Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1810

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:25 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1275971.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:29 (8.8 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1297318.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:33 (49.2 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302228.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:37 (49.4 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1302231.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:42 (8.6 KB)

25F-H027-REL Decision – 1336572.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:16:45 (212.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kevin W. Schafer (petitioner)
  • Patricia A. Lawton (petitioner)
    Testified on her own behalf; Former HOA Board President
  • Craig L. Cline (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • Maile L. Belongie (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
  • c zauner (petitioner attorney staff)
    Udall Law Firm, LLP
    Listed on email distribution list

Respondent Side

  • Nikolas Thompson (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • Kristen Rowlette (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc.
    HOA President; Testified as witness
  • Jennifer Pembertton (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Community Manager; Mentioned as present at hearing
  • Kurt M. Zitzer (respondent attorney)
    MEAGHER & GEER, P.L.L.P.
  • William Custer (witness)
    Neighbor/Complainant regarding security camera

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Listed on email distribution list

Other Participants

  • Eric Harris (board member)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Former)
    Former HOA Secretary

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton vs Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-06
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $150.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Nikolas Thompson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620, 33-1805, 33-1810, Bylaws Article 10.1.1, 10.3, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1, and CC&R Article X Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1803, CC&Rs Article IX Section 10, Section 18, Article XI Section 1, Section 5, HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely, concluding that Petitioners failed to establish any of the alleged violations of statutes, CC&Rs, or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that the HOA provided reasonable explanations regarding delays in document production and that the Petitioners' security camera created a nuisance for a neighbor, requiring the submission of a Design Modification Request (DMR).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for the numerous alleged violations. The records requests claims failed because Petitioners did not satisfy prerequisites (e.g., payment, inspection request) or because the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays. The security camera issue failed because the device created a nuisance and Petitioners refused to submit a required DMR.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to follow governing documents & State laws with respect to preparation of mandatory records and documents; retention of required records and documents; and/or fulfillment of Owner requests for same.

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to timely produce requested board minutes and financial compilations for 2022 and 2023. The ALJ found that A.R.S. §§ 10-11601 and 10-11620 were inapplicable. Regarding A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1810, the HOA provided reasonable explanations for delays (management transition, accountant extension). Petitioners failed to establish violations, noting they did not request inspection, offer to pay for copies, or inform the HOA of the missing 2022 compilation.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3

Misinterpreting the CC&Rs in regards to the Petitioners' security devices.

Petitioners argued their security camera installation was exempt (a “carve out”) from requiring a Design Modification Request (DMR). They also alleged improper notice and fining under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and CC&Rs Article XI Sec 5. The ALJ found the camera created a nuisance for the neighbor by invading privacy. Although the HOA may have had a technical violation in notice (Article XI Sec 5), Petitioners failed to establish overall violations, noting Petitioners refused to submit a DMR as required of all homeowners.

Orders: No action required of Respondent. Petition dismissed. Petitioners are required to submit a DMR.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $150.00

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records, minutes, financial statements, audit, compilation, security camera, nuisance, design modification request, DMR, failure to submit DMR, notice violation, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 10-11601
  • A.R.S. § 10-11620
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article 10.1.1
  • Bylaws Article 10.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.3
  • Bylaws Article 7.6.4
  • Bylaws Article 5.1
  • CC&R Article X Section 3
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 10
  • CC&Rs Article IX Section 18
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article XI Section 5
  • HOA Hearing and Fine Policy




Briefing Doc – 25F-H027-REL


Briefing on the Administrative Hearing: Schafer & Lawton v. Sycamore Springs HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 25F-H027-REL). The dispute centered on two core issues: the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) alleged failure to properly prepare, retain, and provide mandatory corporate records, and its alleged misinterpretation of governing documents concerning the installation of a security camera by the petitioners.

Following a hearing on July 22, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella issued a decision on August 6, 2025, dismissing the petition in its entirety. The ALJ concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on all allegations.

Key findings indicate that the HOA’s explanations for delays and missing records—namely, a difficult transition between management companies and a tax filing extension—were deemed reasonable. Regarding the security camera, the ALJ determined that the device constituted a nuisance to a neighbor, a finding within the HOA board’s discretion, and upheld the HOA’s requirement for a Design Modification Request (DMR). The decision affirmed the respondent’s central legal argument distinguishing the duty to “keep” records from a requirement to “take” them.

Case Overview

Case Name

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton, Petitioners, v. Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H027-REL

Tribunal

State of Arizona, Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

Hearing Date

July 22, 2025

Decision Date

August 6, 2025

Petitioners

Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton (Represented by Craig Cline, Esq.)

Respondent

Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, Inc. (Represented by Nikolas Thompson, Esq.)

The matter was subject to several continuances at the request of the Respondent, moving the final hearing date to July 22, 2025.

Core Allegations and Disputed Issues

The dispute was formally divided into two primary areas of contention, each involving alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws).

Issue 1: Records and Document Management

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA systematically failed to follow governing documents and state laws regarding the preparation, retention, and fulfillment of owner requests for mandatory records. This included the failure to provide five specific sets of board meeting minutes and the annual financial compilations for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 in a timely manner. Petitioners argued this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of multiple statutes and bylaws.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA contended that governing documents and statutes require them to keep records of minutes taken, but not to take minutes for every meeting. This interpretation was based on advice from legal counsel. They argued that most documents were available on the homeowner portal and that the failure to produce one specific set of minutes (December 2023) was due to them being lost by a previous “garbage” management company. The delay in providing the 2023 financial compilation was attributed to a reasonable circumstance: an extension filed for the association’s taxes.

Issue 2: Security Camera Installation

• Petitioners’ Allegations: The HOA misinterpreted its own CC&Rs by requiring a DMR for the petitioners’ security camera. Petitioners argued that Article IX, Section 18 of the CC&Rs provides a specific “carve out” for “security devices used exclusively for security purposes.” They further contended they were being targeted, as the HOA had no history of enforcing such a requirement for security cameras until after their device was installed and a neighbor complained.

• Respondent’s Position: The HOA board interpreted the CC&R “carve out” as applying only to sound-emitting devices (e.g., alarms, bells), as the clause is situated within a paragraph on noise nuisances. They argued a security camera is an “attachment to an existing structure,” which requires approval from the Architectural Control Committee under a separate CC&R article. Furthermore, the installation created a nuisance by invading a neighbor’s privacy, obligating the board to act. The HOA asserted that all homeowners, including the board president, were subsequently required to submit DMRs for their cameras to ensure consistent enforcement.

