Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Daniel Mayer v. Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel Mayer Counsel —
Respondent Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.

The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.

Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Ballot, Combined Vote, Reserve Funds Access, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4jD4DBnKBI57WggSZKqOKg

Decision Documents

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:58 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:01 (54.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?

Short Answer

No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.

Detailed Answer

Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.

Alj Quote

Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • assessments

Question

If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?

Short Answer

Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.

Alj Quote

According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708

Topic Tags

  • absentee ballots
  • voting
  • mail-in voting

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.

Detailed Answer

While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • powers of ALJ
  • construction

Question

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

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?

Short Answer

No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.

Detailed Answer

The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • statutory interpretation
  • supremacy of law

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?

Short Answer

No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.

Alj Quote

In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting results
  • procedural violations
  • compliance

Case

Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel Mayer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Mr. D'Angelo (witness)
    Petitioner's husband

Respondent Side

  • Sandy Chambers (board president)
    Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Miranda (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
  • James Knupp (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Transmittal recipient

Other Participants

  • jzipprich (property manager)
    Desert Management
    Email contact for Respondent HOA

Lamb, Dennis W. vs. Bellasera Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H078004-BFS
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis W. Lamb Counsel —
Respondent Bellasera Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Association acknowledged the Petitioner was the prevailing party regarding the election dispute and agreed to reimburse the filing fee. The ALJ ordered the reimbursement and general statutory compliance.

Key Issues & Findings

Election/Appointment of Directors

Petitioner alleged the Association violated statutes by electing or appointing David Redman and Dennis Carson to the Board of Directors at the annual meeting.

Orders: Association must reimburse Petitioner's $550.00 filing fee within 30 days and abide by all applicable statutes under A.R.S. Title 33.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2)

Decision Documents

08F-H078004-BFS Decision – 178187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:21:00 (53.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H078004-BFS


Analysis of Case No. 08F-H078004-BFS: Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final decision in the matter of Dennis W. Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association. The case, heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on October 16, 2007, centered on allegations of statutory violations regarding the election or appointment of members to the Association’s Board of Directors. The Association ultimately acknowledged the Petitioner as the prevailing party, resulting in a formal order for the reimbursement of legal filing fees and a mandate for the Association to maintain strict compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33 moving forward.

Case Overview

The dispute was adjudicated within the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety.

Key Parties

• Petitioner: Dennis W. Lamb, appearing on his own behalf.

• Respondent: Bellasera Community Association, represented by Jason E. Smith, Esq. of Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

• Presiding Official: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal.

Core Allegations and Statutory Basis

The Petitioner alleged that the Bellasera Community Association violated specific provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes during its annual meeting on or about April 15, 2007.

Nature of the Violation

The allegations focused on the process used to seat two individuals on the Association’s Board of Directors:

• David Redman

• Dennis Carson

The Petitioner argued that the election or appointment of these individuals failed to comply with legal requirements.

Statutory Citations

The petition cited violations of the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

• A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(2)

These statutes generally govern the procedures for voting and meetings within planned communities.

Findings and Resolution

Upon review of the filing and the circumstances of the case, the Association did not contest the Petitioner’s claims to the extent that it acknowledged his status as the prevailing party.

Stipulations

The parties entered into a formal stipulation regarding the following:

1. Party Designation: The parties agreed that “Bellasera Community Association” was the correct and only named respondent.

2. Prevailing Party Status: The Association acknowledged that Dennis W. Lamb was the prevailing party in the matter.

3. Financial Reimbursement: The Association agreed to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.

Final Administrative Order

On October 16, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued a final decision which included the following mandates:

Requirement

Timeline/Condition

Filing Fee Reimbursement

The Association must pay the Petitioner $550.00 within 30 days of the Order.

Statutory Compliance

The Association is ordered to “abide by and obey all applicable statutes under A.R.S., Title 33.”

This decision was transmitted to the Director of the Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety, and was designated as a final agency action by statute.






Study Guide – 08F-H078004-BFS


Study Guide: Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Dennis W. Lamb v. Bellasera Community Association (Case No. 08F-H078004-BFS). The document explores the legal proceedings, the specific statutory violations addressed, and the final judicial orders issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions using two to three sentences based on the provided source text.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) were allegedly violated by the Respondent?

