Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1811

Richard E Jewell v. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-25
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard E Jewell Counsel —
Respondent Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp. Counsel Nicole Payne and Carlotta L. Turman

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on the alleged violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Board Member Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute regarding conflict of interest when the board hired the board president as a paid office assistant and the conflict was not disclosed by the president. The ALJ found that while the president did not disclose the conflict, the conflict was made known by another attendee prior to discussion and action, fulfilling the statutory purpose.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Conflict of interest, Statutory interpretation, Board voting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:33 (89.3 KB)

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:53 (89.3 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Richard E Jewell, Petitioner, vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp., Respondent* (No. 22F-H2221005-REL), heard on October 7, 2021.

Concise Legal Summary

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioner Richard E. Jewell, a homeowner and member of the Respondent, Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp. (an Arizona homeowners association or HOA), alleged that the HOA board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1811. The central issue was whether the Board of Directors improperly handled a conflict of interest when voting to hire the sitting Board President, George Pavia, as a salaried office assistant.

The Board voted on July 15, 2021, to employ Mr. Pavia for 40 hours a week at a wage of $15.00 per hour. Petitioner asserted that his only issue was that the Board President failed to personally disclose the conflict of interest prior to the action being taken.

Key Legal Points and Arguments

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1811, stipulates that if a contract or action for compensation benefits a board member, that member "shall declare a conflict of interest" in an open meeting before discussion or action. A contract entered in violation of this section is void and unenforceable.

During the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge reviewed evidence, including a recording of the July meeting. The evidence showed:

  1. At the outset of the virtual meeting, Mr. Pavia indicated he would recuse himself from the discussion.
  2. An individual attending the meeting raised the possibility of a conflict of interest.
  3. The conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.
  4. Mr. Pavia refrained from participating in the vote.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure HOA members are aware of conflicts prior to discussion. Interpreting the statute to achieve a "fair and sensible result", the Judge determined that the conflict was, in fact, made known and discussed prior to action. The statute's requirement was satisfied, as the fact that Mr. Pavia was not the individual who disclosed the conflict did not negate that the conflict was discussed at length and known to those voting.

Outcome

At the conclusion of the Petitioner’s presentation of evidence, Respondent moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The motion was granted.

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent acted in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can an HOA board member also be a paid employee of the association?

Short Answer

Yes, provided the conflict of interest is properly declared.

Detailed Answer

A board member can be hired for compensation, but they must declare the conflict of interest in an open meeting before the board discusses or acts on the issue. In this case, the Board President was hired as an office assistant.

Alj Quote

If any contract, decision or other action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the board of directors would benefit any member of the board of directors . . . , that member of the board of directors shall declare a conflict of interest for that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • board compensation
  • hiring

Question

Does a conflicted board member have to personally announce their own conflict of interest?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, as long as the members are made aware of the conflict.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the purpose of the law is to ensure members are aware of conflicts. If the conflict is discussed and known to attendees, it does not matter if the specific board member was not the one to voice the disclosure.

Alj Quote

The purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure that the members of a homeowners association are aware of all conflicts of interest prior to any discussion… not to require that a specific board member announce to those members that such a conflict of interest exists.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • procedural requirements
  • meetings

Question

Can a board member vote on a contract that benefits them financially?

Short Answer

Yes, after declaring the conflict.

Detailed Answer

State law allows a board member to vote on an issue benefiting them, provided they have declared the conflict in an open meeting before discussion or action is taken.

Alj Quote

The member shall declare the conflict in an open meeting of the board before the board discusses or takes action on that issue and that member may then vote on that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • voting rights
  • conflict of interest
  • board powers

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) is responsible for proving their claim. They must show that their version of events is more likely true than not (the greater weight of the evidence).

Alj Quote

At an administrative hearing, the party asserting a claim, right, entitlement, or affirmative defense has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • administrative hearing

Question

Which specific law covers conflict of interest for HOAs (Planned Communities) versus Condominiums?

Short Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 for HOAs; A.R.S. § 33-1243 for Condominiums.

Detailed Answer

It is important to cite the correct statute based on the type of community. The petitioner initially cited the condo statute (§ 33-1243) but had to correct it to the planned community statute (§ 33-1811).

Alj Quote

Petitioner indicated that he erroneously cited to A.R.S. § 33-1243(C) in his petition as that statute relates to condominium associations rather than homeowner associations. Rather, Petitioner should have referenced A.R.S. § 33-1811…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • statutes
  • jurisdiction
  • legal definitions

Question

Is a contract void if the technical requirements of declaring a conflict weren't perfectly followed?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the conflict was known and discussed.

Detailed Answer

Statutes are interpreted to produce sensible results. If the conflict was discussed at length and everyone was aware, a technical failure (like the wrong person announcing it) may not constitute a violation.

Alj Quote

The fact that Mr. Pavia was not the board member to disclose the conflict does not negate that the conflict was made known prior to any discussion and that the conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.

Legal Basis

Case Law (Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission)

Topic Tags

  • contract validity
  • statutory interpretation
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title
Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date
2021-10-25
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA board member also be a paid employee of the association?

Short Answer

Yes, provided the conflict of interest is properly declared.

Detailed Answer

A board member can be hired for compensation, but they must declare the conflict of interest in an open meeting before the board discusses or acts on the issue. In this case, the Board President was hired as an office assistant.

Alj Quote

If any contract, decision or other action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the board of directors would benefit any member of the board of directors . . . , that member of the board of directors shall declare a conflict of interest for that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • board compensation
  • hiring

Question

Does a conflicted board member have to personally announce their own conflict of interest?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, as long as the members are made aware of the conflict.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the purpose of the law is to ensure members are aware of conflicts. If the conflict is discussed and known to attendees, it does not matter if the specific board member was not the one to voice the disclosure.

Alj Quote

The purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure that the members of a homeowners association are aware of all conflicts of interest prior to any discussion… not to require that a specific board member announce to those members that such a conflict of interest exists.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • procedural requirements
  • meetings

Question

Can a board member vote on a contract that benefits them financially?

Short Answer

Yes, after declaring the conflict.

Detailed Answer

State law allows a board member to vote on an issue benefiting them, provided they have declared the conflict in an open meeting before discussion or action is taken.

Alj Quote

The member shall declare the conflict in an open meeting of the board before the board discusses or takes action on that issue and that member may then vote on that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • voting rights
  • conflict of interest
  • board powers

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) is responsible for proving their claim. They must show that their version of events is more likely true than not (the greater weight of the evidence).

Alj Quote

At an administrative hearing, the party asserting a claim, right, entitlement, or affirmative defense has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • administrative hearing

Question

Which specific law covers conflict of interest for HOAs (Planned Communities) versus Condominiums?

Short Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 for HOAs; A.R.S. § 33-1243 for Condominiums.

Detailed Answer

It is important to cite the correct statute based on the type of community. The petitioner initially cited the condo statute (§ 33-1243) but had to correct it to the planned community statute (§ 33-1811).

Alj Quote

Petitioner indicated that he erroneously cited to A.R.S. § 33-1243(C) in his petition as that statute relates to condominium associations rather than homeowner associations. Rather, Petitioner should have referenced A.R.S. § 33-1811…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • statutes
  • jurisdiction
  • legal definitions

Question

Is a contract void if the technical requirements of declaring a conflict weren't perfectly followed?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the conflict was known and discussed.

Detailed Answer

Statutes are interpreted to produce sensible results. If the conflict was discussed at length and everyone was aware, a technical failure (like the wrong person announcing it) may not constitute a violation.

Alj Quote

The fact that Mr. Pavia was not the board member to disclose the conflict does not negate that the conflict was made known prior to any discussion and that the conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.

Legal Basis

Case Law (Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission)

Topic Tags

  • contract validity
  • statutory interpretation
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title
Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date
2021-10-25
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard E Jewell (petitioner)
    Jewell Company Inc.

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Carlotta L. Turman (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • George Pavia (HOA board president/employee)
    Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
    Subject of conflict of interest allegation

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission

Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-24
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes Counsel Anthony L. Perez, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Clint G. Goodman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(D) and (E), 33-1804(5), or 33-1811, or that the alleged unapproved flood light violation was outside the scope of the cited CC&R provision (Article III, § 3.10).

Key Issues & Findings

The Association violated A.R.S.§ 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to properly respond to the Barnes response to the notice of alleged violation and proceeding with enforcement actions.

Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated these statutes because the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice contained all required information under A.R.S. § 1803(D)(1)-(4), rendering A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) inapplicable.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

The association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) in rendering its decision on the Barnes contest of the notice.

Petitioner failed to establish violation of meeting procedures, as the appeal was discussed in an open session, and the subsequent closed session was justified to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

The alleged violation and resulting penalty imposed are void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Petitioner failed to prove violation. A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies only to contracts, decisions, or actions for compensation, and no evidence was presented that the Petitioner's appeal involved such compensation.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

The alleged violation is outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Petitioner failed to prove the violation (installation of an unapproved flood light) was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10, which requires prior approval for 'other structure[s]'.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • Article IV, 4.6 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Control Committee, CC&R Enforcement, Floodlight, Meeting Procedure, Statutory Compliance
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:28 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:31 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:34 (99.4 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:00 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:03 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:06 (99.4 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes (Petitioner) and Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (Respondent/HOA). The case number was 21F-H2120022-REL, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Velva Moses-Thompson. Hearings were held on January 26, 2021, March 3, 2021, and July 14, 2021, with the record held open until August 4, 2021.

Key Facts and Dispute Background

The dispute originated when a member of the HOA Board of Directors filed a complaint alleging that Petitioner had installed an unapproved floodlight at the back of their home. On May 27, 2020, the HOA issued a violation notice alleging a violation of Article III, Section 3.10 of the HOA CC&Rs, which requires prior approval of design, location, and materials for structures constructed on the property.

Petitioner requested a hearing regarding the notice. After the parties failed to resolve the issue of "excessive light trespass" following an initial July 9, 2020 open appeal session, the Board held another appeal hearing on July 24, 2020. The Board voted on the appeal in a closed, executive session in order to obtain legal advice. The Board notified the Petitioner that their appeal was denied around August 18, 2020. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) outlining four alleged violations by the HOA.

Main Legal Issues

The OAH hearing focused on four issues set for determination:

  1. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to respond properly to the notice contest and proceeding with enforcement.
  2. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) by rendering its decision on the contest in a closed session.
  3. Whether the alleged violation and resulting penalty were void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.
  4. Whether the alleged violation (the unapproved floodlight) was outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Key Legal Findings and Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E): The ALJ found no violation. The evidence showed the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice of violation provided all the requisite information (including the CC&R provision, observation date, observer name, and contest process) required under A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)(1)-(4). Since the notice was compliant, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) were not triggered and did not apply.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5): The ALJ found no violation. While the Board voted in a closed session, credible testimony demonstrated that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning the decision, which is permissible pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811: The ALJ found no violation. This statute pertains to the validity of actions for compensation (contracts, decisions, etc.) taken by the Board, and no evidence was presented that Petitioner’s appeal involved such an action.
  • Scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10: The ALJ determined the allegation regarding the unapproved floodlight fell within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10. This article governs the construction of structures, including "other structure[s]," requiring prior approval from the Architectural Control Committee.

Outcome

The ALJ concluded that the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes should be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed, and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association is deemed the prevailing party in this matter. The decision was signed on August 24, 2021.

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Darryl Jacobson-Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Darryl Lynn Barnes–Jacobson and Darryl Barnes
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Robert A Barnes and Bob Barnes
  • Anthony L. Perez (petitioner attorney)
    Boyes Legal, PC

Respondent Side

  • Clint G. Goodman (respondent attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group
  • Michelle Mooney (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Filed complaint against Petitioner
  • Jennifer Amundson (property manager)
    VISION Community Management
    Also referred to as Jen Amundson; inspected violation
  • Amanda Stewart (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Board President

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE contact)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted July 14, 2021 Order
  • Miranda Alvarez (administrative staff)
    Transmitted August 24, 2021 Order

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Bridge Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:33:55 (121.4 KB)

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:47 (121.4 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Gregory L. Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association*.

Key Facts and Proceedings

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Bridge Community Association (HOA/Respondent), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Arizona statute. The core dispute centered on the HOA’s failure to take enforcement action against Smith’s backyard neighbor—who was also the HOA President (Mr. Riggs)—for installing a flagpole that impacted Smith’s property view. Smith believed the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had an obligation to consider the view from his property when approving the flagpole. The hearings occurred on April 22, 2021, and June 2, 2021.

Main Issues and Arguments

The Tribunal focused on two primary issues after addressing a moot point regarding attorney’s fees:

  1. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 (Conflict of Interest): Smith argued that the HOA violated the statute because the Board President failed to make proper disclosures regarding the flagpole approval, as it was a board decision.
  2. Violation of CC&R Article 11.3.2 (Good Faith Negotiation): Smith argued that the HOA violated the requirement to negotiate in good faith after he filed a formal claim notice on September 8, 2020. The credible evidence showed the HOA or its attorneys failed to communicate with Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim notice.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge rendered a decision based on whether Smith met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

  1. A.R.S. § 33-1811 Claim Denied: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1811, concerning board conflicts of interest, applies only when the "contract, decision or other action" involves compensation. Since the decision regarding the flagpole was not found to involve compensation, the Tribunal held that Smith had not sustained his burden of proof regarding the statutory violation.
  2. CC&R Article 11.3.2 Claim Upheld: The Tribunal found that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s. Although the dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of any communication until 35 days post-notice, thereby exceeding the negotiation period, constituted a violation.

Final Decision

The Petitioner’s request regarding the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 was denied. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party solely on the claim that Mountain Bridge violated CC&R Article 11 (failure to negotiate in good faith). As the prevailing party, the Petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee from the Respondent within 30 days. The Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member violate conflict of interest laws by voting on their own architectural request if no money is exchanged?

Short Answer

Likely not. The ALJ ruled that the conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) applies specifically to decisions involving compensation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ interpreted A.R.S. § 33-1811 narrowly. While acknowledging that abstaining from voting on one's own request is 'best practice,' the Judge determined that the phrase 'contract, decision or other action for compensation' implies that the decision must involve compensation to trigger the statutory violation. Since the architectural approval was not for compensation, the statute was not violated.

Alj Quote

However, the word “other” would indicate that the contract or decision would involve compensation. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Smith has not sustained his burden in demonstrating that Mountain Bridge violated A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board Conduct
  • Architectural Review

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to negotiate a dispute within a certain time, can they simply ignore it?

Short Answer

No. Ignoring a request for negotiation beyond the mandated timeframe can be considered a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs required the parties to make a reasonable effort to meet and confer. The HOA failed to communicate with the homeowner until 35 days after the claim was noticed (past the 30-day negotiation period). The ALJ found this lack of communication to be a violation of the specific CC&R article requiring good faith negotiation.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence presented demonstrated that Mountain Bridge, or its attorneys, did not communicate with Mr. Smith until October 13, 2020, approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. … Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate in good faith and violated Article 11.3.2 of the CC&R’s.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article 11.3.2

Topic Tags

  • Dispute Resolution
  • Good Faith
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can the HOA use the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid excuse for failing to communicate with me?

Short Answer

Not if they fail to send any updates. The HOA must at least inform the homeowner of potential delays.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the HOA's implicit defense that the pandemic justified the delay in communication. The ruling stated that even if the pandemic caused issues, the HOA had an obligation to at least inform the homeowner that delays were occurring. Total silence was not justified.

Alj Quote

While this dispute occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, certainly communications could have been sent to Mr. Smith informing him there may be some delays in communication. However, there were none, and thus no valid justification for the Board not entering into negotiations with the Smiths.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion / Good Faith

Topic Tags

  • Communication
  • Delays
  • Good Faith

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. The HOA does not have to disprove the claim initially; the burden starts with the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Procedure
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can I claim the HOA violated a definition in the CC&Rs, such as 'Visible from Neighboring Property'?

Short Answer

No. You cannot violate a definition; you can only violate the rules that use the definition.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued the HOA violated the definition of 'Visible from Neighboring Property.' The ALJ ruled that a definition is descriptive and cannot be violated in and of itself. Violations must be tied to specific covenants or restrictions.

Alj Quote

Further, because “Visible from Neighboring Property” as mentioned in Article 1 is a definition, it is impossible for Mountain Bridge to violate the same.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Interpretation
  • Definitions
  • Legal Standards

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes, if you prevail on a claim, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ deemed the homeowner the prevailing party regarding the 'failure to negotiate' claim (even though other claims were denied) and ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

Thus, Petitioner is entitled to his filing fee of $500.00 and Respondent must reimburse the same with 30 days.

Legal Basis

Administrative Remedy

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees
  • Reimbursement

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121037-REL
Case Title
Gregory L. Smith vs. Mountain Bridge Community Association
Decision Date
2021-06-11
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gregory L. Smith (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Christa Smith (witness)
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Amber Martin (community manager)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Also testified as a witness
  • Jim Rayment (ARC Chair)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Approved the flagpole; also testified as a witness
  • Mr. Riggs (HOA President)
    Mountain Bridge Community Association
    Petitioner's backyard neighbor

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission

Rick & Lisa Holly v. La Barranca II Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2019020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-02-14
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, or 33-1817, or any of the cited CC&R provisions concerning intentional construction delay, conflict of interest, or retaliatory fines.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rick and Lisa Holly Counsel Kevin P. Nelson, Esq.
Respondent La Barranca II Homeowners Association Counsel Edward D. O’Brien, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B); CC&R Article 11.2.5
A.R.S. § 33-1811; CC&R Article 4.7
A.R.S. § 33-1803; CC&Rs Articles 11.3 and 12

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, or 33-1817, or any of the cited CC&R provisions concerning intentional construction delay, conflict of interest, or retaliatory fines.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all three issues alleged in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Intentional delay of construction

Petitioners alleged that Respondent intentionally delayed the approval and construction of their new home for over eleven months.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)
  • CC&R Article 11.2.5

Conflict of interest

Petitioners alleged that a Board Vice President and Secretary (who owned lots adjacent to Petitioners') were blocking approval of the home due to a conflict of interest.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • CC&R Article 4.7

Retaliatory fines

Petitioners alleged fear of prospective retaliatory imposition of fines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • CC&R Article 11.3
  • CC&R Article 12

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Planned Communities Act, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Construction Delay, Conflict of Interest, Retaliatory Fines
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • CC&R Article 4.7
  • CC&R Article 11.2.5
  • CC&R Article 11.3
  • CC&R Article 12

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019020-REL Decision – 769746.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:42 (191.2 KB)

This decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) addresses a three-issue petition filed by Rick and Lisa Holly (Petitioners), who are members and lot owners in the La Barranca II development, against the La Barranca II Homeowners Association (Respondent). The hearing proceedings took place on February 5 and February 7, 2020.

Key Facts and Background

The dispute centered on the Petitioners' attempt to gain Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval for the construction of a new home on their property (Lot 50). The approval process had spanned over eleven months. Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803, 33-1811, and 33-1817) and certain Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioners presented three specific claims:

  1. Intentional Delay of Construction: Petitioners asserted that Respondent unreasonably delayed the construction of their home. The Petitioners' timeline expectations were based on their contractor's (Brilar) estimates, not statutes or association documents. The OAH found that Petitioners did not establish any undue delay attributable to the Respondent. Evidence showed that the contractor's initial plans failed to meet the Architectural Guidelines and that delays were more likely due to the contractor's "imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements". The ARC and its consultant provided guidance and conditional preliminary approval, requiring revisions based on valid considerations. Furthermore, final construction approval in September 2019 was withheld because the required $20,000 refundable construction deposit had not been paid and the site markers (surveyor pins) were missing.
  2. Conflict of Interest: Petitioners alleged a conflict of interest because the Board's vice president, William Bohan, and secretary, Nancy Williams, jointly owned a vacant lot (Lot 49) bordering Lot 50. Petitioners offered only suppositions that Mr. Bohan and Ms. Williams were "blocking approval" due to personal negative opinions. The OAH ruled that Petitioners did not establish that Mr. Bohan had an undeclared conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811, acknowledging that in a small development, volunteers on the board and ARC will naturally be regulating their neighbors.
  3. Retaliatory Fines: Petitioners feared retaliatory imposition of fines based on the Respondent previously fining other owners for "petty offenses". The OAH concluded that this claim, which implicated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) concerning monetary penalties, failed because the Respondent had not assessed any fines or penalties against the Petitioners. The claim was based entirely on speculation.

Outcome and Final Decision

Petitioners bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Since Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated any statute or CC&R, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky issued a Recommended Order that the petition be dismissed. The Order became binding unless a rehearing was granted.

Questions

Question

Does a board member have a conflict of interest just because they own a lot next to mine?

Short Answer

No. Owning a neighboring lot does not automatically create a conflict of interest or imply bias.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ reasoned that in planned communities, especially smaller ones, board and committee members will inevitably have to regulate their neighbors. Without evidence of actual animus or discriminatory intent, simply owning a contiguous lot is not a conflict of interest that prevents a member from voting on architectural plans.

Alj Quote

In any homeowners’ association, but especially In a small development having only 71 lots, the persons who volunteer to serve on homeowners’ associations’ boards and ARCs will necessarily be regulating their neighbors.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board of Directors
  • Neighbors

Question

Is the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) required to help me design my home to meet the guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The ARC's role is to review submitted plans for compliance, not to assist in the design process.

Detailed Answer

While an ARC might offer guidance, the decision clarifies that their official duty is strictly to review plans against the governing documents. They are not obligated to help owners or builders design compliant structures.

Alj Quote

It is not ARC’s job to help an owner design a home that complies with Respondent’s Guidelines, only to review plans that are submitted for compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Design Guidelines
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA because I am afraid they might fine me in the future?

Short Answer

No. You cannot base a legal complaint on the speculation of future retaliatory fines.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a petition cannot rely on fear of potential future actions. Unless the HOA has actually assessed a fine or penalty, a claim regarding retaliatory fines is considered speculative and will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Any prospective prohibition on fines would be based on nothing but speculation. . . . Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) or Articles 11.3 or 12 by assessing retaliatory fines or penalties against Petitioners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Retaliation
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or CC&Rs. The standard of proof is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

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
  • Hearings

Question

Is the HOA responsible for delays if my builder doesn't understand the design guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is not liable for delays caused by a builder's failure to submit compliant plans.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA's architectural committee is reasonably responsive to submissions, they are not at fault for construction delays resulting from a contractor's misunderstanding of the design rules or failure to meet requirements.

Alj Quote

On this record, it appears that Hoamco and the ARC were reasonably responsive . . . and that any delay in construction appears more likely based on Brilar principal’s imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Construction Delays
  • Vendor Issues

Question

Can I rely on my contractor's timeline estimates for when the HOA will approve my plans?

Short Answer

No. You should rely on the timelines specified in the CC&Rs and statutes, not third-party estimates.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that a homeowner's expectations based on their builder's estimates are not binding on the HOA. The official governing documents determine the procedural timeline, and reliance on outside estimates does not constitute a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mrs. Holly candidly testified that Petiitoners’ expectations about how long it would take to build their house was based on Brilar’s principles’ estimates, not anything in statutes or Respondent’s CC&Rs . . .

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Construction
  • Expectations

Question

Can the HOA charge a fee for reviewing architectural plans?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs allow for it.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that CC&Rs can grant the Architectural Review Committee the power to assess reasonable fees in connection with the review of plans.

Alj Quote

Article 11.3 of Respondent’s CC&Rs concerns general provisions for the ARC, including that it may assess reasonable fees in connection with its review of plans . . .

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Architectural Review
  • CC&Rs

Case

Docket No
20F-H2019020-REL
Case Title
Rick and Lisa Holly vs. La Barranca II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-02-14
Alj Name
Diane Mihalsky
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does a board member have a conflict of interest just because they own a lot next to mine?

Short Answer

No. Owning a neighboring lot does not automatically create a conflict of interest or imply bias.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ reasoned that in planned communities, especially smaller ones, board and committee members will inevitably have to regulate their neighbors. Without evidence of actual animus or discriminatory intent, simply owning a contiguous lot is not a conflict of interest that prevents a member from voting on architectural plans.

Alj Quote

In any homeowners’ association, but especially In a small development having only 71 lots, the persons who volunteer to serve on homeowners’ associations’ boards and ARCs will necessarily be regulating their neighbors.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • Conflict of Interest
  • Board of Directors
  • Neighbors

Question

Is the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) required to help me design my home to meet the guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The ARC's role is to review submitted plans for compliance, not to assist in the design process.

Detailed Answer

While an ARC might offer guidance, the decision clarifies that their official duty is strictly to review plans against the governing documents. They are not obligated to help owners or builders design compliant structures.

Alj Quote

It is not ARC’s job to help an owner design a home that complies with Respondent’s Guidelines, only to review plans that are submitted for compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Design Guidelines
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I file a complaint against my HOA because I am afraid they might fine me in the future?

Short Answer

No. You cannot base a legal complaint on the speculation of future retaliatory fines.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a petition cannot rely on fear of potential future actions. Unless the HOA has actually assessed a fine or penalty, a claim regarding retaliatory fines is considered speculative and will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Any prospective prohibition on fines would be based on nothing but speculation. . . . Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) or Articles 11.3 or 12 by assessing retaliatory fines or penalties against Petitioners.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Retaliation
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or CC&Rs. The standard of proof is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

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
  • Hearings

Question

Is the HOA responsible for delays if my builder doesn't understand the design guidelines?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is not liable for delays caused by a builder's failure to submit compliant plans.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA's architectural committee is reasonably responsive to submissions, they are not at fault for construction delays resulting from a contractor's misunderstanding of the design rules or failure to meet requirements.

Alj Quote

On this record, it appears that Hoamco and the ARC were reasonably responsive . . . and that any delay in construction appears more likely based on Brilar principal’s imperfect understanding of the Guidelines’ requirements.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Review
  • Construction Delays
  • Vendor Issues

Question

Can I rely on my contractor's timeline estimates for when the HOA will approve my plans?

Short Answer

No. You should rely on the timelines specified in the CC&Rs and statutes, not third-party estimates.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that a homeowner's expectations based on their builder's estimates are not binding on the HOA. The official governing documents determine the procedural timeline, and reliance on outside estimates does not constitute a violation by the HOA.

Alj Quote

Mrs. Holly candidly testified that Petiitoners’ expectations about how long it would take to build their house was based on Brilar’s principles’ estimates, not anything in statutes or Respondent’s CC&Rs . . .

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Construction
  • Expectations

Question

Can the HOA charge a fee for reviewing architectural plans?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs allow for it.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that CC&Rs can grant the Architectural Review Committee the power to assess reasonable fees in connection with the review of plans.

Alj Quote

Article 11.3 of Respondent’s CC&Rs concerns general provisions for the ARC, including that it may assess reasonable fees in connection with its review of plans . . .

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Architectural Review
  • CC&Rs

Case

Docket No
20F-H2019020-REL
Case Title
Rick and Lisa Holly vs. La Barranca II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2020-02-14
Alj Name
Diane Mihalsky
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rick Holly (petitioner)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member
  • Lisa Holly (petitioner)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member
    Also referred to as Mrs. Holly
  • Kevin P. Nelson (petitioner attorney)
    Tiffany & Bosco
  • Brian Bracken (witness/contractor's principal)
    Brilar Homes, LLC
    Petitioners' general contractor
  • Larry E. Smith (witness/contractor's principal)
    Brilar Homes, LLC
    Petitioners' general contractor

Respondent Side

  • La Barranca II Homeowners Association (respondent)
    HOA party
  • Edward D. O’Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Alexia Firehawk (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • William Bohan (HOA board member/ARC member/witness)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association
    Board Vice President
  • Nancy Williams (HOA board member/ARC member)
    La Barranca II Homeowners Association
    Board Secretary
  • Luke Hyde (property manager staff)
    Hoamco
    Architectural Department Manager
  • Josh Hall (property manager staff)
    Hoamco
    Architectural Department Staff
  • Neil True (architect consultant)
    Hoamco/ARC Consultant
    Consultant architect reviewing plans

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    OAH
  • John Davis (fire marshall)
    Sedona District Fire Marshall
    Consulted by HOA regarding dumpster placement
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Tapestry on Central, LLC vs. Tapestry on Central Condominium

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717028-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-01-10
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition entirely. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated budgeting requirements, litigation commencement restrictions, or conflict of interest statutes. The ALJ found the Board acted within its authority and the litigation actions fell under exceptions for defensive measures.
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tapestry on Central, LLC Counsel Ryan Lorenz
Respondent Tapestry on Central Condominium Association Counsel Mark Nickel

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 7
CC&Rs Section 11.3
CC&Rs Section 11.3
A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition entirely. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated budgeting requirements, litigation commencement restrictions, or conflict of interest statutes. The ALJ found the Board acted within its authority and the litigation actions fell under exceptions for defensive measures.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ determined that the CC&Rs provided the Board discretion over budgets/reserves, that the litigation restrictions did not apply to defensive actions or non-construction defect claims, and that the conflict of interest statute was not violated because the interested director abstained from voting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of budgeting requirements

Petitioner alleged the Board violated CC&Rs by moving money from reserves to operating accounts without amending the budget. The ALJ found the Board had authority to do so without unit owner ratification.

Orders: Denied

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Violation of litigation commencement requirements (Coverage Case I)

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to get required owner approval before filing a coverage lawsuit. The ALJ ruled the restriction applied to construction defects or, alternatively, the action was defensive.

Orders: Denied

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Violation of litigation commencement requirements (Foreign Judgment Action)

Petitioner alleged failure to get approval for filing an action to collect a foreign judgment. ALJ found the action was defensive (indemnification recovery).

Orders: Denied

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Conflict of interest transaction

Petitioner alleged a board member (Ehinger) failed to disclose a relationship with a vendor (DCG/Ryley Carlock). ALJ found he did not vote, making the statute inapplicable, and had disclosed the relationship anyway.

Orders: Denied

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717028-REL Decision – 611197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:43 (170.4 KB)

17F-H1717028-REL Decision – 611197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T06:10:09 (170.4 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Tapestry on Central, LLC vs. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative decision in the matter of Tapestry on Central, LLC (Petitioner) vs. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Respondent), Case No. 17F-H1717028-REL. The hearing, presided over by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil, addressed allegations that the Association violated its Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and state statutes regarding budgeting, litigation commencement, and conflicts of interest.

Following hearings on October 18 and December 12, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition in its entirety. The ruling established that the Association’s board acted within its discretionary powers regarding budget management, that the litigation commencement restrictions in the CC&Rs were primarily applicable to construction defect claims, and that no statutory conflict of interest occurred regarding the retention of a document review vendor.

Parties and Background Context

The Parties
  • Petitioner: Tapestry on Central, LLC (TOC), a unit owner within the condominium complex.
  • Respondent: Tapestry on Central Condominium Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation and the governing community association for the property located at 2302 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix.
Operational Challenges

Between 2008 and 2011, a TOC representative, Joanne Carras, served on the Association board. Upon her resignation in 2011, she allegedly absconded with Association records to California. This loss of records necessitated a significant electronic data reconstruction effort, which became a central point of contention regarding the Association’s expenses and vendor choices.

Litigation History

The Association has been involved in several complex legal actions, summarized below:

Action Name Description
TOC Litigation Filed by TOC against the Association for breach of CC&Rs and good faith.
Hodeaux Action Consolidated litigation involving claims against settlement funds.
Futter Litigation Lawsuit filed in California by Cynthia Futter against the Association.
YBM Personal Action Action by Yair Ben Moshe (TOC principal) against board member James Ehinger.
Coverage Case I & II Actions filed by the Association against Liberty Mutual to secure insurance coverage for the TOC and Futter litigations.
Foreign Judgment Action An Arizona action to collect on a California judgment obtained by the Association.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Budgetary Compliance and Reserve Fund Management

The Petitioner argued that the Association violated budgeting requirements by moving money from reserves to operating accounts without amending its budget or seeking unit owner ratification.

Legal Findings:

  • Budgets as Estimates: The ALJ determined that under Section 7.0 of the CC&Rs, a budget is an "estimate" of anticipated expenses, not a fixed limit.
  • Board Discretion: Section 7.0(C) expressly authorizes the Board to adopt and amend budgets without unit owner ratification. The ALJ ruled that the Association is not required to amend its budget every time an estimate proves incorrect.
  • Reserve Usage: Utilizing reserve funds for unanticipated litigation expenses and complex improvements was found to be within the Board's discretion and not a violation of Article 7.
2. Litigation Commencement Restrictions (Section 11.3)

A major point of dispute was whether the Association violated Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs, which requires the consent of 75% of the membership before the Board can incur legal expenses or bring legal proceedings exceeding $25,000.

Legal Findings:

  • Contextual Interpretation: The ALJ found that Section 11.3 is housed under Article 11, titled "Construction Claims Procedures." Therefore, the 75% approval requirement was intended to apply only to construction defect claims against the developer (Declarant).
  • The "Defensive" Exception: Even if Section 11.3 applied broadly, Coverage Case I and the Foreign Judgment Action fell under the exception for "actions to defend claims filed against the Association."
  • Coverage Case I was deemed an extension of the Association's defense in the TOC litigation, as it was necessary to secure insurance funding.
  • The Foreign Judgment Action was necessary to recover indemnification costs from a judgment against TOC principal Yair Ben Moshe.
3. Conflict of Interest and Ethical Conduct

The Petitioner alleged that Board member James Ehinger violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 by not disclosing a conflict of interest in a public meeting regarding the retention of the Document Control Group (DCG) for ESI (Electronically Stored Information) review. DCG was associated with Ryley Carlock, the firm where Ehinger worked.

Legal Findings:

  • Abstention: Mr. Ehinger disclosed the relationship in an executive session and abstained from the vote. The ALJ noted that the conflict of interest statute specifically addresses what a member must do if they intend to vote.
  • Transparency: The DCG proposal explicitly mentioned Ehinger’s relationship with the firm and offered a flat rate specifically because of that connection.
  • Timing: The evidence suggested Ehinger was not yet a shareholder at the time of the proposal, further weakening the claim of a statutory conflict.

Important Quotes and Contextual Analysis

On Budgetary Flexibility

"The Association viewed its budgets as a 'best guess' and then would utilize reserves when needed for unanticipated or unforeseen expenses." (Findings of Fact ¶ 29)

Context: This quote highlights the ALJ's acceptance of the Association's operational reality—that budgets are proactive estimates rather than restrictive caps that require constant formal amendment.

On Litigation Requirements

"To prevent the Association from filing an action to secure a defense from its insurance company would serve no one’s interest and would lead to an absurd result." (Conclusions of Law ¶ 10)

Context: The ALJ used this reasoning to dismiss the idea that the Association needed 75% member approval to sue its own insurance carrier for coverage. The ruling emphasizes that such litigation is essentially defensive.

On the Definition of Conflict

"Petitioner contends that Mr. Ehinger violated the conflict of interest statute… This argument ignores the fact that this section is inapplicable because Mr. Ehinger did not vote on the issue." (Conclusions of Law ¶ 14)

Context: This clarifies the legal standard for board members under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1811). If a member discloses and abstains, the statutory requirement for disclosure in an open meeting prior to a vote is not triggered in a way that voids the contract.

Actionable Insights

For Association Governance
  • Distinguish Procedure by Context: When interpreting CC&Rs, the placement of a provision (e.g., under "Construction Claims") significantly impacts its scope. Boards should not assume that restrictive litigation clauses apply to all types of legal actions unless the CC&Rs explicitly state so.
  • Maintain Discretionary Reserves: The ruling affirms that boards generally have the discretion to use reserve funds for unanticipated but necessary expenses (like litigation defense or record reconstruction) without needing constant member votes, provided the CC&Rs grant broad implied powers.
  • Document Disclosures and Abstentions: To insulate the Association from conflict of interest claims, board members with any ties to vendors should disclose those ties in executive sessions (at minimum) and formally abstain from voting, as evidenced by the successful defense of Mr. Ehinger.
For Financial Management
  • Budgeting as an Estimate: Associations should treat budgets as fluid financial plans. While a reserve study is a "goal," it is not a statutory or CC&R requirement to adhere to it perfectly if the financial well-being of the Association necessitates moving funds to operating accounts.
  • Settlement Proceeds: Net proceeds from insurance settlements should be deposited into reserve accounts to maintain the financial health of the community, as the Association did in this case.

Study Guide: Tapestry on Central, LLC vs. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Case No. 17F-H1717028-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Tapestry on Central, LLC (Petitioner) and Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Respondent). It analyzes the legal issues, findings of fact, and conclusions of law determined by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil in January 2018.

I. Case Overview and Core Themes

The dispute centers on allegations that the Tapestry on Central Condominium Association ("the Association") violated its governing documents—specifically its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—and state statutes regarding financial management, litigation procedures, and conflicts of interest.

Key Parties
  • Petitioner (TOC): Tapestry on Central, LLC, a unit owner within the condominium complex.
  • Respondent (The Association): An Arizona non-profit corporation and the community association for the property located at 2302 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix.
  • Administrative Law Judge: Suzanne Marwil.
  • Central Figures:
  • Joanne Carras: Former board member who absconded with Association records to California.
  • James Ehinger: Board member and attorney at Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, P.C., at the center of the conflict-of-interest allegation.
  • Yair Ben Moshe: Principal of TOC.
The Four Primary Legal Issues
  1. Budgeting Requirements: Did the Association violate Article 7 of the CC&Rs by failing to amend budgets when moving reserve funds to operating accounts?
  2. Arizona Litigation Commencement: Did Coverage Case I violate Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs (requiring a 75% membership vote)?
  3. California/Foreign Litigation Commencement: Did the Foreign Judgment Action violate Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs?
  4. Conflict of Interest: Did James Ehinger violate A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding the retention of the Document Control Group (DCG)?

II. Detailed Summary of Facts and Findings

1. Financial Management and Reserves

Between 2014 and 2016, the Association moved funds from reserve accounts to operating accounts to cover unbudgeted litigation expenses and complex improvements.

  • The "Best Guess" Rule: The Association viewed its budgets as estimates. The ALJ found that Section 7.0(A) defines a budget as an "estimate" and that the Board has the authority to amend budgets but is not required to do so every time an estimate is incorrect.
  • Reserve Studies: While the Association did not always meet the goals of its 2013 reserve study, the ALJ noted that a reserve study is a goal, not a statutory or CC&R requirement.
2. Litigation and Article 11 Interpretation

A significant portion of the dispute involved Section 11.3 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits the Board from incurring legal expenses for material proceedings (exceeding $25,000) without 75% owner approval.

Action Nature of Litigation ALJ Finding
Coverage Case I Suit against Liberty Mutual for insurance coverage. Defensive: Extension of the Association’s attempt to defend itself in the TOC Litigation.
Foreign Judgment Action Collection on a California judgment against Yair Ben Moshe. Defensive: Necessary for the Association to be reimbursed for the indemnification of a director.

Legal Reasoning:

  • Placement: Section 11.3 is located under "Construction Claims Procedures." The ALJ concluded it was intended only for construction defect claims against the developer (Declarant).
  • Exceptions: Even if applicable, both cases fell under the exception for "actions to defend claims filed against the Association."
3. Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

TOC argued that James Ehinger’s relationship with Ryley Carlock (owner of the Document Control Group) constituted a prohibited conflict.

  • Disclosure: Ehinger disclosed the relationship in an executive session. The DCG bid explicitly mentioned his relationship as the reason for offering a flat fee.
  • Recusal: Ehinger abstained from the vote and took no position on hiring DCG.
  • Timing: Ehinger was a non-equity partner at the time of the proposal; he did not become a shareholder until 2015.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. Why did the Association need to conduct a search of electronically stored information (ESI) in 2014? To reconstruct records taken by former board member Joanne Carras and to comply with discovery obligations in litigation brought by Matthew Hodeaux and TOC.

2. What does Section 7.0(C) of the CC&Rs permit the Board of Directors to do regarding budgets? It expressly authorizes the Board to adopt and amend budgets without requiring ratification from the unit owners.

3. Name two exceptions to the 75% approval requirement for litigation found in Section 11.3. (Choose two): Actions to enforce collection of assessments; actions to challenge ad valorem taxation; actions to defend claims against the Association; actions to enforce specific covenants; or individual owner claims.

4. How did the Association finance Coverage Case I and the Foreign Judgment Action? The Association utilized reserve funds and unanticipated settlement proceeds (approximately $390,000 from Liberty Mutual) rather than special assessments.

5. What was the ALJ’s ruling on the conflict of interest charge against James Ehinger? The ALJ denied the claim because Ehinger disclosed the relationship, abstained from voting, and the statute primarily governs actions where a member intends to cast a vote.

IV. Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The "Defensive Nature" of Litigation. Analyze why the Administrative Law Judge classified Coverage Case I (an action initiated by the Association against its insurer) as "defensive." Discuss the potential "absurd results" the ALJ sought to avoid by allowing the Board to pursue insurance coverage without a 75% owner vote.

2. Interpreting the Hierarchy of Governing Documents. The Petitioner argued that Section 11.3 applied to all material litigation, while the Respondent argued it applied only to construction defects. Evaluate the ALJ's reasoning regarding the "placement" of Section 11.3 within the "Construction Claims Procedures" article. How does the context of a provision's location affect its legal interpretation?

3. Fiduciary Discretion vs. Owner Oversight. Compare the Board's authority to use reserve funds (as outlined in Article 7) with the membership's right to oversight. Does the ALJ's finding that a reserve study is a "goal" rather than a "requirement" shift the balance of power in favor of the Board? Support your answer with details from the Association's financial actions between 2014 and 2016.

V. Glossary of Key Terms

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811: The Arizona statute governing conflicts of interest for board members of community associations.
  • CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The primary governing document that binds the Association and unit owners to specific rules and procedures.
  • Claimant: As defined in Section 11.1, a party initiating a legal action related to an alleged defect.
  • Declarant: The developer of the condominium complex.
  • ESI (Electronically Stored Information): Digital records that the Association had to search to fulfill discovery obligations.
  • Executive Session: A private portion of a board meeting where sensitive matters (like hiring ESI vendors) are discussed; in this case, where Ehinger disclosed his conflict.
  • Foreign Judgment Action: A legal proceeding initiated in Arizona to collect on a judgment originally granted by a court in another state (California).
  • Indemnification: The Association’s agreement to pay for the legal defense of its directors (e.g., James Ehinger).
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in this administrative matter, meaning the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.
  • Reserve Study: A financial planning tool used to estimate future costs for maintaining a complex; determined in this case to be a "goal" rather than a mandate.

Behind the Gavel: Lessons in HOA Governance from the Tapestry on Central Legal Dispute

In the high-stakes arena of community association management, the line between board discretion and fiduciary breach is often the subject of intense litigation. A landmark administrative case, Tapestry on Central, LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (No. 17F-H1717028-REL), provides a definitive masterclass in these dynamics.

The dispute arose when a homeowner entity (Petitioner) alleged that the Association’s Board committed a litany of violations, including fiscal mismanagement of reserve funds, filing lawsuits without the required 75% membership vote, and engaging in prohibited conflicts of interest. The resulting decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) offers a critical roadmap for boards, demonstrating how the specific language of a community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) serves as the ultimate authority in governance disputes.

The Budgeting "Best Guess" vs. Strict Compliance

One of the most contentious allegations involved the Association’s handling of its finances between 2014 and 2016. The Petitioner pointed to the fact that the Board moved money from reserve accounts to operating accounts to fund litigation and complex property improvements. Most strikingly, the record showed that in 2016, the Association failed to fund its reserves for 11 out of 12 months.

The ALJ, however, found no violation of the CC&Rs. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of Article 7, which defines a budget as an "estimate" rather than a rigid mandate. Because the Board has the express authority to adopt and amend budgets without owner ratification, their decision to prioritize immediate expenditures over reserve goals was a valid exercise of discretion.

💡 Governance Insight: The "Best Guess" Doctrine

Under Section 7.0(A) of the CC&Rs, a budget is legally defined as an "estimate that the Board of Directors believes will be required."

  • Budgets as Goals: The court clarified that budgets are a "best guess" for the year, not a guarantee of spending limits.
  • Reserve Studies: While vital for long-term health, reserve studies are considered "goals" rather than strict legal requirements imposed by statute or the CC&Rs.
  • Board Autonomy: Per Section 7.0(C), the Board may amend budgets at any time without seeking member approval.

Litigation Logic: When is a 75% Vote Actually Required?

The Petitioner further argued that the Board violated Section 11.3 by initiating Coverage Case I (an insurance dispute) and a Foreign Judgment Action without obtaining a 75% affirmative vote from the membership. The ALJ rejected this on two sophisticated legal grounds:

1. Contextual Placement

The court noted that Section 11.3 resides within Article 11, titled "Construction Claims Procedures." Because the surrounding sections focus exclusively on the developer's (Declarant’s) right to cure defects, the ALJ concluded the 75% vote requirement was intended to protect the Declarant from construction defect litigation—not to paralyze the Board from pursuing general legal matters.

2. The Defensive Exception and "Absurd Results"

Even if the vote requirement applied broadly, the ALJ ruled these actions were "defensive in nature" and thus exempt. Coverage Case I was a necessary step to force an insurer to provide a defense for the Association in existing lawsuits. The ALJ noted that preventing a board from suing its own insurance company to secure a defense would lead to an "absurd result" that serves no one’s interest.

The Foreign Judgment Action followed a similar logic. The Association had indemnified Board Member James Ehinger after he was sued by Yair Ben Moshe (a member of the Petitioner). Ehinger won a judgment for attorneys' fees and assigned that judgment to the Association. The court ruled that seeking to collect this assigned judgment in Arizona was a defensive act to recover funds already spent on indemnification.

Section 11.3 Exceptions to Litigation Restrictions: The CC&Rs state the 75% vote requirement does not apply to:

  • Actions to enforce collection of Assessments or Assessment Liens.
  • Actions to challenge taxation or condemnation.
  • Actions to defend claims filed against the Association or to assert mandatory counterclaims.
  • Actions to enforce specific covenants within the CC&Rs.

Navigating Conflicts of Interest: The Ehinger Case Study

The final hurdle involved allegations of a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811. The Association hired the Document Control Group (DCG) for electronic discovery—a firm associated with the law firm of Board Member James Ehinger.

The ALJ determined that no violation occurred, emphasizing a critical nuance of the law: A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses what a board member must do if they intend to vote. Because Ehinger abstained from the vote and took no position on the hire, the statutory requirement to disclose the conflict in an open meeting was not strictly triggered.

The Board’s transparency further shielded them:

  • Disclosure: Ehinger disclosed the relationship in an executive session, and the DCG proposal itself explicitly mentioned the connection.
  • Precision of Status: At the time of the proposal, Ehinger was a "non-equity partner" rather than a shareholder, distancing him from direct profit-sharing at that stage.
  • Association Benefit: DCG provided the services at a flat "benefit" rate specifically because of Ehinger’s relationship, resulting in a financial win for the community.

The Final Verdict: Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, affirming that the Association’s Board acted within the scope of its authority. For those in community governance, the case offers three definitive Boardroom Lessons:

  1. Budgetary Flexibility is the Standard: When CC&Rs define a budget as an "estimate," boards have the legal latitude to redirect funds—including the choice to temporarily pause reserve funding—to meet unanticipated operational or legal needs without owner ratification.
  2. Protecting the "Defensive" Right: Boards must be able to protect the association’s interests. Actions taken to secure insurance coverage or collect on judgments assigned to the association are defensive strategies. Courts will likely reject interpretations of voting requirements that lead to "absurd results" by preventing a board from defending the community's assets.
  3. Abstention is the Ultimate Safe Harbor: While A.R.S. § 33-1811 outlines disclosure rules for voting members, a board member with a potential conflict who discloses the interest and abstains from the vote provides the strongest defense against ethical challenges.

Ultimately, the Tapestry on Central decision reinforces that governance disputes must be grounded in the exact text of the governing documents. When a board operates transparently and within the framework of its CC&Rs, its discretionary decisions are afforded significant legal protection.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ryan Lorenz (Petitioner's Attorney)
    Clark Hill PLC
  • Joanne Carras (Former Board Member)
    Tapestry on Central, LLC
    TOC's representative; resigned from board in 2011
  • Yair Ben Moshe (Principal)
    Tapestry on Central, LLC
    Filed personal action against James Ehinger

Respondent Side

  • Mark Nickel (Respondent's Attorney)
    Gordon & Rees LLP
  • Christina M. Vander Werf (Respondent's Attorney)
    Gordon & Rees LLP
    Listed in distribution list
  • James Ehinger (Board Member)
    Tapestry on Central Condominium Association
    Also attorney/shareholder at Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite
  • Howard Kunkle (Community Manager)
    Tapestry on Central Condominium Association
    Witness

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Matthew Hodeaux (Litigant)
    Plaintiff in separate action against Association
  • Cynthia Futter (Litigant)
    Plaintiff in separate action against Association in California

Mark Virden vs. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717027-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-06-27
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Mark Virden Counsel —
Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA Counsel Stewart F. Salwin

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Tribunal found that the HOA's Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the internet tower under the governing documents (CC&Rs) without requiring ratification or disclosure of potential conflicts to the members acting as the board, thus avoiding a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811 in this instance.

Why this result: The decision to approve the tower was made by the Architectural Committee, which had independent authority under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811 regarding disclosure of compensation to the members acting as the board were found not to apply to the Committee's action.

Key Issues & Findings

Board of Directors, Contracts, and Conflicts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 when it allowed the construction of an internet service tower after a board member's spouse paid the upfront fee in exchange for permanent free service (compensation). Petitioner argued this compensation required disclosure in an open meeting of the board before approval, which did not occur.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: conflict_of_interest, architectural_committee, board_authority, internet_tower, compensation, CC&Rs
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:26 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:04:32 (736.4 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 571928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:48 (82.2 KB)

17F-H1717027-REL Decision – 575046.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:52 (736.4 KB)

Briefing: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Case No. 17F-H1717027-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between homeowner Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the construction of an internet service tower on HOA common property. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona’s conflict of interest statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811), asserting that HOA officials received undisclosed compensation—lifelong free internet service—in exchange for approving the tower.

The case culminated in a definitive ruling against the Petitioner. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted and finalized by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the ruling rested on the HOA’s unique governance structure. The decision to approve the tower was made not by the general “board of directors” (in this HOA, the members act as the board), but by the Architectural Committee, which was vested with independent authority to do so by the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the state law requiring conflict of interest disclosures before the board was not applicable to the committee’s action, rendering the Petitioner’s central argument invalid. The approval of the tower was deemed proper under the HOA’s governing rules.

Case Overview

Entity

Name / Description

Case Number

17F-H1717027-REL

Petitioner

Mark Virden

Respondent

Lakeside Ski Village HOA

Presiding ALJ

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Final Authority

Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Timeline of Key Events

• Circa 2017: The internet company AireBeam approached the HOA to install a service tower but did not secure enough subscribers to fund the project.

• Circa 2017: Lou Talarico, husband of an Architectural Committee member, offered to pay the tower’s upfront cost in exchange for free service for himself and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg. The Architectural Committee subsequently approved construction.

• March 23, 2017: Mark Virden filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a conflict of interest violation.

• June 7, 2017: A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• June 27, 2017: ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• July 10, 2017: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

The petition filed by Mark Virden centered on a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs contracts and conflicts of interest for HOA boards of directors.

Primary Allegation: Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated state law by failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to the tower’s approval.

• The Conflict: Susan Talarico, a licensed realtor serving on the Architectural Committee, had a conflict because her husband, Lou Talarico, paid an upfront fee to the tower company. In exchange for this payment, the Talaricos and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg were to receive free internet service for as long as the tower remained operational.

• The Alleged Violation: According to the petition, this arrangement constituted compensation that should have been formally declared in an open meeting before any action was taken, as required by law. The petition states: “This law states that if a member of the board is receiving compensation, and has not declared that conflict in advance, then any contract entered into in violation of this law is void and unenforceable!”

• Perceived Inadequate Compensation: The Petitioner claimed the value of the free service far exceeded the cash contribution, stating, “…their contribution would only pay the equivalent of about 1-2 years of service for the two households.”

• Lack of Transparency: The petition alleges a refusal by the involved board members to provide details of their arrangement. When asked about the compensation, the Vice President reportedly stated, “it’s none of your business.”

Secondary Argument

The Petitioner alternatively argued that the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. Because the tower could provide service to individuals outside the HOA, it was not exclusively “for the benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, as stipulated by the governing documents.

Personal Grievance

The petition notes a direct personal impact on the Petitioner, stating that the tower was constructed within 150 feet of his front door and that he found it to be “a huge eye sore.”

Respondent’s Governance and Authority

The Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s defense rested on its specific governing documents and organizational structure, which were found to be central to the case’s outcome.

• Unconventional Board Structure: The HOA does not have a traditional, separate board of directors. Its Bylaws stipulate that “The affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

• Delegated Authority to Architectural Committee: The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants specific and independent power to its Architectural Committee. The CC&Rs state: “The Architectural Committee may permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

This structure meant that the authority to approve the tower resided with the committee, not the general membership acting as a board.

Adjudication and Final Ruling

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings, with the final decision adopted by the Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner’s claims were ultimately rejected.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 27, 2017, denied the petition based on the following legal rationale:

• Architectural Committee’s Authority Was Dispositive: The ALJ found that the CC&Rs explicitly empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the communication tower. Crucially, the decision established that “Nothing in the CC&Rs requires that the Architectural Committee’s decision must be ratified by the members acting as a board.”

• Conflict of Interest Law Not Applicable: A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to actions and decisions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors.” Because the Architectural Committee acted under its own authority granted by the CC&Rs, its decision was not an action of the “board” as defined by the statute.

• Conclusion on Disclosure: The ALJ concluded that even if the free internet service was considered compensation (assuming arguendo), the arrangement “did not have to be disclosed to the members acting as a board.”

• Rejection of Secondary Argument: The ALJ dismissed the argument that the tower did not benefit the HOA, noting that the CC&R language “does not require that the satellite dish or other system may benefit exclusively all or portions of the HOA.”

The final conclusion of the tribunal was that “the Architectural Committee’s approval of the AireBeam tower was proper under Respondent’s governing documents.”

Final Order of the Department of Real Estate

On July 10, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order that formally adopted the ALJ’s decision.

• Outcome: The Petitioner’s petition was officially denied.

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties and represents a final administrative action.

• Avenues for Appeal: The Order noted that a party may request a rehearing within 30 days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, newly discovered evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, a party may appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between Petitioner Mark Virden and Respondent Lakeside Ski Village HOA, concerning the construction of an internet service tower. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what does this statute govern?

3. Describe the unique governance structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA as noted in the hearing’s findings of fact.

4. What was the arrangement between AireBeam, Lou Talarico, and Carl Rygg that led to the construction of the internet tower?

5. According to the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs), what specific authority was granted to its Architectural Committee?

6. On what key legal basis did the Administrative Law Judge reject the Petitioner’s claim of a conflict of interest violation?

7. What was the Petitioner’s alternative argument regarding the tower not being for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, and how did the Judge rule on it?

8. Define the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and identify which party had the burden of meeting this standard.

9. What was the final outcome of Mark Virden’s petition, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge and subsequently adopted?

10. After the Final Order was issued on July 10, 2017, what were the potential next steps for a party wishing to challenge the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Mark Virden (Petitioner) and the Lakeside Ski Village HOA (Respondent). The central dispute was Virden’s allegation that the HOA improperly allowed the construction of an internet service tower on common property due to an undisclosed conflict of interest involving board members.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. This statute governs contracts and conflicts of interest for an HOA’s board of directors, requiring a board member to declare a conflict in an open meeting if a decision would benefit them or a close family member.

3. The Lakeside Ski Village HOA does not have a traditional board of directors. Instead, its Bylaws state that the affairs of the Association are managed directly by the members, who are authorized to exercise all powers normally held by a board.

4. After the HOA failed to secure enough subscribers for AireBeam to build the tower, Lou Talarico offered to pay the upfront cost. In exchange for his payment, AireBeam agreed to provide free internet service to Mr. Talarico and HOA Vice President Carl Rygg for as long as the tower was operational.

5. The HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) grants the Architectural Committee the authority to “permit one or more aerial satellite dishes or satellite communication systems, and/or other apparatus and equipment for an antenna or cable system for the benefit of all or portions of the Project.”

6. The Judge rejected the claim because the HOA’s CC&Rs empowered the Architectural Committee to approve the tower directly, without needing ratification from the members acting as a board. Therefore, the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which apply to actions taken “by or on behalf of the board of directors,” were not applicable to the Committee’s decision.

7. The Petitioner argued that because people outside the HOA could subscribe to the service, the tower was not for the “benefit of all or portions” of the HOA, meaning the Architectural Committee exceeded its authority. The Judge ruled that the language of the CC&Rs does not require that the system exclusively benefit the HOA.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, Mark Virden, bore the burden of proving his allegations by this standard.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied, concluding that the Architectural Committee’s approval of the tower was proper. This decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, making it the Final Order.

10. A dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty (30) days for specific causes, such as procedural irregularity, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. Alternatively, a party could appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review in court.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1811, which governs board actions, and the specific powers granted to the Architectural Committee in the Lakeside Ski Village HOA’s CC&Rs. Explain in detail how this conflict, and its interpretation by the Judge, determined the outcome of the case.

2. Discuss the concept of “conflict of interest” as presented in the Petitioner’s complaint. Evaluate whether the actions of the Talaricos and Carl Rygg constituted a conflict of interest, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge’s decision did not ultimately hinge on this point, referencing the use of the term arguendo in the Conclusions of Law.

3. Explain the procedural journey of this case, from the initial petition filing on or about March 23, 2017, to the Final Order issued on July 10, 2017. Identify the key bodies and officials involved at each stage (e.g., Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge, Commissioner).

4. The Petitioner’s complaint details his frustration with a perceived lack of transparency from board members regarding their compensation agreement with AireBeam. Despite these ethical concerns, the petition failed. Based on the “Conclusions of Law,” explain the legal reasoning that rendered the Petitioner’s arguments about transparency and fairness insufficient to prove a violation under the cited statute.

5. The Final Order outlines eight specific causes for which a rehearing or review could be granted. Choose two of these causes (e.g., “The findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” or “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing”) and construct a hypothetical argument that Mark Virden could have made for a rehearing based on them, using the facts presented in the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a decision. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of all the laws passed by the Arizona legislature. The statute at the center of this case was A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Arguendo

A Latin term meaning “for the sake of argument.” The Judge used this to temporarily accept a point as true (that the free service was compensation) in order to show that even if it were true, the Petitioner’s argument would still fail on other legal grounds.

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. These are the governing legal documents that establish the rules and operational framework for a homeowners association.

Common Area

Property within the HOA, such as land for a community tower, that is owned and shared by all members of the association.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency that has jurisdiction to hear certain disputes between property owners and their homeowners associations.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community or subdivision that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Mark Virden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing a fact is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Lakeside Ski Village HOA.

How Two HOA Insiders Got Free Internet For Life—And Why the Law Couldn’t Stop Them

Introduction: The Rules Aren’t Always What They Seem

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowner Association (HOA) is built on a simple assumption: while the rules can be strict, they exist to protect the community from abuses of power. We trust that state laws and an HOA’s own documents prevent board members from using their position for personal enrichment. The concept of a “conflict of interest” seems straightforward—board members can’t vote on deals that benefit themselves or their families.

But what if a deal that looks like a textbook conflict of interest was found to be perfectly legal? This is the cautionary tale of Mark Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA, a shocking case from Arizona that turns our assumptions on their head. It’s a story where insiders secured a deal for free lifetime internet service, and despite a homeowner’s legitimate outrage, the law was powerless to stop them. The case wasn’t decided on fairness or ethics, but on the fine print buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

This case is a crucial lesson for every homeowner. It reveals how seemingly innocuous clauses can be weaponized to bypass transparency laws, effectively legalizing what would otherwise be considered a blatant conflict of interest. It demonstrates that in the world of community associations, power doesn’t always reside where you think it does, and the only thing protecting you is a deep understanding of your own community’s rules.

Takeaway 1: A Committee’s Power Can Sidestep Conflict-of-Interest Laws

The petitioner’s argument was simple and seemed like a slam dunk. An internet company needed to build a service tower on HOA common property but lacked enough subscribers to fund it. Lou Talarico, whose wife Susan was on the HOA’s Architectural Committee, offered to pay the upfront installation costs. In exchange, Mr. Talarico and the HOA’s Vice President, Carl Rygg, would receive free internet service for life.

This arrangement reeks of a conflict of interest, and on its face, appears to be a direct violation of Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811). The law requires that if an action “taken by or on behalf of the board of directors” would benefit a board member’s spouse, the conflict must be declared in an open meeting. Here, no such declaration was made.

But here is the stunning legal twist: the Administrative Law Judge found that the decision to approve the tower was made not by the “board,” but exclusively by the “Architectural Committee.” The HOA’s governing documents explicitly granted this committee the power to approve communication systems. Because the state’s conflict-of-interest law applies specifically to actions taken by the board, it had no jurisdiction over a decision made independently by the committee. In essence, the state law was watching the front door (the board), but the HOA’s documents gave the Architectural Committee a back door—one with no legal supervision for conflicts of interest. This technicality meant the deal, and the conflict of interest at its core, was entirely proper under the law.

Takeaway 2: An HOA ‘Board’ Might Not Be a Board at All

The second critical fact that enabled this outcome was the highly unusual structure of the Lakeside Ski Village HOA itself. The judge noted that the association “does not have a traditional Board.” Instead, all the members collectively act as the board.

The HOA’s Bylaws lay out this unique governance model:

“[t]he affairs of the Association will be managed by the Members, who by the Association’s Articles of Organization are authorized to exercise all powers normally exercised by a board of directors.”

This structure is fundamentally important. State laws governing HOAs are written with a traditional model in mind—a small group of elected directors making decisions for the community. But at Lakeside Ski Village, the power of the “members acting as a board” was limited by specific authority delegated to other entities, most notably the Architectural Committee. This decentralized structure created a loophole the state’s conflict-of-interest law was not designed to close.

The lesson for homeowners is that you can never assume all HOAs are structured alike. The very definition of the “board” and the scope of its power can be radically different from one community to another. Here, that unique structure was the key that unlocked the committee’s unchecked power.

Takeaway 3: The Fine Print Is All That Matters

Ultimately, this entire dispute was decided not by broad principles of transparency or fiduciary duty, but by specific phrases written in the HOA’s founding documents years ago. The petitioner, Mark Virden, expressed understandable outrage that the insiders involved refused to be transparent.

He recounted a particularly telling exchange with the association’s Vice President when he asked about the terms of the internet deal:

When we initially asked the VP what their compensation was, he stated “it’s none of your business”.

While this response would infuriate any homeowner, the court’s final decision effectively proved it right. Because the Architectural Committee was acting within its sole authority, the details of its agreement were not subject to the disclosure rules that govern the board. The response, “it’s none of your business,” turned out to be legally correct.

The petitioner’s frustration was compounded by the professional background of the committee member at the center of the conflict. In his filing, he wrote: “To make things worse, the board member whose spouse paid the upfront fee to the tower company is a licensed realtor, Susan Talarico. If anyone should understand the fiduciary responsibility to owners of a HOA, it’s a realtor serving on a Board of that HOA.” His belief that a real estate professional should have known better underscores the feeling of betrayal.

And in a final, dramatic turn that reinforces the theme of insiders benefiting, the petitioner noted what happened after the deal was done: “She has since resigned but her husband has taken her place on the board.” This illustrates the most vital lesson of all: your sense of what is “fair” is legally irrelevant if the governing documents allow for a specific action. The CC&Rs and Bylaws are the ultimate source of truth and power in any HOA dispute.

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know Your Rules?

The case of Virden v. Lakeside Ski Village HOA serves as a stark reminder that HOA governance is a world of legal technicalities, where the written word of the founding documents is supreme. It shows how specific, delegated authority can create outcomes that defy the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. What appears to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing can be rendered perfectly permissible by a few key sentences in the bylaws or CC&Rs.

This case was decided on the specific authority granted to a single committee—do you know which committees in your HOA have the power to make decisions without board approval?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mark Virden (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Stewart F. Salwin (attorney)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
  • Susan Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Licensed realtor; spouse of Lou Talarico; resigned but husband took her place on the board
  • Lou Talarico (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Spouse of Susan Talarico; paid upfront tower cost; received free internet service; referred to as Treasurer in petition excerpt
  • Carl Rygg (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    Vice President; received free internet service
  • Emmett Mitchell (board member)
    Lakeside Ski Village HOA
    President

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Addressee for rehearing requests

Jay Janicek vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-03-14
Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil
Outcome The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jay Janicek Counsel —
Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Counsel Evan Thomson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was granted. The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by invalidly adopting the 'Declaration of Scrivener's Error' (Exhibit C) as an amendment without the required lot owner vote. However, the $10.00 annual increased assessment that Petitioner objected to was permitted to stand because the authority for differential assessments was established by the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, independent of the invalid Exhibit C. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner objected to the increased assessment resulting from Exhibit C, but the Tribunal determined that Respondent had the right to impose the increased assessment pursuant to the language of Section 6.8 in the valid First Amendment to the Declaration, regardless of the invalidity of Exhibit C.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Declaration (Declaration of Scrivener's Error)

Petitioner claimed Respondent HOA improperly adopted a Declaration of Scrivener's Error (Exhibit C) to revise the definition of developed/undeveloped lots, arguing it was a substantive amendment requiring a 75% lot owner vote, which Respondent failed to obtain.

Orders: The Tribunal found that Exhibit C constituted an amendment and Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1817 by adopting it without a vote. Exhibit C was deemed invalid, but this invalidity did not nullify the subsequent assessment increase, which was authorized by a prior, valid declaration amendment. Respondent was ordered to refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Declaration Amendment, Scrivener's Error, Assessments, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:02:31 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:02:41 (794.0 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:45 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:18:51 (794.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative legal dispute between petitioner Jay Janicek and respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 Homeowners Association (HOA), culminating in the case No. 17F-H1716019-REL. The core of the conflict was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its governing Declaration via a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” without the required 75% vote from lot owners. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment and was followed by a $10 annual assessment increase on developed lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting his petition and invalidating the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” The judge found that the change was a substantive amendment, not a correction of a clerical error, and the Board’s unilateral action violated Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817). However, in a critical distinction, the ALJ ruled that the $10 assessment increase on developed lots was permissible and should stand, as the authority to set different rates for completed and uncompleted lots was already established in the valid 2009 First Amendment to the Declaration.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s conflict of interest claim against three Board members with financial ties to the developer, deeming the petitioner’s interpretation of the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1811) to be overbroad. The final order, adopted by the Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner, required the HOA to pay the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and to comply with state statutes regarding amendments and conflicts of interest in the future.

Case Details

Details

Case Name

Jay Janicek, Petitioner, vs. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, Respondent

Case Number

HO 17-16/019

Docket Number

17F-H1716019-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings / Arizona Department of Real Estate

Petitioner

Jay Janicek (appeared personally)

Respondent

Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (represented by Evan Thomson, Esq.)

Administrative Law Judge

Suzanne Marwil

Hearing Date

March 2, 2017

ALJ Decision Date

March 14, 2017

Final Order Date

March 16, 2017

Commissioner

Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate

Background and Core Dispute

The conflict originated from changes to the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration).

• 2005 Declaration: The original “2005 Amended and Restated Declaration” contained Section 6.8, which established a uniform assessment rate for all lots. Crucially, it exempted the Declarant and Developer from payments on any property except for “Completed Lots.” This section provided a specific definition for “Completed Lots,” describing them as any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy.

• 2009 First Amendment: On December 4, 2008, after securing a vote from 75% of lot owners, the HOA adopted the “First Amendment to the 2005 Declaration.” This amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 in its entirety and replaced it with new language stating: “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.” This amendment, however, omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot” that was present in the 2005 version.

• Seven-Year Period: For seven years following the 2009 amendment, the revised Section 6.8 remained unchanged, without the specific definition.

The “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”

In June or July 2016, the HOA Board proposed a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” to address the omitted definition.

• Board’s Position: The Respondent, represented by its president Steven Russo, argued that the purpose of the declaration was simply to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of a developed versus undeveloped lot, which was “inadvertently omitted” from the 2009 First Amendment. The Board stated it was acting on the advice of its legal counsel.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Janicek contended that this declaration was not a correction of a minor error but was a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he argued it required the approval of 75% of the lot owners, a process that was not followed.

• Adoption: On August 3, 2016, the Board adopted the Declaration of Scrivener’s Error by a 3-2 vote. Petitioner Janicek and another Board member representing developed lot owners voted against the measure.

• Immediate Consequence: Following the adoption, the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00, while the assessment for undeveloped lots remained unchanged. This action prompted Mr. Janicek to file his petition.

Allegations of Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest

Petitioner Janicek accused the Respondent of a violation of its fiduciary duty and a conflict of interest. He noted that three members of the Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These lots directly benefited from the assessment structure that placed a higher burden on developed lots.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision, issued on March 14, 2017, contained three central conclusions of law that addressed the distinct issues raised in the petition.

1. The “Scrivener’s Error” was an Invalid Amendment

The judge found decisively in favor of the petitioner on the core issue of the amendment process.

• Substantive Change, Not Clerical Error: The Tribunal found that the change constituted an amendment to the Declaration, not a correction of a simple clerical error.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1817: The judge ruled that the procedure for amending the Declaration requires a vote by the lot owners, as specified in the Declaration and state law. The HOA violated this statute by attempting to amend the document via a simple Board vote.

• Key Judicial Reasoning: The judge noted that the same section had been properly amended by a homeowner vote in 2009. The ruling states, “after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.”

• Conclusion: The Declaration of Scrivener’s Error (Exhibit C) was declared invalid and could not operate to amend the Declaration.

2. The Assessment Increase Was Valid

Despite invalidating the method used by the Board, the judge upheld the Board’s right to implement the assessment increase.

• Existing Authority: The ruling stated that the invalidity of Exhibit C “does not implicate Respondent’s right to impose an increased assessment on the developed lots.”

• Basis in 2009 Amendment: The judge found that the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment—which expressly states that “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots”—provided the Board with sufficient authority to set differential rates.

• Conclusion: The raised assessment was allowed to stand.

3. Conflict of Interest Claim Rejected

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s argument that Board members with ties to NT Properties had a conflict of interest under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

• “Overbroad” Interpretation: The judge found the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict-of-interest statute to be “overbroad.”

• Rationale: The ruling stated that this interpretation “ignores that make-up of the Board as outlined in the Declaration and disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

• Conclusion: The Board members were not required to declare a conflict of interest and were permitted to vote on the issue.

Final Order

The petition filed by Jay Janicek was granted. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was officially adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate in a Final Order dated March 16, 2017. The final order mandated the following:

• The Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA must pay the petitioner, Jay Janicek, the $500.00 filing fee.

• The HOA must comply with the applicable provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1817 (regarding the proper procedure for amending a declaration) and § 33-1811 (regarding conflicts of interest) in the future.

Study Guide: Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case Janicek v. Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA (No. 17F-H1716019-REL). It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to aid in understanding the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the central action taken by the Respondent’s Board that led to this legal dispute?

3. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument against the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” instead of a full vote by lot owners?

5. Describe the conflict of interest alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board.

6. How did the 2009 First Amendment alter Section 6.8 of the HOA’s 2005 Declaration?

7. What was the direct financial consequence for developed lot owners following the Board’s actions in 2016?

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling regarding the validity of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error”?

9. Despite invalidating the Board’s action, what did the Judge decide regarding the increased assessment on developed lots?

10. What was the final order issued in the case, and what was the Respondent required to do?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jay Janicek and Respondent Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA. Janicek, a lot owner, brought the petition against the Homeowner’s Association to challenge a decision made by its Board of Directors.

2. The Respondent’s Board, by a 3-2 vote, adopted a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” on August 3, 2016. This action was intended to reinsert a definition of “Completed Lots” that had been omitted from a 2009 amendment to the HOA’s governing documents.

3. The Petitioner argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was not a simple correction but a substantive change to the Declaration. As such, he contended it was an amendment that required approval by a vote of seventy-five percent of the lot owners, not just a Board vote.

4. The Respondent argued that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was merely intended to correct a clerical error by reinserting the definition of developed versus undeveloped lots, which was inadvertently deleted from the 2009 revision. The Board’s President, Steven Russo, testified that they acted on the recommendation of their legal counsel.

5. The Petitioner alleged a conflict of interest because three members of the Respondent’s Board had a financial interest in NT Properties, the company that owns the undeveloped lots. The Petitioner argued that these members stood to benefit from assessment changes that favored undeveloped lots.

6. The 2009 First Amendment deleted the original Section 6.8 and replaced it with new language. This new language explicitly allowed annual dues to be assessed at different uniform rates for “Completed Lots” and “Uncompleted Lots,” a distinction not present in the original uniform rate structure.

7. Following the adoption of the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” the Board voted to increase the annual assessment for developed lot owners by $10.00. The assessment for undeveloped lots was left unchanged.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” was an invalid amendment to the Declaration. The Judge found that it was a substantive change that required a vote of the lot owners as specified in A.R.S. §33-1817, and that calling it a correction of a clerical error after seven years “defies logic.”

9. The Judge ruled that the increased assessment on developed lots could stand. The ruling was based on the language of the valid 2009 First Amendment, which expressly permitted the HOA to assess different rates for completed and uncompleted lots, independent of the invalidated “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.”

10. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Respondent, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions. Formulate a comprehensive response drawing upon the specific facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the case documents.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to invalidate the “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error” while simultaneously upholding the increased assessment on developed lots. Explain how both parts of this ruling were supported by different governing documents.

2. Discuss the conflict of interest allegation raised by Jay Janicek under A.R.S. § 33-1811. Why did the Tribunal ultimately reject this argument, and what does this rejection imply about the Board’s authority to set assessments under the Declaration?

3. Trace the evolution of Section 6.8 of the Declaration from the original 2005 version, through the 2009 First Amendment, to the attempted 2016 change. Explain the significance of the “Completed Lots” definition and how its omission and attempted reinsertion became the central point of the dispute.

4. Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that it was simply correcting an inadvertent clerical error. What evidence and reasoning did the Administrative Law Judge use to conclude that this was, in fact, an improper amendment?

5. Describe the legal requirements for amending an HOA declaration as outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1817. Explain precisely how the actions of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA Board violated this statute.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge in the administrative hearing, in this case, Suzanne Marwil. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the facts and applicable laws.

A.R.S. § 33-1811

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that addresses conflicts of interest for members of an HOA board of directors. The Tribunal found the Petitioner’s interpretation of this statute to be overbroad.

A.R.S. § 33-1817

An Arizona Revised Statute cited in the case that outlines the legal requirements and procedures for amending an HOA’s declaration. The ALJ found the Respondent violated this statute.

Completed Lots

As defined in the original 2005 Declaration, this refers to any lot with a dwelling unit ready for occupancy, including installed carpets, cabinets, plumbing, etc. This definition was central to the dispute.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (Declaration)

The primary governing legal document of the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA, which outlines the rules, assessments, and rights of the property owners.

Declaration of Scrivener’s Error

The legal instrument adopted by the Respondent’s Board in a 3-2 vote on August 3, 2016. It was purported to correct a clerical error but was ruled to be an invalid substantive amendment to the Declaration.

First Amendment

The amendment to the 2005 Declaration adopted on December 4, 2008, after a vote of 75% of the lot owners. It changed Section 6.8 to allow for different assessment rates for completed and uncompleted lots but inadvertently omitted the definition of a “Completed Lot.”

NT Properties

A company with a financial interest in the undeveloped lots within the HOA. Three members of the Respondent’s Board also had a financial interest in this company, forming the basis of a conflict of interest allegation.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Jay Janicek.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA.

Tribunal

A term used within the decision to refer to the adjudicating body, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Uniform Rate of Assessment

A principle laid out in the 2005 Declaration requiring that annual and special assessments be fixed at a uniform rate for all lots. This was modified by the 2009 First Amendment.

He Sued His HOA and Won. Here’s Why He Still Had to Pay.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant source of tension. It’s a world of rules, fees, and board decisions that can seem arbitrary or unfair. So when a single homeowner decides to take on their entire HOA in a legal battle, it feels like a classic David vs. Goliath story. This is one of those stories—about a homeowner who challenged an improper rule change and an unexpected fee increase. He took his HOA to court and, on paper, he won. But as he discovered, the outcome was far more surprising and nuanced than a simple victory.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can’t Fix a Seven-Year-Old “Mistake” with a Simple Board Vote.

The core of the dispute began when the Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA tried to amend its governing documents with a “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error.” Their goal was to reinsert definitions of “Completed Lots” versus “Undeveloped Lots” that they claimed had been “inadvertently deleted” from a revision seven years prior.

Instead of seeking approval from the homeowners, the Board of Directors passed this “correction” on August 3, 2016, with a simple 3-2 vote. This procedural shortcut triggered the legal challenge.

The Administrative Law Judge unequivocally rejected the HOA’s move. The judge’s reasoning was sharp and logical: the seven-year gap since the original amendment was a critical factor. The sheer passage of time had transformed what the HOA called a clerical correction into what the law considered a substantive change. As such, it required a vote by 75% of the lot owners, not a simple board action.

The judge’s decision underscored this point with a powerful rebuke:

…after a period of seven years, it defies logic to suggest that a further change to section was simply a clerical error.

This finding was a crucial victory for the homeowner. It affirmed that HOAs must follow the proper procedures outlined in their own governing documents and cannot use shortcuts to rewrite history, no matter how they frame their intentions.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean You Get the Financial Outcome You Want.

Even though the judge invalidated the HOA’s “Declaration of Scrivener’s Error,” she made another, more surprising ruling: the $10.00 annual assessment increase on developed lots—the very fee that sparked the lawsuit—was valid and would stand.

The legal reasoning was buried in the fine print of the HOA’s own documents. A different amendment, one legally passed with a 75% homeowner vote on December 4, 2008, already gave the Board the explicit authority to set different assessment rates. The key language in that valid amendment stated, “annual dues may be assessed at one uniform rate for Completed Lots and a different uniform rate for Uncompleted Lots.”

This created the central irony of the case: the HOA took a legally improper path to arrive at a destination they already had a legal right to reach. Interestingly, the HOA board president testified they were acting on the advice of their counsel, suggesting this was less a malicious act and more of a costly legal misstep.

The petitioner, Jay Janicek, won his case on principle. The judge’s order granted his petition and even awarded him his $500.00 filing fee. But he lost on the practical financial issue that started the dispute. The $10 increase remained. It’s a stark illustration of how complex legal documents can be, where one legally sound clause can override a victory on another front.

——————————————————————————–

3. Proving a Conflict of Interest Is Harder Than It Looks.

The homeowner also accused the board of a conflict of interest. He pointed out that three members of the five-person board had a financial stake in NT Properties, the company that owned the community’s undeveloped lots. These were the very lots that benefited from the new assessment structure, as their fees remained unchanged while only the developed lots saw the $10 increase. On the surface, it appeared to be a clear-cut case of self-dealing.

However, the judge rejected this claim, ruling that the petitioner’s interpretation of the conflict of interest statute was “overbroad.” The judge’s analysis provided a crucial distinction: the board members were not inventing a new power for their own benefit; they were exercising a power explicitly granted to the Board by the homeowners themselves in the 2009 Declaration. The ruling noted that the petitioner’s argument “disregards the express language permitting the Board to assess annual dues.”

This takeaway is a sobering one for homeowners. It demonstrates that what might look like a glaring conflict of interest to a layperson may not meet the specific legal standard required to invalidate a board’s actions, especially when those actions fall within the powers already granted by the community’s governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Victory of Principle

In the end, the homeowner walked away with a strange and dual outcome. He successfully proved his HOA acted improperly by trying to amend its rules without a proper vote, yet he could not reverse the financial consequence that drove him to file the suit. The case stands as a powerful reminder for all homeowners: understanding both the procedural rules your HOA must follow and the precise wording hidden deep within its governing documents is absolutely critical. This ruling created a clear divide between procedural justice and financial reality.

This case was a victory of principle over practice—how much is a principle worth when the bottom line doesn’t change?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jay Janicek (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Evan Thomson (attorney)
    Represented Respondent
  • Steven Russo (board member)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    President of Respondent; testified
  • Dane Dehler (attorney)
    Thompson Kron, P.L.C.
    Received copy of final order
  • Whitney Cunningham (HOA contact)
    Sycamore Vista No. 8 HOA
    Received copy of final order c/o

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    Recipient for rehearing request