Key Testimony and Evidence

Patricia Lawton (Petitioner)

• A former HOA board president for three years, Ms. Lawton testified to having an expert-level understanding of the governing documents.

• Regarding records, she stated that of five requested sets of board minutes, only one was provided, and it was delivered late. She claimed she never received the 2022 financial compilation, only tax returns, and that the 2023 compilation was not provided within the statutorily required timeframe.

• She disputed the validity of the HOA’s tax-extension excuse, testifying that the association operates on a cash basis of accounting, which should not have prevented the timely completion of the compilation.

• She testified that due to security concerns (fear of being hacked), she does not have a registered account for the homeowner portal and accesses it through other community members.

• On the security camera, she asserted it was a residential-grade device installed in response to trespassing and property damage. She maintained that the CC&Rs provided a clear exemption and that the HOA’s enforcement action was retaliatory and inconsistent with historical practice.

Kristen Rowlette (HOA Board President)

• Ms. Rowlette testified that critical documents, including the December 2023 minutes, were lost during a problematic transition from a prior management company, Adams LLC, to the current one, Mission Management. She stated Ms. Lawton was aware of these difficulties as she attended every board meeting.

• She admitted that the board made a decision to stop taking minutes for meetings where no votes were held. She stated this was done on the advice of legal counsel (Smith and Wamsley) and was a direct response to feeling “inundated with requests from Patricia.”

• Regarding the camera, she testified that the issue arose only after a neighbor filed a formal complaint citing privacy concerns for their children. She described visiting the neighbor’s property and observing the camera’s “eye” actively tracking her movements.

• She confirmed that following the complaint, the board, on legal advice, required all homeowners to retroactively submit DMRs for any existing security cameras to ensure uniform enforcement.

Central Legal Arguments

The “Keep” vs. “Take” Debate

The primary legal conflict regarding the meeting minutes centered on the interpretation of a single word.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the phrase “keep the minutes” must be interpreted through a “common sense application,” meaning “maintaining a written record of proceedings and decisions.” It was described as a standard practice for nonprofit organizations for decades, and the respondent’s narrow definition was “overly simplistic.”

• Respondent’s Argument: Counsel for the HOA focused on a strict textual interpretation. He argued, “they cannot point to any language in any of the governing documents in any of the statutes that requires associations to take minutes. It just doesn’t exist. What they’ve done is they’ve conflated the word keep… to mean take.” He cited dictionary definitions to assert that “keep” means to hold, maintain, or retain, not to create.

The Security Camera “Carve Out”

The dispute over the camera hinged on whether it fell under an exception in the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs.

• Petitioners’ Argument: Article IX, Section 18 exempts “security devices used exclusively for security purposes” from the general prohibition on sound devices. Petitioners argued their camera fit this description, and this carve-out, combined with a total lack of historical enforcement or specific design guidelines for cameras, meant a DMR was not required.

• Respondent’s Argument: The exemption is located in a provision focused on noise nuisances (“speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices”). The board’s interpretation was that the exception logically applies only to sound-emitting security devices like driveway alarms. The camera, as a physical modification, was governed by architectural rules requiring a DMR and was also subject to the board’s “sole discretion” to determine if it constituted a nuisance to neighbors.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding the petitioners failed to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rationale on Issue 1 (Records)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

A.R.S. §§ 10-11601, 10-11620 (Corporate Records)

No Jurisdiction

The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33 (planned communities) and does not extend to these Title 10 (nonprofit corporations) statutes.

A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Availability)

No Violation

Respondent made records “reasonably available.” The loss of minutes during a management transition and the delay of financials due to a tax extension were deemed reasonable explanations.

A.R.S. § 33-1810 (Annual Audit)

No Violation

The request was made in 2024, entitling petitioners only to 2023 statements. The CC&Rs require owners to pay for audited statements, which petitioners did not offer to do.

CC&R Article X Section 3 & Bylaws Article 10.3 (Inspection)

No Violation

These provisions govern the inspection of documents. Petitioners requested copies without offering to pay for reproduction and never formally requested an in-person inspection.

Bylaws Articles 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 5.1 (Secretary/Treasurer Duties, Meetings)

No Violation

Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Secretary or Treasurer failed in their duties or that meetings were not held as required.

Rationale on Issue 2 (Camera)

Alleged Violation

ALJ Conclusion

Rationale

CC&Rs Art. IX §§ 10, 18 (Nuisance)

No Violation

The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to determine the existence of a nuisance. The ALJ found the evidence credible that the camera invaded the neighbor’s privacy, thus creating a nuisance.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 1 (Enforcement)

No Violation

Petitioners were notified of their right to a hearing before the Board. The HOA’s request for a DMR was a reasonable enforcement action applied to all community members.

CC&Rs Art. XI § 5 (Notice by Mail)

Technical Violation, No Harm

While there may have been a “technical violation” of the certified mail requirement, the ALJ found that the “Petitioners clearly received all notices” and were not prejudiced.


Michael J Morris v. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-04-23
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J Morris Counsel —
Respondent StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party based on the finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to hold required annual meetings of the Association’s members since 2010. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804. Petitioner failed to establish the remaining alleged violations concerning the Declarant's right to appoint the Board or violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or most CC&R sections.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1810 and 33-1817, or the cited sections of the CC&Rs or Bylaws related to the Declarant's power to appoint the board.

Key Issues & Findings

Declarant control, board appointment without vote or meeting, and failure to hold annual meetings

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated multiple statutes and governing documents by allowing the Declarant to solely appoint the Board of Directors and failing to hold annual meetings. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) by failing to notice or hold annual members meetings since 2010. All other alleged violations were not established.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 and directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Declarant Control, Annual Meetings, Filing Fee Refund, HOA Board Appointment
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • Bylaw Article Section 1
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 2(b)
  • CC&Rs Article 3 Section 5
  • CC&Rs Article 11 Section 8

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1154358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:32 (41.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1156053.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:39 (7.4 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1160349.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:43 (53.8 KB)

24F-H030-REL Decision – 1170315.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:47 (114.1 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?