3. What specific event on April 15, 2007, led to the filing of the petition?

4. Who were the two individuals whose appointment or election to the Board of Directors was contested?

5. With which state department did the Petitioner originally file his petition?

6. What was the final determination regarding which party “prevailed” in this matter?

7. What financial restitution was ordered by the Administrative Law Judge?

8. What was the agreed-upon timeframe for the Association to complete the ordered reimbursement?

9. What amendment was made to the case caption during the proceedings?

10. Besides financial reimbursement, what general legal mandate did the judge issue to the Association?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The parties involved were Dennis W. Lamb, acting as the Petitioner on his own behalf, and the Bellasera Community Association, acting as the Respondent. The Association was represented by legal counsel Jason E. Smith of Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1812(A)(1) and (2). These statutes relate to the internal governance and legal obligations of community associations in Arizona.

3. The petition was triggered by the Association’s annual meeting held on April 15, 2007. During this meeting, the Association elected or appointed specific individuals to its Board of Directors in a manner the Petitioner contested.

4. The dispute centered on the election or appointment of David Redman and Dennis Carson. The Petitioner alleged that their placement on the Association’s Board of Directors violated specific sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

5. The Petitioner filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety. The matter was subsequently heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings under Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal.

6. The Association acknowledged that Dennis W. Lamb was the prevailing party in the dispute. This acknowledgment was formalized in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within the judge’s decision.

7. The Administrative Law Judge ordered the Association to reimburse the Petitioner for his filing fee. The total amount of the reimbursement was set at $550.00.

8. The parties stipulated that the reimbursement must be paid within a specific window of time. The Association was ordered to provide the $550.00 to the Petitioner within 30 days of the date the Order was entered.

9. The parties stipulated to an amendment of the case caption to list only the Bellasera Community Association as the named respondent. This change was reflected in the final Administrative Law Judge Decision.

10. The Judge issued a formal order requiring the Association to abide by and obey all applicable statutes under A.R.S., Title 33. This serves as a mandate for future statutory compliance in Association operations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

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

1. The Role of Administrative Oversight: Analyze the role of the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety and the Office of Administrative Hearings in resolving disputes between homeowners and community associations. Use the Lamb v. Bellasera case to illustrate how these entities provide a venue for statutory enforcement.

2. Statutory Compliance in Governance: Discuss the importance of adhering to A.R.S. Title 33 in the context of community association board elections. Based on the case findings, evaluate why strict adherence to appointment and election procedures is necessary for maintaining legal association governance.

3. The Significance of Prevailing Party Status: Explore the legal and financial implications of being designated the “prevailing party” in an administrative hearing. How does this designation affect the distribution of costs, such as filing fees, and what does it signify regarding the validity of the original petition?

4. Procedural Stipulations: Examine the role of stipulations between parties in an administrative law setting. Discuss how the agreements between Lamb and the Bellasera Community Association regarding the respondent’s name and the reimbursement timeline streamlined the final judicial order.

5. Judicial Remedies and Future Conduct: Evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies provided in this case. Beyond the immediate financial reimbursement, analyze the potential impact of a judicial order that explicitly mandates a respondent to “abide by and obey all applicable statutes” in the future.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. Title 33

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs property and community associations.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues decisions in disputes involving government agencies.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Bellasera Community Association responsible for making organizational decisions and appointments.

Caption

The heading of a legal document that identifies the parties, the court or office, and the case number; amended in this case to reflect only one respondent.

Filing Fee

The $550.00 cost incurred by the Petitioner to initiate the legal action, which the Respondent was eventually ordered to reimburse.

Final Agency Action

The definitive decision made by an administrative body that concludes a matter; here, the ALJ decision became final by statute.

Findings of Fact

The specific factual determinations made by the judge regarding what occurred, such as the date of the meeting and the names of the appointees.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or administrative proceeding (Dennis W. Lamb).

Prevailing Party

The person or entity that “wins” the case or achieves the primary goal of their legal action, entitling them to certain reimbursements.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed (Bellasera Community Association).

Stipulation

A formal agreement or bargain made between opposing parties during legal proceedings.






Blog Post – 08F-H078004-BFS


The $550 Lesson: How One Homeowner Held His HOA Accountable

In the world of community governance, homeowners often feel like they are fighting a losing battle against a Board of Directors backed by a blank check for legal fees. The power imbalance is palpable: residents are expected to follow every minor CC&R rule, while Boards sometimes treat state laws as optional “guidelines.”

However, the case of Dennis W. Lamb vs. Bellasera Community Association serves as a vital playbook for any resident looking to restore the balance of power. This wasn’t just a neighborhood dispute; it was a David-vs-Goliath victory that proves even a “small” procedural error can have significant legal consequences. If you’ve ever felt the sting of a Board overstepping its bounds, bookmark this case—it proves that accountability isn’t just possible; it’s mandated.

The Law Isn’t a Suggestion: Decoding A.R.S. Title 33

The core of Mr. Lamb’s challenge rested on a fundamental pillar of Arizona HOA law: A.R.S. §§ 33-1812(A)(1) and (2). While statutory numbers can seem dry, these specific laws are the lifeblood of community democracy. They govern how ballots and proxies are handled during elections.

In this case, the Bellasera Community Association attempted to elect or appoint two directors, David Redman and Dennis Carson, during the April 2007 annual meeting. By violating these statutes, the Board effectively bypassed the legal requirements for how votes must be cast and counted. Whether through improper proxy use or a failure to follow ballot protocols, the message from the court was clear: Boards cannot “appoint” their way around the legislative framework.

To ensure this lesson stuck, Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal issued a directive that every homeowner should keep in their back pocket:

The Power of the “Stipulation” and the Prevailing Party Status

One of the most tactical takeaways from this case is how it ended. The Association didn’t fight to a bitter, multi-year conclusion. Instead, they stipulated to the facts. In legal terms, the Association essentially surrendered, acknowledging that Mr. Lamb was the “prevailing party.”

For a homeowner, the “prevailing party” designation is a legal scarlet letter for the Board. It is a formal admission that the Association was in the wrong. This led to a direct financial hit for the Association: they were ordered to reimburse Mr. Lamb his $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

While $550 might seem like a drop in the bucket for a large association’s budget, the precedent is priceless. When a Board is forced to cut a check to a resident they tried to steamroll, it sends a shockwave through the community. It proves that procedural “shortcuts” are actually expensive mistakes.

David vs. Goliath: Taking the Board to Task Without a Lawyer

Perhaps the most empowering aspect of Lamb vs. Bellasera is how the battle was fought. Mr. Lamb did not hire a high-priced law firm. He represented himself—appearing “on his own behalf”—against the Association’s professional counsel, Jason E. Smith, Esq.

Mr. Lamb navigated the system by filing his petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety. This agency provides a structured, accessible path for residents to challenge corporate-style boards through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The outcome demonstrates a critical truth for the modern homeowner: the legal system provides a venue where facts outweigh a Board’s legal budget. You don’t need a JD to demand that your Board follows the law; you just need the persistence to hold them to the statutes already on the books.

Conclusion: A Precedent for Accountability

The case of Dennis W. Lamb is a stark reminder that HOA governance is a serious legal responsibility, not a community volunteer role where the rules are negotiable. When Boards treat statutory requirements like A.R.S. Title 33 as “red tape” to be cut, they leave themselves vulnerable to the residents they serve.

As homeowners, we must ask ourselves: How would our neighborhoods change if every Board knew their residents were watching the ballots as closely as the budget? The balance of power in modern associations only tips toward the resident when we stop asking for fairness and start demanding statutory compliance. Accountability is within your reach—sometimes, it just costs the Board $550 to learn that lesson.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis W. Lamb (Petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, PLC
    Attorney for Bellasera Community Association,
  • David Redman (Board Member)
    Bellasera Community Association
    Elected or appointed to Board of Directors
  • Dennis Carson (Board Member)
    Bellasera Community Association
    Elected or appointed to Board of Directors

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge,
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving copy of decision
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy