perceived benefits of uniform standards and predictable property values. The judge’s decision simply reaffirms that bargain. In the world of planned communities, the established rulebook will almost always outweigh an individual’s personal taste.

3. In HOA Law, the Appeal Isn’t a Re-do—It’s a Different Process.

One of Ms. Monsanto’s key arguments was procedural. She believed her appeal should have been automatically approved because the HOA failed to provide a written decision within the 45-day deadline stipulated in its own rules (CC&R § 7.9). This is where the judge identified a subtle but crucial legal distinction buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

The HOA’s CC&Rs had two different sections for architectural requests:

• CC&R § 7.8 (Initial Requests): This section explicitly required the Board to “inform the submitting party of the final decision” with a “written response.”

• CC&R § 7.9 (Appeals): This section, however, only required the Board to “render its written decision” within 45 days.

That small difference in wording—”written response” versus “written decision”—was the linchpin of her procedural case. The judge ruled that for an appeal, the HOA was not required to send a personal letter or direct notice to Ms. Monsanto. It only had to create a written record of its decision within the timeframe.

4. A Post on an HOA Website Can Count as an Official “Written Decision.”

The final surprise came down to what constitutes a “written decision” and how the deadline was met. Ms. Monsanto was waiting for a formal letter informing her that her appeal had been denied. She never received one. Her appeal was filed on October 1, 2018, starting a 45-day clock.

The judge found the HOA satisfied its obligation in a two-step process:

1. The Decision: The Board verbally denied her appeal during its public meeting on November 8, 2018. This action, which occurred 38 days after her appeal, fulfilled the requirement to “render its decision” within the 45-day period.

2. The Writing: That decision was then recorded in the draft meeting minutes, which were posted on the Board’s website on December 4, 2018. Ms. Monsanto acknowledged seeing the posted minutes.

The judge ruled that these online minutes satisfied the separate legal requirement for a “writing memorializing its decision.” Even though they weren’t sent directly to her, the publicly posted minutes served as the official record of the timely denial of her appeal, closing the final door on her argument for automatic approval.

Conclusion: Before You Plant Your Flag, Read the Fine Print

Joyce Monsanto’s case is a cautionary tale on two levels. First, it shows that even cherished rights like displaying the flag are subject to reasonable, neutrally-applied community rules. Second, and more critically, it demonstrates that procedural arguments live and die by the most precise definitions in the governing documents. A single word can be the difference between winning an appeal and being ordered to take your flagpole down.

This case came down to the difference between a “written response” and a “written decision”—do you know what the fine print says about your rights in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Anthony Nunziato (board member)
    Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
    President of the Board of Directors; also referred to as 'Tony'
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Community Manager/Trestle Management (implied)
    Sent Notice of Disapproval on behalf of Respondent
  • Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
    Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters at the Board meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:58 (69.0 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 741807.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:22:08 (78.9 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.

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

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the information in the provided source text.

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

2. What specific action taken by Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen initiated the dispute with the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association?

3. What was Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument for why the HOA’s Flag Display Rule was invalid?

4. On what authority did the Carter Ranch HOA claim it had the right to create and enforce its Flag Display Rule?

5. According to the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule,” which specific flags are homeowners permitted to fly?

6. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this hearing, and how is it defined in the decision?

7. What protection does Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808(C) provide for “political signs”?

8. What were the two key failures of the petitioner’s case, as identified in the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

10. What are the next steps for a party wishing to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Van Dan Elzen represented himself, while the HOA was represented by its attorney, Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

2. The dispute began on or about May 21, 2019, when the Carter Ranch HOA notified Mr. Van Dan Elzen that he had violated its rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag in his front yard. This notice of violation prompted Mr. Van Dan Elzen to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument was that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He contended that because CC&R section 3.14 only defines “SIGNS” and makes no reference to “Flags,” the HOA had no basis in the CC&Rs to regulate his flag.

4. The Carter Ranch HOA asserted its authority based on Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the HOA Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to the health, safety, or welfare of the owners and restrictions on the use of Lots.

5. The HOA’s Flag Display Rule prohibits flying any flag other than the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian National flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

6. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) prevents an HOA from prohibiting the display of political signs on a member’s property, although it allows for regulation. An HOA cannot prohibit political signs earlier than 71 days before an election or later than three days after, and its rules on size and number can be no more restrictive than applicable city or county ordinances.

8. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the Flag Display Rule was improperly adopted or inconsistent with the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had not actually alleged that Carter Ranch violated the specific statute he cited, A.R.S. § 33-1808.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by state statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are designed to encourage a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the word “flag” does not appear in the CC&Rs. Why was this argument ultimately unconvincing to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Explain the legal distinction between a “flag” and a “political sign” as presented in A.R.S. § 33-1808. How might the petitioner’s case have differed if he had argued his “Trump 2020” flag was a “political sign” instead of a flag?

3. Discuss the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and why was this justification accepted by the court?

4. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” How can this be true when the petitioner’s initial filing explicitly cited this statute?

5. Based on the provided text of A.R.S. § 33-1808, under what specific circumstances could a homeowner in Carter Ranch successfully challenge the HOA’s rules on outdoor displays?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case centered on an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Carter Ranch CC&Rs grant the HOA Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Flag Display Rule

The specific rule created by the Carter Ranch HOA that prohibits flying any flag other than the American, military, POW/MIA, Arizona Indian National, Arizona State, and Gadsden flags.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Carter Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, the petitioner is Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

Defined by A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.” HOAs are restricted in their ability to prohibit the display of such signs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it,” meaning the fact is more probable than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent (Carter Ranch HOA) to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues. This case was decided as a result of a rehearing held on January 10, 2020.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the complaint. In this case, the respondent is the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

He Fought the HOA Over a Political Flag—And Lost. Here Are 3 Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Pride and the Problem

Imagine this: You want to display a flag on your own property to support a political candidate. It feels like a fundamental right, an expression of free speech on your home turf. But then, a letter arrives from your Homeowners Association (HOA) citing you for a violation. This exact scenario happened to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who displayed a “Trump 2020” flag and promptly received a violation notice from the Carter Ranch HOA in Arizona.

Believing the HOA was overstepping its authority, Mr. Van Dan Elzen took them to court. He lost. The outcome might seem counter-intuitive, but the court’s decision reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner living under an HOA. Here are the three surprising legal reasons why the HOA won.

1. The Power of the Fine Print: Why a “Loophole” Wasn’t Enough

Mr. Van Dan Elzen built his case on a clever textual argument. He alleged that the HOA’s rule against his flag was invalid because the section of the master community documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—he believed it was based on only regulated “SIGNS” and made no mention of “FLAGS.” He argued that since the document didn’t explicitly prohibit flags, the rule against his was unenforceable.

This seemingly logical “loophole” argument failed. The HOA countered by pointing to a different, much broader clause in their CC&Rs. Article V, Section 5.3, gave the HOA board expansive power to create new rules.

The Board may, from time to time, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to: … (iii) the health, safety or welfare of the owners, Lessees and Residence, or (iv) restrictions on the use of Lots…

This general power to create rules for the “welfare of the owners” was enough to give the HOA the legal authority to regulate flags, even if the word “flag” wasn’t in the specific section the homeowner cited. The broad power to govern trumped the narrow, semantic argument.

2. A Flag Is Not a Sign (At Least, Not According to the Law)

While the homeowner’s flag was political in nature, it did not receive the legal protections granted to “political signs” under Arizona law. This distinction proved fatal to his case.

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808, is highly specific about which flags an HOA is forbidden from prohibiting. The protected list includes: the American flag, official military branch flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, Arizona Indian nations flags, and the Gadsden flag. Critically, the Carter Ranch HOA’s own Flag Display Rule mirrored this state-approved list exactly, demonstrating they had aligned their regulations with the law. A political campaign flag, like “Trump 2020,” is not on this protected list.

The same law does protect political signs, but it defines them very precisely:

“political sign” means a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.

The key takeaway is that the law treats a political flag differently from a political sign. Because the “Trump 2020” item was a flag and not on the state’s protected flag list, the HOA was well within its rights to restrict its display based on its own community rules.

3. A Critical Misstep: Arguing the Wrong Point

The most decisive reason for the loss was not a procedural error, but a substantive legal failure. Mr. Van Dan Elzen filed his petition with the state on the grounds that the HOA had violated a specific state law, A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and political signs.

However, his entire case was built on arguing that the HOA’s internal rules were inconsistent with its own CC&Rs—the “sign” versus “flag” argument. This was the wrong legal target. To win, he had to prove that the HOA had violated the state statute. But the statute explicitly allows an HOA to regulate any flag not on the protected list. By regulating his “Trump 2020” flag, the HOA was doing exactly what the state law permitted. His argument about internal documents, even if correct, did not add up to a violation of the state law he sued under.

The Administrative Law Judge recognized this fundamental flaw, concluding that the homeowner hadn’t actually made a case for a statutory violation at all.

Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

This is a crucial lesson: it’s not enough to feel wronged. Your argument must directly prove that the specific law you cite in your complaint has actually been broken. The homeowner’s claim was dismissed because his central argument was irrelevant to the law he needed to prove was violated.

Conclusion: Know Your Rights, and Your Rules

The case of the “Trump 2020” flag is a powerful illustration for homeowners everywhere. It highlights three critical realities of living in an HOA: the broad rule-making power granted by community documents can override perceived loopholes; state laws make very specific and narrow distinctions between protected items like signs and flags; and a sound legal strategy is paramount.

This case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, your property rights are defined not by what you feel is right, but by what is written down. Before you make a stand, are you certain you’re fighting the right battle on the right legal ground?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines LLC
    Appeared for Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Dustin Snow (property manager)
    SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES
    Recipient of order transmission

Steadman, Lorinda and John -v- Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112004-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lorinda and John Steadman Counsel J. Roger Wood
Respondent Esquire Village Homeowners Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, finding that the Gadsden flag is a protected flag under A.R.S. § 33-1808 as it was historically an official flag of the Marine Corps. The HOA's determination of a violation was improper, and the fines were ordered withdrawn. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Restriction on flying the Gadsden flag

Petitioners challenged the HOA's assessment of fines for flying the Gadsden flag. The HOA argued the flag was not protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ALJ determined that because the Gadsden flag was historically an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the statutory protection for official service flags, regardless of whether it is currently used as the primary official flag.

Orders: Respondent is to take appropriate action to reflect that the flying of the Gadsden flag was not a violation and withdraw the assessment of any fees imposed. Respondent shall pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 289742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:39 (89.7 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 292654.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:37:43 (60.2 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 289742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (89.7 KB)

11F-H1112004-BFS Decision – 292654.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:39 (60.2 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law case Lorinda and John Steadman v. Esquire Village Homeowners Association (No. 11F-H1112004-BFS). The central conflict involved the assessment of fines by the Esquire Village Homeowners Association (the "Association") against the Steadmans for flying the Gadsden flag in their backyard.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lewis D. Kowal, ruled in favor of the Petitioners (the Steadmans), concluding that the Gadsden flag was protected under the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 in effect at the time of the dispute. The ruling established that because the Gadsden flag served as an official flag of the United States Marine Corps at one point in history, it fell under statutory protections regardless of its "current" status. Consequently, the Association was ordered to rescind the fines and reimburse the Petitioners' $550.00 filing fee.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Statutory Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1808

The crux of the legal dispute was the interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808, which limits the power of homeowners associations to prohibit the display of certain flags.

  • The "Official" vs. "Current" Distinction: The Association argued that the Gadsden flag was not a "protected" flag because it was not currently identified as an official flag in modern military manuals. However, the ALJ focused on the specific text of the statute: "an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps."
  • The Indefinite Article "An": The ALJ noted that the use of the word "an" suggests any one of a number of official flags, rather than a single, current iteration.
  • Historical Protection: Because the statute lacked the word "current," the ALJ determined that if a flag was ever an official flag of a military branch, it met the criteria for protection. The Petitioners successfully argued that the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps.
2. The Evolution of Legislative Protections

The timing of the dispute coincided with a change in Arizona law.

  • Pre-Amendment Context: The violations and fines were issued between November 2010 and February 2011, under a version of the statute that did not explicitly name the Gadsden flag.
  • The 2011 Amendment: In April 2011 (effective July 2011), the statute was amended to specifically identify the Gadsden flag as a protected flag.
  • Legal Sufficiency: While the Association believed they were within their rights because the Gadsden flag was not yet explicitly named in the statute during the violation period, the ALJ found the broader language of the existing statute already provided sufficient protection.
3. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

The case highlighted a disparity in the quality of evidence presented by the parties:

  • Respondent’s Evidence: The Association President, Julie Frost, conducted personal research in military manuals and claimed to have spoken with Arizona legislative counsel. However, the ALJ gave this "little weight" because no formal legal opinion was produced, and the counsel did not testify.
  • Petitioners’ Evidence: The Steadmans provided legal opinions from the ACLU of Arizona, references to historical records, and an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief. They also presented testimony from Pat Haruff, a homeowner advocate.
4. HOA Governance and Procedural Compliance

The management company, Renaissance Community Partners, issued the violation notices and fines at the direction of the Board. The Petitioners raised concerns regarding procedural failures, including:

  • Failure to respond to each individual appeal.
  • Failure to identify the specific persons who observed the violations.
  • Failure to provide information on the challenge procedure.
  • Outcome on Procedure: Because the ALJ ruled that the flags were protected by law, these procedural issues were deemed moot.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote Context
"Absent from the statute is any requirement that the flag in question be the sole official flag of any of the armed forces." ALJ Analysis: Explaining why the Gadsden flag qualifies for protection even if it is not the primary current flag of a military branch.
"Noticeably absent is any requirement than an official flag be a 'current' official flag of such forces." ALJ Analysis: The reasoning used to justify historical flags (like the Gadsden) as protected under the broad language of A.R.S. § 33-1808.
"The Administrative Law Judge concludes that under the law existing at the time at issue, Petitioners could fly the Gadsden flag." Ruling: The final determination that the Association's fines were improperly assessed based on the law as it stood in 2010-2011.
"Respondent’s determinations that violations occurred were improperly made and the fees were improperly assessed." Conclusion of Law: The formal invalidation of the Association's disciplinary actions against the Steadmans.

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners Associations (HOAs)
  • Broad Statutory Interpretation: HOAs should interpret state-protected categories (like flags) broadly. Relying on a narrow "current use" definition can lead to legal liability if the statute does not explicitly include the word "current."
  • Verification of Legal Advice: Relying on informal conversations with legislative counsel or press releases from other communities is insufficient for a legal defense. Boards should obtain formal, written legal opinions before issuing fines on contested statutory issues.
  • Impact of Pending Legislation: Even if a specific item (like a flag) is not yet explicitly protected by name, its impending addition to a statute (as seen in the 2011 amendment) often indicates how a judge will interpret existing, broader language.
For Homeowners
  • Burden of Proof: Homeowners bear the burden of proving a violation of state law by a preponderance of the evidence. Comprehensive documentation, including historical context and expert opinions (such as those from the ACLU), is critical to meeting this burden.
  • Administrative Recourse: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety provides a venue for challenging HOA actions. While there is a filing fee (in this case, $550.00), the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of that fee.
Legal Precedent Established
  • Historical Military Flags: This case reinforces that historical flags of the U.S. military branches carry the same statutory protections as current flags in Arizona, provided they were "official" at some point in the branch's history.

Case Study Analysis: Lorinda and John Steadman vs. Esquire Village Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case involving the right of homeowners to display certain flags within a Homeowners Association (HOA) community. It examines the legal interpretations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), the burden of proof in administrative hearings, and the specific facts of the dispute between the Steadman family and the Esquire Village Homeowners Association.

I. Executive Case Summary

Case Number: 11F-H1112004-BFS Parties: Lorinda and John Steadman (Petitioners) vs. Esquire Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) Administrative Law Judge: Lewis D. Kowal Final Certification Date: May 15, 2012

The core of this dispute involved the assessment of fines by the Esquire Village Homeowners Association against Lorinda and John Steadman for flying the Gadsden flag in their backyard. The Association argued the flag was not protected under state law at the time of the violation, while the Petitioners argued it qualified as an official military flag. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioners, determining that the fines were improperly assessed based on a textual interpretation of the existing statute.

II. Key Legal Concepts and Statutes

A.R.S. § 33-1808: Flag Display Protections

At the time of the dispute, this statute prohibited HOAs from restricting the outdoor display of specific flags, notwithstanding any provisions in community documents (CC&Rs). Protected flags included:

  • The American flag.
  • An official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, marine corps, or coast guard.
  • The POW/MIA flag.
  • The Arizona state flag.
  • An Arizona Indian nation flag.

Statutory Amendment: In April 2011 (effective July 2011), the statute was amended to specifically name the Gadsden flag as a protected flag. However, the violations in this case occurred under the version of the statute in effect prior to this amendment.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D): Violation Procedures

This statute outlines the requirements for an association when notifying a member of a violation, including the procedure for appeals. The Petitioners challenged the Association's compliance with these procedures, though the ALJ eventually found this issue moot due to the primary ruling.

Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof: In this administrative proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the law.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof required. It is defined as evidence of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition; showing that the fact to be proved is "more probable than not."

III. Factual Timeline and Evidence

Chronology of Events
Date Event
February 4, 2008 Petitioners apply to the Architectural Review Committee for a 20-foot flagpole.
March 4, 2008 Application approved, subject to the list of flags in A.R.S. § 33-1808.
November 9, 2010 Association sends a letter informing Petitioners of a violation for flying the Gadsden flag.
February 9, 2011 Association issues a $50.00 fine; Petitioners appeal to the Board.
February 23, 2011 Association issues a second $50.00 fine; Petitioners appeal to the Board.
August 29, 2011 Petitioners file a Petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
March 22, 2012 Administrative hearing held.
April 9, 2012 ALJ issues decision in favor of Petitioners.
May 15, 2012 Decision certified as final.
Evidence and Testimony
  • Respondent’s Research: Board President Julie Frost testified she researched military manuals and spoke with legislative counsel. She concluded the Gadsden flag was not an "official" flag. The ALJ gave the legislative counsel's alleged opinion "little weight" as it was not corroborated by formal testimony or a written legal opinion.
  • Petitioners’ Evidence: Petitioners provided legal opinions from hired counsel and the ACLU of Arizona, a Wikipedia reference, and an Arizona State Senate Issue Brief from August 2010.
  • Expert Testimony: Pat Haruff, Director of the Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education, testified that she had advised the Association's management company (Renaissance Community Partners) that the flag should be allowed.

IV. The ALJ’s Interpretation and Ruling

The ALJ’s decision rested on a "textual analysis" of A.R.S. § 33-1808(A)(1).

  1. The "An" vs. "The" Distinction: The statute protected "an" official flag of the marine corps, not "the" official flag. This suggests that any one of multiple official flags (past or present) is protected.
  2. Lack of Recency Requirement: The statute did not require a flag to be a "current" official flag.
  3. Determination: Because evidence showed the Gadsden flag was, at some time, an official flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, it fell under the protection of the statute even before the 2011 amendment specifically named it.

Final Order:

  • The Association was ordered to withdraw all fees and violation notices regarding the Gadsden flag.
  • The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee.

V. Short-Answer Practice Questions

  1. What was the specific amount of the filing fee the Petitioners had to pay to the Department?
  • Answer: $550.00.
  1. Under which management company did the Association issue the violation notices?
  • Answer: Renaissance Community Partners.
  1. Why did the ALJ give "little weight" to Julie Frost’s testimony regarding her conversation with legislative counsel?
  • Answer: There was no corroborating testimony from the counsel, no written analysis provided, and no evidence that it constituted a formal legal opinion.
  1. What was the Association's primary justification for regulating the flagpole and flags under the CC&Rs?
  • Answer: Section 11.1 of the CC&Rs, which granted the Architectural Review Committee authority over aesthetic improvements visible from the street.
  1. Identify the specific date the 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1808 became effective.
  • Answer: July 2011.
  1. What was the total amount in fines specifically identified in the findings of fact?
  • Answer: Two fines of $50.00 each, totaling $100.00.
  1. What organization did Pat Haruff represent?
  • Answer: Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education.
  1. According to the ALJ’s interpretation, did the Gadsden flag need to be the "current" official flag of the Marine Corps to be protected?
  • Answer: No; the statute only required it to have been "an" official flag at some time.

VI. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

  1. Statutory Interpretation: Analyze the ALJ's decision to use a textualist approach to interpret A.R.S. § 33-1808. How did the distinction between the articles "an" and "the" change the outcome of the case? Discuss how this interpretation impacts the rights of HOAs to regulate historical versus modern military flags.
  2. The Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Explain the "preponderance of the evidence" standard as applied in this case. Compare the evidence provided by the Association (internal research and uncorroborated conversations) with the evidence provided by the Petitioners (legal opinions and historical briefs). Why was the Petitioners' evidence more "convincing" in the eyes of the court?
  3. The Impact of Legislative Amendments: The Gadsden flag was specifically added to the statute shortly after this dispute began. Discuss the legal implications of flying a flag that is not yet specifically named in a statute but may fall under a broader category. Should the Association have paused enforcement given the pending legislative change?

VII. Glossary of Important Terms

  • A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
  • ALJ (Administrative Law Judge): An official who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and issues decisions on disputes involving state agencies.
  • Architectural Review Committee: A body within an HOA responsible for approving or denying changes to the aesthetic appearance of properties (e.g., flagpoles, fences).
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents of a homeowners association that dictate what a homeowner can and cannot do with their property.
  • Gadsden Flag: A historical American flag depicting a rattlesnake with the words "Don't Tread on Me," used by the U.S. Marine Corps in its early history.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases; it means that a fact is more likely to be true than not.
  • Respondent: The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed (in this case, the Esquire Village Homeowners Association).
  • Petitioner: The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, the Steadmans).

Flag Rights and HOA Overreach: The Case of the Gadsden Flag

1. Introduction: A Battle in the Backyard

The legal showdown between Lorinda and John Steadman and the Esquire Village Homeowners Association represents a critical victory for property owners against the encroaching tide of arbitrary private governance. At the heart of this dispute was the Gadsden flag—the yellow banner featuring a coiled rattlesnake and the defiant motto "Don't Tread on Me." What began as a simple act of expression in a private backyard escalated into a punitive campaign of fines and notices.

The Association’s decision to penalize the Steadmans rested on a legally deficient and overly restrictive interpretation of state law. By claiming the Gadsden flag was not "protected," the HOA attempted to override a homeowner’s statutory rights. This case—and the subsequent ruling—serves as a masterclass in how precise textual analysis of A.R.S. § 33-1808 can be used to dismantle HOA overreach and defend the right to display historical symbols of American service.

2. The Dispute: Fines, Flags, and Formalities

The facts of case No. 11F-H1112004-BFS reveal an enforcement process characterized by a lack of independent oversight. Notably, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was not an independent body but was comprised of the Board members themselves, creating an environment ripe for confirmation bias in enforcement.

Key Events and Factual Negligence:

  • February 4, 2008: The Steadmans applied to install a 20-foot aluminum flagpole in their rear yard.
  • March 4, 2008: The ARC (the Board) approved the application, provided the flags flown were limited to those protected by A.R.S. § 33-1808.
  • November 9, 2010: The Association initiated a violation notice against the Steadmans specifically for flying the Gadsden flag.
  • February 2011: Under the direction of the Board, Kevin Bishop, President of the management company Renaissance Community Partners, issued two separate $50.00 fines.
  • Procedural Failing: Throughout the dispute, the Association failed to identify specific provisions in the community's governing documents that would support a violation, relying instead on their flawed interpretation of state law.

3. The Legal Pivot: Interpreting A.R.S. § 33-1808

The Association’s defense was built on the premise that the Gadsden flag was not explicitly listed in the version of A.R.S. § 33-1808 then in effect. However, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal utilized a sophisticated textual analysis to expose the Association’s error.

The statute protected the display of "the American flag or an official or replica flag of the United States army, navy, air force, [or] marine corps." The judge identified a crucial grammatical distinction found in Footnote 4 of the decision:

  • "The" vs. "An": The use of the definite article "the" for the American flag implies a specific, singular, and current version. However, the use of the indefinite article "an" for military flags implies any one of a number of official flags.
  • Historical Inclusion: Because the statute did not require a flag to be the current or sole official flag, any flag that was "at some time" an official flag of a military branch qualified for protection.

The judge concluded that the Gadsden flag, as a historical flag of the U.S. Marine Corps, was protected under A.R.S. § 33-1808 at all relevant times. This analysis effectively blocked the HOA from using a "current-only" standard to suppress historical expression.

4. Evidence and Testimony: Research vs. Reality

The hearing highlighted the disparity between the Association’s amateur research and the substantiated evidence provided by the homeowners.

HOA/Respondent (Board Defense) Steadman/Petitioners (Property Rights Defense)
Julie Frost (President) conducted research in military manuals; ironically, she testified that the Gadsden flag was mentioned in the Marine Corps manual—providing the very evidence used against the HOA. Legal opinion from the ACLU of Arizona supporting the homeowners' right to fly the flag as a protected military symbol.
Reliance on uncorroborated hearsay from a conversation with legislative counsel. The judge gave this "little weight" as it was not a formal legal opinion. Inclusion of Wikipedia as a reference tool, which was stipulated into evidence to establish the flag's historical military status.
Consideration of a press release from a private law firm regarding a different community, rather than seeking a binding legal ruling. An Arizona State Senate Issue Brief (August 24, 2010) clarifying that HOAs cannot prohibit military flags.
Testimony from Kevin Bishop confirming the Association's refusal to resolve the matter despite homeowner appeals. Testimony from Pat Haruff, Director of the Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education, who advocated for the Steadmans' rights.

5. The Final Verdict: Accountability for the HOA

On April 9, 2012, Judge Kowal ruled in favor of the Steadmans, a decision certified as final on May 15, 2012. The ruling was a total rebuke of the Association’s actions. The judge noted that while the Petitioners bore the burden of proof, they met it by a preponderance of the evidence—showing it was more probable than not that the flag held official military status.

The Association was ordered to:

  • Withdraw all assessments: Rescind all fines and fees related to the Gadsden flag.
  • Correct Official Records: Update Association records to explicitly show that flying the flag was not a violation of the ARC’s approval.
  • Financial Penalty: In a significant move for accountability, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Steadmans $550.00 for their filing fee, shifting the financial burden of the HOA’s legal error back onto the Board.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners

The Steadman case provides a blueprint for homeowners facing HOA overreach regarding A.R.S. § 33-1808:

  1. Statutory Interpretation is a Shield: Small words like "an" can have massive legal consequences. Never accept an HOA's restrictive reading of the law without a professional textual analysis.
  2. Vindicating Legislative Response: While the judge ruled the Gadsden flag was already protected under the "official flag" umbrella, the Arizona legislature responded to this type of overreach by amending A.R.S. § 33-1808 in July 2011 to explicitly list the Gadsden flag, removing any shadow of a doubt for future residents.
  3. The Standard of Evidence: Homeowners do not need absolute certainty to win; they must only meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. Thorough documentation and the use of resources like Senate Briefs and expert advocacy can tilt the scales.

Ultimately, this case proves that the balance of power in a managed community does not reside solely with the Board. When an Association attempts to "tread" on the statutory rights of its members, the law provides a robust mechanism for accountability and the restoration of property rights.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lorinda Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • John Steadman (petitioner)
    Homeowner
  • L. Roger Wood (attorney)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Listed as 'L. Roger Wood' in appearances and 'J. Roger Wood' in service list
  • Pat Haruff (witness)
    Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education
    Director of Coalition; advocate for homeowners

Respondent Side

  • Esquire Village Homeowners Association (respondent)
    Entity named as Respondent
  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Farley Sletos & Choate
  • Kevin Bishop (witness)
    Renaissance Community Partners
    President of the management company
  • Julie Frost (board member)
    Esquire Village Homeowners Association
    Board President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Beth Soliere (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    ATTN recipient for transmission