Short Answer

No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • compliance

Question

If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?

Short Answer

Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.

Alj Quote

Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Burden

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • procedure
  • bylaws

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?

Short Answer

No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • board of directors
  • jurisdiction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties are not automatic.

Detailed Answer

A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Prevailing Party Costs

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.

Alj Quote

Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Statutes

Topic Tags

  • declarant control
  • board appointments
  • elections

Case

Docket No
24F-H030-REL
Case Title
Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-23
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA stop holding annual meetings if they are unable to get enough members to attend (quorum)?

Short Answer

No. State law requires an annual meeting regardless of past attendance issues.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA has failed to reach a quorum for many years, they are still strictly required by Arizona law to notice and hold a meeting of the members at least once each year. Failing to do so is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • compliance

Question

If I claim the HOA violated the Bylaws, do I have to submit the Bylaws as evidence?

Short Answer

Yes. You must submit the specific governing documents you claim were violated.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner argues that the HOA violated a specific provision of the Bylaws (such as election procedures), they must enter those Bylaws into evidence. Without the actual document in the record, the judge cannot find a violation.

Alj Quote

Although Petitioner argued in his written closing argument that as of November 18, 2012, elections should have begun by the membership under Article 5 of Respondent’s Bylaws, Petitioner did not submit a copy of Respondent’s Bylaws into evidence, nor was section 5 of the Bylaws submitted with the petition.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Burden

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • procedure
  • bylaws

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to appoint specific homeowners to the Board?

Short Answer

No. The judge's power is limited to ordering compliance with laws and documents.

Detailed Answer

The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to appoint specific individuals to a 'transition Board' or replace directors. It can only order the HOA to follow the statutes and community documents going forward.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner requested that he and other owners be appointed to a transition Board, the Administrative Law Judge’s jurisdiction in this tribunal is limited to ordering a party to abide by applicable statutes and community documents.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • board of directors
  • jurisdiction

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary burden in administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Does the HOA automatically get fined if the judge finds they violated state law?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties are not automatic.

Detailed Answer

A judge may find that a violation occurred (such as failing to hold meetings) but still decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate in that specific matter.

Alj Quote

No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if I win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. The judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner is deemed the prevailing party, the judge may order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the Petitioner the amount of the filing fee within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Prevailing Party Costs

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Is it illegal for a developer (Declarant) to appoint the Board without an election?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, unless specific statutes or bylaws prohibit it.

Detailed Answer

Simply alleging that a Declarant is appointing the board without a vote is not enough to prove a violation. The homeowner must prove that specific statutes or the community's CC&Rs/Bylaws expressly prohibit this arrangement at the current time.

Alj Quote

Regarding the remaining alleged violations, the statutes listed in the petition do no bar [the Declarant] from appointing the Board members or operating as the President of the Board.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Statutes

Topic Tags

  • declarant control
  • board appointments
  • elections

Case

Docket No
24F-H030-REL
Case Title
Michael J. Morris vs. StarPass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-04-23
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Morris (petitioner)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; Sub-HOA President
  • Bruce Prior (witness)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association member; past subHOA president
  • Michael Schmidt (witness)
    Wildcat Pass HOA Board member
    Also referred to as Michael Smidt

Respondent Side

  • F. Christopher Ansley (declarant)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association President/Property Manager; Devcon LLC
    Also referred to as Chris Ansley or mistakenly as Craig Ansley
  • David Makavoy (lawyer)
    Ansley's lawyer concerning amendment recording

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as Alderman Thompson
  • Brian Larson (CPA)
    Brian Larson CTA
    Provided quarterly financial statements for Master HOA
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Jimmy Liscos (board member)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
    Appointed board member who was also part of the focus group/group of seven
  • Jamie Haw (board member)
    StarPass Master Homeowner Association Board of Directors; focus group member
    Appointed board member who resigned
  • Nikki Morton (focus group member)

Charlotte Tande v. Wintergardens Co-Operative

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-09-05
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charlotte Tande Counsel —
Respondent Wintergardens Co-Operative Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1810

Outcome Summary

The case was dismissed because the Administrative Law Judge determined the Wintergardens Co-Operative, a cooperative mobile home park, did not qualify as a 'planned community' or 'condominium association' under Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16, thus the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Why this result: The Respondent was found not to be a 'Planned Community' because its shareholders were lessees, not owners of 'separately owned lots, parcels or units' as required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4).

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Requirements

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Financial Records Provision

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide certain financial records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1810.

Orders: The case was dismissed after Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Filing fee: $0.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1074375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:07 (45.4 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:10 (83.6 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1089829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:13 (40.0 KB)

23F-H059-REL Decision – 1091579.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:17 (38.0 KB)





Study Guide – 23F-H059-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H059-REL”, “case_title”: “Charlotte Tande vs. Wintergardens Co-Operative”, “decision_date”: “2023-09-05”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding housing cooperatives?”, “short_answer”: “No, not if the cooperative does not meet the legal definition of a ‘planned community’ or ‘condominium.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving condominium associations or planned community associations. If a housing cooperative does not fit the statutory definition of these entities (e.g., shareholders are lessees rather than owners of separate lots), the Department cannot hear the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, because Respondent does not fall within the definition of a planned community, the Department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute between Petitioner and Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A); A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “Cooperatives”, “Planned Community Definition” ] }, { “question”: “If I have a proprietary lease in a cooperative, am I considered an ‘owner’ for the purpose of filing an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, unless you hold title to a separately owned lot, parcel, or unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if you own a share of the cooperative corporation, if you are a lessee under a proprietary lease and do not own a separate lot or unit, you may not meet the definition of an owner required to classify the community as a ‘planned community’ under Arizona law.”, “alj_quote”: “While the shareholders may be owners of a share of Respondent as an entity, nothing in any of the pleadings indicated that the shareholders were owners of any ‘separately owned lots, parcels or units.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Ownership Status”, “Lease vs Ownership”, “Definitions” ] }, { “question”: “What is the legal definition of a ‘Planned Community’ in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “It is a development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of an association and must pay assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “A planned community is defined as a real estate development managed by a nonprofit corporation where the declaration states that owners of separately owned lots, parcels, or units are mandatory members and are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: ““Planned community” means a real estate development… in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.“, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Definitions”, “Planned Community” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge give me legal advice if I am representing myself?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ must remain neutral and cannot offer guidance or legal advice to either party involved in the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent Petitioner was asking the Administrative Law Judge for guidance, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide parties with legal advice.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Legal Advice”, “OAH Role” ] }, { “question”: “What happens to my hearing if the judge determines the community is not a planned community?”, “short_answer”: “The case will be dismissed and the hearing vacated.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge finds that the community does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community or condominium, the ADRE/OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss will be granted.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “Dismissal”, “Hearing Process”, “Jurisdiction” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 23F-H059-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H059-REL”, “case_title”: “Charlotte Tande vs. Wintergardens Co-Operative”, “decision_date”: “2023-09-05”, “alj_name”: “Tammy L. Eigenheer”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding housing cooperatives?”, “short_answer”: “No, not if the cooperative does not meet the legal definition of a ‘planned community’ or ‘condominium.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving condominium associations or planned community associations. If a housing cooperative does not fit the statutory definition of these entities (e.g., shareholders are lessees rather than owners of separate lots), the Department cannot hear the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Therefore, because Respondent does not fall within the definition of a planned community, the Department does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute between Petitioner and Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A); A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “Cooperatives”, “Planned Community Definition” ] }, { “question”: “If I have a proprietary lease in a cooperative, am I considered an ‘owner’ for the purpose of filing an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, unless you hold title to a separately owned lot, parcel, or unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if you own a share of the cooperative corporation, if you are a lessee under a proprietary lease and do not own a separate lot or unit, you may not meet the definition of an owner required to classify the community as a ‘planned community’ under Arizona law.”, “alj_quote”: “While the shareholders may be owners of a share of Respondent as an entity, nothing in any of the pleadings indicated that the shareholders were owners of any ‘separately owned lots, parcels or units.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Ownership Status”, “Lease vs Ownership”, “Definitions” ] }, { “question”: “What is the legal definition of a ‘Planned Community’ in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “It is a development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of an association and must pay assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “A planned community is defined as a real estate development managed by a nonprofit corporation where the declaration states that owners of separately owned lots, parcels, or units are mandatory members and are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: ““Planned community” means a real estate development… in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.“, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Definitions”, “Planned Community” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge give me legal advice if I am representing myself?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide legal advice to parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ must remain neutral and cannot offer guidance or legal advice to either party involved in the dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent Petitioner was asking the Administrative Law Judge for guidance, the Office of Administrative Hearings cannot provide parties with legal advice.”, “legal_basis”: “Procedural Rule”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Legal Advice”, “OAH Role” ] }, { “question”: “What happens to my hearing if the judge determines the community is not a planned community?”, “short_answer”: “The case will be dismissed and the hearing vacated.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the judge finds that the community does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community or condominium, the ADRE/OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss will be granted.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “Dismissal”, “Hearing Process”, “Jurisdiction” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charlotte Tande (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Esq.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Orders dated July 18, 2023 and September 5, 2023
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Alyssa Leverette (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Minute Entry granting continuance dated September 5, 2023
  • AHansen (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
  • vnunez (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
  • djones (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions
  • labril (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as contact/recipient for transmissions

Deborah Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-05
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah Mesear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

The petition filed by the homeowner against the HOA was dismissed because the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) regarding financial reporting.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated the applicable statute by a preponderance of the evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of HOA statutory duty to provide annual financial reports (audit, review, or compilation)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to share an annual audit/compilation for 2017-2021. The ALJ found the HOA provided financial compilations for 2017-2020 after the petition was filed. The claim regarding 2021 was found to be premature because the financial compilation was not yet due when the petition was filed on May 29, 2022.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Act, Financial Records, Compilation, Statutory Compliance, HOA Management
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 1003891.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:33 (95.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 988206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:37 (57.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 989133.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:39 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 994978.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:42 (50.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.

Alj Quote

Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Financial Reports
  • Audits
  • HOA Obligations

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?

Short Answer

The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.

Detailed Answer

The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Deadlines
  • Financial Reports
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?

Short Answer

The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.

Detailed Answer

After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.

Alj Quote

and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Transparency
  • Financial Reports

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?

Short Answer

No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedures
  • Filing Disputes
  • Deadlines

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?

Short Answer

No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.

Detailed Answer

While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Statutes
  • Condominiums

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.

Alj Quote

Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Financial Reports
  • Audits
  • HOA Obligations

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?

Short Answer

The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.

Detailed Answer

The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Deadlines
  • Financial Reports
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?

Short Answer

The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.

Detailed Answer

After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.

Alj Quote

and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Transparency
  • Financial Reports

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?

Short Answer

No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.

Legal Basis

Ripeness Doctrine

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedures
  • Filing Disputes
  • Deadlines

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Hearing Procedures

Question

What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?

Short Answer

No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.

Detailed Answer

While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Statutes
  • Condominiums

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deborah Mesear (petitioner, witness)
    Also appears as Deborah Masear and Deborah Mesier in the sources.

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group
    Also appears as Ashley Moscarello, Esq. and Ashley Carillo.
  • Carl Westlund (property manager, witness)
    The Management Trust
    Community manager for Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association.
  • Mark A. Holmgren (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).

Other Participants

  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Signed transmission notice.
  • c. serrano (legal secretary)
    Signed transmission notice.

Sean McCoy v. Barclay Place 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-H1919062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-08-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sean McCoy Counsel —
Respondent Barclay Place Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the claim regarding the failure to provide financial compilations (ISS-002) and was awarded a filing fee refund. Respondent prevailed on claims regarding meeting recordings (ISS-001) and communication restrictions (ISS-003). A rehearing on ISS-003 affirmed the decision in favor of the Respondent.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding meeting recordings (as the Board provided recordings) and communication restrictions (as the Board may manage communication channels for onerous requests).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to allow videotaping

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated statute by prohibiting members from recording meetings. The ALJ found that because the Board recorded the meetings and made them available, prohibiting members from recording did not violate the statute.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Failure to provide compiled financial statements

The HOA failed to complete and provide the 2017 financial compilation within the statutory timeframe (180 days after fiscal year end). Documents were not sent to the accountant until one month prior to the hearing.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 (filing fee refund) within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Denial of reasonable access and communication

Petitioner alleged that requiring him to communicate solely through the HOA's attorney violated his rights. The ALJ found this was standard practice when requests become onerous and did not constitute a violation.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

19F-H1919062-REL-RHG Decision – 761767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:16:51 (125.3 KB)

19F-H1919062-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1919062-REL/733895.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:16:51 (120.8 KB)

**Case Summary: McCoy v. Barclay Place Homeowners Association**
**Case No. 19F-H1919062-REL-RHG**

**Procedural Context**
This summary covers an administrative dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate involving a rehearing. It is critical to distinguish between the **Original Decision** (August 27, 2019) and the **Rehearing Decision** (January 2, 2020),. The rehearing was granted exclusively to reconsider "Complaint Item Three," while the findings on the first two complaints remained adjudicated under the original decision.

### I. Original Decision (August 2019)
In the initial proceeding, Petitioner Sean McCoy alleged three violations by the Respondent, Barclay Place HOA.

* **Complaint Item One (Videotaping):** Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by prohibiting him from recording meetings.
* *Finding:* The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled for the **Respondent**. The Board recorded meetings itself and made them available to members; therefore, restricting members from recording did not violate the statute,.
* **Complaint Item Two (Financials):** Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide compiled financial statements for 2017.
* *Finding:* The ALJ ruled for the **Petitioner**. The HOA failed to complete the compilation within 180 days of the fiscal year-end, violating A.R.S. § 33-1810,. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00.
* **Complaint Item Three (Communication Restrictions):** Petitioner argued that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by requiring him to communicate solely through the Board’s attorney rather than contacting the Board or management directly.
* *Finding:* The ALJ initially ruled for the **Respondent**, determining such restrictions are standard industry practice when a homeowner’s requests become onerous,.

### II. Rehearing Proceedings (December 2019)
The Department granted a rehearing specifically for **Complaint Item Three** regarding the denial of reasonable access and communication,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **The Restriction:** In January 2019, the HOA's attorney issued a "cease and desist" letter to the Petitioner. It instructed him to direct all communications to the law firm via U.S. Mail and explicitly prohibited direct contact with the Board or management company.
* **The Incident:** On March 6, 2019, Petitioner emailed the management company directly to request contracts, citing A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The management company refused to accept the email, citing the legal directive to communicate only through counsel.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Petitioner argued that a letter sent by his own attorney to the HOA's counsel rescinded or terminated the "cease and desist" letter, restoring his right to direct communication.

**Legal Analysis and Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the **Respondent**, maintaining the original outcome for Item Three based on the following legal points:
1. **Privileged Information:** An earlier request by Petitioner (Jan 14, 2019) sought information regarding Board authorizations. The ALJ found this sought privileged attorney-client communications, which the attorney was not required to provide.
2. **Validity of Communication Restrictions:** Regarding the March 6, 2019 request, the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to provide any legal authority to support his assertion that his attorney's objection unilaterally terminated the HOA's cease and desist letter.
3. **No Statutory Violation:** Because the management company was acting under valid legal instructions to route communication through counsel, their failure to respond to Petitioner’s direct email did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805.

### Final Outcome
* **Complaint Item Two:** Petitioner prevailed (Original Decision).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sean McCoy (petitioner)
    appeared on his own behalf at hearing
  • James A. Whitehill (attorney)
    Sent correspondence on behalf of Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    Brown/Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Frank Puma (witness)
    Arizona Community Management Services, LLC (AZCMS)
    Vice President of Client Operations
  • Jamie Murad (witness)
    Arizona Community Management Services, LLC (AZCMS)
    Community Manager
  • Dana Young Jungclaus (witness)
  • Jonathan Olcott (HOA attorney)
    Brown/Olcott
    Authored cease and desist letters

Neutral Parties

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

Sean McCoy v. Barclay Place Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-08-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sean McCoy Counsel —
Respondent Barclay Place Homeowners Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on the claim regarding the failure to provide financial compilations (ISS-002) and was awarded a filing fee refund. Respondent prevailed on claims regarding meeting recordings (ISS-001) and communication restrictions (ISS-003). A rehearing on ISS-003 affirmed the decision in favor of the Respondent.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations regarding meeting recordings (as the Board provided recordings) and communication restrictions (as the Board may manage communication channels for onerous requests).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to allow videotaping

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated statute by prohibiting members from recording meetings. The ALJ found that because the Board recorded the meetings and made them available, prohibiting members from recording did not violate the statute.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Failure to provide compiled financial statements

The HOA failed to complete and provide the 2017 financial compilation within the statutory timeframe (180 days after fiscal year end). Documents were not sent to the accountant until one month prior to the hearing.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 (filing fee refund) within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Denial of reasonable access and communication

Petitioner alleged that requiring him to communicate solely through the HOA's attorney violated his rights. The ALJ found this was standard practice when requests become onerous and did not constitute a violation.

Orders: Respondent deemed prevailing party on this item.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Leach, Gregory E. vs. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112009-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory E. Leach Counsel —
Respondent Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition entirely. The claims were found to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the request for records/audits occurred in 2009 and the petition was filed in 2011. Alternatively, on the merits, the Petitioner failed to prove violations of A.R.S. § 33-1810 or A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Why this result: The Petition was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the requirements of the CC&Rs for audits and the availability of records.

Key Issues & Findings

Financial Audit Requirement

Petitioner alleged the Board refused to provide CPA audited statements. The ALJ ruled the claim was time-barred. On the merits, Petitioner failed to prove the CC&Rs required a CPA audit, which is a prerequisite for a violation of the statute when the documents do not require it.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

Association Records

Petitioner alleged records were inadequate or unavailable. Evidence showed Petitioner and another homeowner reviewed records at the HOA attorney's office in 2010.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 291388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:27 (80.1 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 294580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:27 (57.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 11F-H1112009-BFS


Case Summary: Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Case No. 11F-H1112009-BFS Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: April 30, 2012 (Certified Final June 6, 2012)

Overview and Proceedings The Petitioner, Gregory E. Leach, a homeowner in the Coronado Pointe Townhomes planned community, filed a petition against the Respondent, Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA12. The hearing was conducted on April 11, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella2. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by Board members Dimitrios and Vikki Boukalis2.

Key Facts and Arguments The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board had refused to provide “CPA Audited Annual Financial Statements” from June 2000 to the present, asserting that the Board was defrauding homeowners and violating governing statutes34. He argued that existing documents were inadequate and requested an accountant review the records5.

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner’s claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations6. Additionally, the Respondent provided evidence that the Petitioner had been granted access to review the Association’s financial records at the HOA attorney’s office on May 21, 201045.

Main Legal Issues and Analysis The ALJ addressed three primary legal issues:

1. Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541(5)): The ALJ concluded the petition was time-barred. The statute creates a one-year limitation for liabilities created by statute. The Petitioner requested the financial statements in December 2009 but did not file the petition until November 25, 2011, nearly two years later78.

2. Audit Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1810): The ALJ found that while the Petitioner demanded a CPA audit, the statute only requires a general “financial audit” unless the community’s specific documents (CC&Rs) mandate a CPA. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Coronado CC&Rs required a certified public accountant to perform the audit89.

3. Access to Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The statute requires associations to make records “reasonably available” for examination. The ALJ found that because the Petitioner had reviewed the financial records on May 21, 2010, the Respondent had complied with the statute910.

Outcome and Final Decision The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent10. The decision was based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the Petitioner’s failure to establish violations of the relevant statutes by a preponderance of the evidence7….

The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 6, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s ruling within the statutory timeframe12.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory E. Leach (Petitioner)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes
    Appeared on own behalf; Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Dimitrios Boukalis (Board President)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Developer
  • Vikki Boukalis (Board Treasurer)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Daughter of Dimitrios Boukalis
  • Fueronia Boukalis (Board Secretary)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
    Wife of Dimitrios Boukalis

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Michael Kollias (Homeowner)
    Coronado Pointe Townhomes
    Accompanied Petitioner to review financial records
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision transmission

Kayser, William W. -v- Barclay Place Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088006-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-05-30
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William W. Kayser Counsel —
Respondent Barclay Place Homeowners Association Counsel Heather A. Fazio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII, Section 8(d)
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Bylaws Article III, Section 3

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed on claims regarding failure to conduct outside audits, failure to provide records timely, and failure to provide proper meeting notice. Petitioner lost on claims regarding assessment notices and meeting quorums. Respondent ordered to provide records and refund full filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to accomplish annual audit of 2006

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to conduct annual audits. The ALJ found the Association violated the Bylaws requiring an annual audit by an outside firm, although it complied with statutory monthly compilation requirements.

Orders: Association ordered to comply with Bylaws regarding audits.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1810
  • Bylaws Article VII, Section 8(d)

Failure to retain and provide Association records

Petitioner requested various financial records and minutes. The Association failed to provide them within the statutory 10-day timeframe and failed to maintain complete records as required by Bylaws.

Orders: Association ordered to provide all existing requested documents at no expense to Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • Bylaws Article VII, Section 2(a)
  • Bylaws Article X

Failure to give 30 day notice of assessment

Petitioner alleged failure to receive notice of assessment increases. Respondent provided evidence that notices were sent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article IV, Section 3
  • CC&Rs Article IV, Section 6

Failure to provide proper notice for special meeting

Petitioner challenged the notice for the Nov 23, 2007 meeting. ALJ found posting at mailboxes did not satisfy Bylaw notice requirements for a special meeting of members.

Orders: Association ordered to comply with notice provisions.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Bylaws Article III, Section 3

Decision Documents

08F-H088006-BFS Decision – 191832.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T05:32:19 (113.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H088006-BFS


Briefing Document: Kayser v. Barclay Place Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088006-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law decision regarding a dispute between William W. Kayser (Petitioner) and the Barclay Place Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case centered on allegations of financial mismanagement, failure to provide corporate records, and violations of meeting notice and quorum procedures.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that while the Petitioner did not prevail on every specific count, he succeeded on the “most substantial issues.” Specifically, the Association was found in violation of its Bylaws for failing to conduct an annual audit by an outside public accounting firm and failing to maintain and provide complete corporate records within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded a reimbursement of his $2,000.00 filing fee. The Association was ordered to provide all requested documents and comply with governing documents and state statutes moving forward.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural Context and Scope

The hearing was conducted on May 12, 2008, under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The scope of the hearing was limited by the effective date of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq., the enabling legislation for this administrative process.

• Excluded Items: Claims regarding real estate conveyances prior to the statute’s effective date and bank statements lacking specific dates were ruled outside the scope of the hearing.

• Timeframe of Focus: The analysis was limited to acts occurring on or after September 21, 2006, as well as specific events in 2007 and 2008.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence showing the fact is more probable than not.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Key Themes and Findings

1. Financial Accountability and Auditing Requirements

The dispute involved a distinction between internal financial management and formal auditing requirements mandated by the Association’s governing documents.

• Current Practice: R & R Management Company, which manages the Association’s records, performs monthly financial compilations. Testimony indicated that a certified public accountant reviews these records monthly.

• The Violation: The ALJ found that while the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1810 regarding monthly financial compilations, it violated Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8 (d). This provision requires an annual audit to be performed by an outside public accounting firm.

• Admission: The management company admitted that while they follow internal processes, they do not have annual audits performed by an independent public accounting firm.

2. Record Retention and Member Access

A central theme of the petition was the Association’s failure to provide documents requested by the Petitioner in a timely and complete manner.

Legal Requirement

Finding

Response Time

A.R.S. § 33-1805 requires records be provided within 10 business days.

Violation: Evidence established documents were not provided within the 10-day window.

Record Maintenance

Bylaws Article VII & X require a complete record of Association acts and corporate affairs.

Violation: The Association failed to maintain complete records. A Board member testified that previous documents were boxed up and could not be located.

Annual Statements

Bylaws Article VII, Section 2(a) requires a statement at annual meetings.

No Violation: Testimony established that statements were provided at the 2006 and 2007 annual meetings.

3. Governance: Meetings, Notices, and Assessments

The Petitioner challenged the validity of assessment increases and the legality of a specific meeting held on November 23, 2007.

• Assessment Increases: The Association’s Board has the authority to increase annual assessments by up to 5% without a vote from the membership. The ALJ found the 2007 and 2008 increases were within this 5% limit; therefore, no membership vote was required.

• The November 23, 2007 Meeting: This meeting was a “rescheduled” meeting due to a lack of quorum at a November 12 meeting.

◦ Nature of the Meeting: The ALJ determined this was a “special meeting of members.”

◦ Notice Violation: The Association posted notice at mailboxes. The ALJ ruled that mailbox postings do not satisfy the notice requirements for a special meeting of members as defined in Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.

◦ Quorum: Despite the notice issue, the action taken (the assessment increase) was valid because it was accomplished by a quorum of the Board of Directors, which did not require a member vote for a sub-5% increase.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion of Law and Final Order

The ALJ reached the following conclusions regarding the prevailing party and required remedies:

Determination of Prevailing Party

Although the Association prevailed on several individual counts (such as the 30-day notice of assessment and the 5% cap on increases), the Petitioner was designated the prevailing party. The ALJ cited the Petitioner’s success on “substantial issues,” specifically:

1. The failure to perform mandatory independent annual audits.

2. The failure to provide access to records within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

3. The failure to maintain complete corporate records.

Mandatory Relief

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02, the Association was ordered to:

• Document Production: Provide, at no expense to the Petitioner, copies of all previously requested documents within 10 days of the order.

• Reimbursement: Pay the Petitioner $2,000.00 to reimburse his filing fee within 40 days.

• Statutory Compliance: Comply with all provisions of the CC&Rs, Bylaws, and state statutes previously found to be in violation.

Civil Penalties and Administrative Limits

The ALJ declined to impose civil penalties, stating they were not warranted by the particular facts of the case. Furthermore, the ALJ noted that specific directives requested by the Petitioner regarding how the Association should act in the future were outside the scope of the ALJ’s authority.






Study Guide – 08F-H088006-BFS


Study Guide: Administrative Law Case No. 08F-H088006-BFS

This study guide examines the administrative law proceedings and ultimate decision regarding the dispute between William W. Kayser and the Barclay Place Homeowners Association. The document focuses on the legal standards, findings of fact, and conclusions of law presented during the May 2008 hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source text.

1. What was the primary conflict regarding the Association’s 2006 annual audit?

2. Why were Items 1 and 2 of the original Petition ruled to be outside the scope of the hearing?

3. What did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude regarding the HOA’s obligation to provide documents within a specific timeframe?

4. How did the management company, R & R Management, define its responsibility toward non-financial Association records?

5. What was the finding regarding the 30-day notice of annual assessments for 2006 and 2007?

6. Explain the dispute regarding the meeting held on November 23, 2007, at Robb & Stucky.

7. Under what conditions can the Association’s Board of Directors increase annual assessments without a vote from the general membership?

8. Why did the ALJ determine that the posting of meeting notices at mailboxes was legally insufficient for the November 23 meeting?

9. What was the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence” used to decide this case?

10. Despite not prevailing on every item in his petition, why was William Kayser designated the “prevailing party”?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. While the Association conducted monthly financial reviews, the Petitioner argued that the By-Laws required an audit by an outside public accounting firm. The ALJ found that the Association violated Article VII, Section 8(d) of the By-Laws by failing to secure this external audit.

2. These items pertained to a real estate conveyance that took place before the effective date of the enabling legislation (A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq.). Consequently, the ALJ did not have the statutory authority to address those specific historical claims.

3. The ALJ ruled that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide certain requested financial documents within ten business days. It was established that unapproved copies were eventually provided, but the delay exceeded the legal requirement.

4. R & R Management stated it was contractually obligated to maintain financial records but was not required to keep a complete set of records for all other Association activities. They provided other documents to homeowners only as a “courtesy” rather than a contractual duty.

5. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the notice requirements. Evidence from R & R Management’s records indicated that notice was sent, and the ALJ concluded the Association had indeed provided the required 30-day notice for those years.

6. The Petitioner claimed he saw a meeting notice that later disappeared and that there was no record of a meeting at the venue; however, a Board member testified the meeting did occur with a quorum present. The ALJ eventually concluded it was a “special meeting of members” rather than an annual or regular meeting.

7. The Board of Directors has the authority to set an assessment increase as long as the amount does not exceed 5% of the previous assessment. If the increase is within this 5% threshold, no vote of the Association members is required.

8. The ALJ found that while mailboxes were used for posting, this method did not satisfy the specific notice requirements for a “special meeting of members” as dictated by Article III, Section 3 of the By-Laws. The judge noted that special meetings have stricter procedural notice standards.

9. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, as cited in the case, it is evidence that is of “greater weight or more convincing” than the opposing evidence. It effectively means the facts sought to be proved are “more probable than not.”

10. The ALJ determined that Kayser prevailed on the “most substantial issues,” including the requirement for an annual audit and the failure of the Association to maintain and provide complete records. Because these issues were central to the dispute, he was entitled to a reimbursement of his $2,000 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. Statutory vs. Internal Governance: Analyze the differences between the Association’s violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and violations of its own By-Laws and CC&Rs. How did the ALJ distinguish between these different legal authorities in his decision?

2. The Role of Management Companies: Discuss the complexities of Association record-keeping as evidenced by the testimony of R & R Management and the “lost boxes” mentioned by the Board of Directors. What are the potential legal risks when an HOA delegates record-keeping to a third party?

3. Quorum and Notice Procedures: Evaluate the procedural confusion surrounding the November 2007 meetings. Contrast the requirements for a “regular meeting,” a “special meeting,” and a “Board of Directors meeting” as they apply to member rights and Association authority.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: Examine the Petitioner’s burden to prove allegations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Which claims did the Petitioner fail to prove, and what specific evidence (or lack thereof) led to those failures?

5. Administrative Remedies and Limitations: Discuss the limits of the ALJ’s authority regarding the relief requested by the Petitioner. Why were specific directions and civil penalties denied despite the findings of certain violations?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C.

Arizona Administrative Code; the rules governing administrative proceedings.

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the state laws cited as the basis for many of the legal obligations in the case.

Administrative Law Judge; the official presiding over the hearing and issuing the decision.

Annual Audit

A formal examination of the Association’s financial records, required by the By-Laws to be performed by an outside public accounting firm.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the primary governing documents that define the rights and obligations of Community members and the Association.

Enabling Legislation

The specific statutes (A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 et seq.) that grant the Office of Administrative Hearings the power to hear HOA disputes.

Financial Compilation

The monthly process of organizing financial records, performed by R & R Management, which the ALJ distinguished from a formal annual audit.

Petitioner

The party who files the petition or complaint; in this case, William W. Kayser.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence is more convincing than the opposition’s.

Prevailing Party

The participant in a legal proceeding who “wins” on the most substantial issues and may be entitled to fee reimbursements.

Quorum

The minimum number of members or directors required to be present at a meeting to make the proceedings and decisions valid.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, Barclay Place Homeowners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting called for a specific purpose that is not part of the regular meeting schedule, often requiring more formal notice to members.

——————————————————————————–

End of Study Guide






Blog Post – 08F-H088006-BFS


The $2,000 Paper Trail: 5 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Against His HOA

Living in a Homeowners Association (HOA) often feels like navigating a shadow government where transparency is treated as a nuisance rather than a mandate. For many, the governing documents are a dense thicket of “shalls” and “musts” that only seem to apply to the residents, while the Board operates behind a veil of opacity.

The case of William Kayser vs. Barclay Place Homeowners Association serves as a definitive David-vs-Goliath narrative, proving that a single homeowner armed with the law can force an association into compliance. When Mr. Kayser challenged his HOA before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued a decision that pulled back the curtain on the hidden legal obligations of these organizations. Here are five surprising lessons from that $2,000 legal victory—lessons that every homeowner should memorize.

1. “Lost in Boxes” is Not a Legal Defense

One of the most persistent excuses used to dodge transparency is the claim that records have simply vanished during leadership transitions. In this case, Board member Jack Van Royen testified that a previous Association president had “boxed up documents” and the current leadership was unable to locate them.

As a matter of corporate governance, this is an unacceptable breach of fiduciary continuity. An HOA is a legal entity with a statutory mandate to maintain a historical record of its operations, regardless of who occupies the Board seats. Leadership changes do not reset the clock on these obligations. It was only after the legal pressure of a hearing that the Association suddenly promised to make a “concerted effort” to find the missing files—a clear admission that accountability only arrives when a judge is watching.

2. When an “Audit” Isn’t Actually an Audit

There is a massive distinction between internal financial “compilations” and a true independent audit. Kevin Young of R&R Management testified that his firm prepared monthly financial records and that a CPA, Andrew Carr, reviewed them. However, Young’s testimony was riddled with contradictions regarding whether Carr was an “in-house” accountant or a truly independent third party.

ALJ Kowal’s ruling sharpened the focus on Bylaws, Article VII, Section 8(d), which requires an annual audit to be performed by an “outside public accounting firm.” The Association’s attempt to blur the lines by presenting management-led compilations as a substitute for professional oversight was a failure of transparency. For homeowners, the lesson is clear: internal reviews by the very people managing the money are not a substitute for the procedural safeguards of an external audit.

3. The 10-Day Clock for Transparency

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, Arizona associations have a strict 10-business-day window to provide requested documents to members. In this case, Mr. Kayser’s requests for bank statements and corporate records were met with delays and excuses.

Perhaps the most common stall tactic used by HOAs is the claim that financial records cannot be shared because they are “unapproved” by the Board. ALJ Kowal effectively dismantled this defense. The statutory right to inspect records is not contingent upon the Board’s final “stamp of approval.” Transparency laws are designed to grant members access to the raw data of their community’s operations, not just the sanitized versions the Board chooses to release.

4. Mailbox Postings Don’t Equal Legal Notice

A central dispute in this case involved a November 23, 2007 meeting where the Board acted to increase assessments. The Association claimed they satisfied notice requirements by posting announcements at the community mailboxes 48 hours in advance.

ALJ Kowal ruled this was legally insufficient. Because a previous meeting lacked a quorum, the November 23 gathering was classified as a “special meeting of members” under Bylaws, Article III, Section 3. This classification carries specific notice requirements that a mere mailbox posting cannot satisfy. Furthermore, the “scavenger hunt” nature of this meeting was highlighted by the fact that it was held at a Robb & Stucky conference room in Scottsdale, yet Mr. Kayser testified that the store had no record of the meeting and he saw no evidence of it occurring when he arrived. Strict adherence to notice procedures is a protection for the members, not a suggestion for the Board.

5. You Don’t Have to Win Every Count to Win the Case

The most significant takeaway for any homeowner considering legal action is the definition of a “prevailing party.” Numerically, Mr. Kayser lost a majority of his claims. For instance, the ALJ found the Association did not violate CC&R Article IV, Section 3 because the assessment increase remained under the 5% threshold that would have required a member vote.

However, ALJ Kowal ruled that winning on “substantial issues”—specifically the failure to conduct an outside audit and the failure to provide record access—outweighed the losses on minor technicalities. This is a critical distinction: you don’t need a perfect scorecard to hold your HOA accountable.

The court ordered the Association to reimburse that $2,000 fee within 40 days. This serves as a powerful deterrent against HOA non-compliance, proving that a Board’s refusal to follow its own Bylaws can be an expensive mistake.

Conclusion: The Power of Accountability

The Kayser vs. Barclay Place case proves that Bylaws and State Statutes are the bedrock of community governance, not mere “best practices” to be ignored when convenient. When a Board fails in its fiduciary duty to maintain records or follow notice procedures, it isn’t just a clerical error—it is a violation of the law.

Real accountability begins when homeowners demand the transparency they are legally owed. Your governing documents are your greatest weapon in ensuring your Association serves its members rather than its own interests.

Final Ponder Point: If you asked for your community’s last external audit tomorrow, would your board provide a report or an excuse?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William W. Kayser (Petitioner)
    Barclay Place Community
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Heather A. Fazio (Respondent Attorney)
    Doyle, Berman, Murdy, P.C.
  • Kevin Young (Property Manager/Witness)
    R & R Management Company
    Testified regarding financial records and association management
  • Denise Lehn (Accountant)
    R & R Management Company
    Oversees financials for the Association
  • Andrew Carr (CPA)
    Reviews and audits financial records monthly
  • Jack Van Royen (Board Member/Witness)
    Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
  • Bonnie Braun (Board Member)
    Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
    Present at Nov 23, 2007 meeting
  • Pamela Nicita (Board Member)
    Barclay Place Homeowners Association Board
    Present at Nov 23, 2007 meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Debra Blake (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution