Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 33-1817

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust Counsel —
Respondent Haciendas Del Conde Association Counsel Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition on all issues, concluding that the CCRs contained legally enforceable setback language (Section 21(m)) properly passed in 2017 under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). The ALJ rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding improper voting procedures, statute of limitations, and selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Petitioner asserted that the HOA violated CCR 21(m) by improperly adopting the 2017 CCRs and sought resolution on whether the setback language was enforceable, whether forcing Petitioner to move the carport was reasonable, whether selective enforcement was applied, and whether an easement existed. The ALJ concluded the CCRs were valid and enforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), rejected the selective enforcement claim, and denied the petition.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 837850.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:47 (132.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020045-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Trezza Irrevocable Trust vs. Haciendas Del Conde Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA/Respondent). The ALJ denied the Petitioner’s petition on all issues, finding in favor of the HDCA and deeming it the prevailing party.

The core of the dispute was a carport constructed by the Petitioner in August 2019 without prior approval from the HDCA and in violation of a 10-foot property line setback requirement detailed in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CC&Rs, alleged selective enforcement by the HDCA, and argued the setback rule was unreasonable.

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions:

• The HDCA’s 2017 CC&Rs, including the 10-foot setback rule in Section 21(m), were properly adopted and are legally enforceable. The Petitioner’s challenge to the voting procedure was unfounded, as it incorrectly cited corporate voting law instead of the statute governing planned communities.

• The HOA has the right to enforce rules that are more restrictive than municipal codes, rendering the Pima County code’s zero-foot setback irrelevant.

• There was no evidence of selective enforcement. The HDCA’s denial was based on the substantive setback violation, not the procedural failure to obtain prior approval, and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to cure the issue.

• The Petitioner is solely responsible for any financial burden associated with bringing the carport into compliance, as the situation was created by the failure to seek prior approval before construction.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

• Case Number: 20F-H2020045-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone

• Date of Decision: November 18, 2020

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq.

◦ Respondent: Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

• Central Issue: The legal enforceability of the HDCA’s CC&Rs, specifically Section 21(m), which prohibits the construction of structures within ten feet of any side or back property line for specified lots. The Petitioner sought relief after the HDCA denied approval for a carport built in violation of this rule.

II. Factual Background

Steven Trezza, trustee for the Petitioner, testified that he has resided at the property for approximately 14 years. In August 2019, he designed and built a carport on the property. Crucially, he admitted to the following:

• He had not read the community’s CC&Rs prior to the HDCA’s denial of his application.

• He failed to obtain prior approval from the HDCA Board for the carport’s construction.

• He failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

The HDCA Board President, Brad Johns, testified that he first noticed the carport construction in late August 2019 and placed architectural approval forms on the Petitioner’s door. Johns clarified that the eventual denial was not based on the failure to obtain prior approval but on the substantive violation of the 10-foot setback rule.

On November 14, 2019, the HDCA’s Secretary/Treasurer, Philip Worcester, sent formal correspondence informing the Petitioner of the failure to submit a proposal and providing an additional thirty days to do so before facing penalties.

III. Petitioner’s Core Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Trezza, presented several arguments to invalidate the HDCA’s enforcement action:

• Invalidity of the 2017 CC&Rs Vote: Mr. Trezza claimed the 2017 vote that adopted the current CC&Rs was improper.

◦ He argued the ballot was defective under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide a place to vote “no.”

◦ He contended that Section 21(m), the setback rule, was not “redlined” in the proposed document sent to homeowners, implying it was not a change and therefore not properly adopted.

• Invalidity of the 1993 Amendment: The language of Section 21(m) originated in a 1993 Amendment. Mr. Trezza argued this amendment was also passed via an invalid vote. He claimed the statute of limitations had not expired on challenging it, as he only became aware of the 1993 Amendment during the course of the present dispute.

• Conflict with Pima County Code: Mr. Trezza testified that the 10-foot setback is incorrect under Pima County code, which he stated requires a zero-foot setback. He argued the HDCA Board had misinterpreted zoning requirements in 1993.

• Selective Enforcement: Mr. Trezza asserted that he was not treated fairly, claiming other HDCA members who had failed to obtain prior approval for projects were later granted it.

• Unreasonable Withholding of Approval: The Petitioner argued that the HDCA’s approval was unreasonably withheld because the carport was not unattractive, did not devalue community property, and did not violate county code.

IV. Respondent’s (HDCA) Position and Testimony

The HDCA countered each of the Petitioner’s claims through legal arguments and witness testimony:

• Validity of the CC&Rs: Ms. Briggs, counsel for the HDCA, argued that the 2017 vote was valid pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817, the statute governing planned communities. This statute requires only an “affirmative vote or written consent,” which was obtained. She asserted that the “redlining” argument was irrelevant because the entire CC&Rs document was presented to homeowners for a vote, and they could have rejected it if they disagreed with any provision, changed or not. This rendered the challenge to the 1993 amendment moot.

• Absence of Discrimination:

◦ HDCA President Brad Johns testified that the denial was based solely on the 10-foot setback violation, not the failure to obtain prior approval.

◦ He stated that the Board had successfully worked with other homeowners who failed to seek prior approval, but Mr. Trezza’s case was different because it involved a stand-alone structure rather than an addition.

◦ Both Mr. Johns and Secretary/Treasurer Philip Worcester testified that they had not known or interacted with Mr. Trezza prior to this issue, negating any claim of personal bias.

• Fair Process and Opportunity to Cure: Mr. Worcester testified that he complied with multiple document requests from Mr. Trezza and offered on at least two occasions for Mr. Trezza to accompany him to the association’s storage facility, an offer that was not accepted. The Board provided a 30-day window for the Petitioner to submit a formal proposal to resolve the issue.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s arguments and found the HDCA’s position to be supported by law and evidence.

1. The CC&Rs Contain Legally Enforceable Setback Language:

◦ The Judge concluded that the 2017 CC&Rs vote was proper. The Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 (corporate voting) was “unfounded.” The correct and controlling statute is A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) (planned community voting), which only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent.”

◦ The argument that Section 21(m) was not “redlined” was deemed “not persuasive,” as the entire proposed document was provided to members, who voted to accept the CC&Rs as written.

◦ An HOA may require different, and more restrictive, setback requirements than a municipality. Therefore, the Pima County code does not override the CC&Rs.

2. The Petitioner is Bound by the CC&Rs:

◦ The Judge found the argument regarding the 1993 Amendment and the statute of limitations “unpersuasive.” Upon purchasing the property, the Petitioner became bound by the CC&Rs in existence at that time, “whether he read them or not.”

3. No Selective Enforcement Occurred:

◦ Evidence showed that the Board “routinely allowed homeowners to provide a chance to cure their failure to obtain prior approval.”

◦ Testimony from Mr. Johns and Mr. Worcester clearly established that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but the substantive setback violation. The Petitioner was offered the same opportunity to cure the problem as others but chose not to.

4. The Cost of Compliance is Reasonable:

◦ The Judge concluded that it is reasonable to compel the Petitioner to comply with the setback requirement, regardless of the cost. The decision states: “it brought the additional expenses upon itself for failure to obtain prior approval.” By not seeking approval beforehand, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the financial burden of a remedy.

VI. Final Order and Implications

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on November 18, 2020:

• The Petition filed by the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust is denied on all issues.

• The Respondent, Haciendas Del Conde Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

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

The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020045-REL


Study Guide: Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust and the Haciendas Del Conde Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions to encourage deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific provision of the community’s governing documents was at the center of the dispute?

3. What structure did the Petitioner build, and what two key approvals were initially neglected?

4. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the 2017 vote on the CCRs was improper?

5. How did the Petitioner challenge the validity of the original 1993 Amendment concerning the setback?

6. What was the Respondent’s reasoning for denying the carport application, separate from the failure to get prior approval?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between the two Arizona statutes cited regarding voting procedures?

8. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim of selective enforcement?

9. Why did the ALJ rule that it was reasonable to force the Petitioner to bear the cost of moving the carport?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq. The Respondent was the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), a Homeowners Association represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

2. The dispute centered on the Haciendas Del Conde Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Section 21(m). This section mandates a ten-foot setback from any side or back property line for structures on specific lots.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Trezza, designed and built a carport in August 2019. He failed to obtain prior approval from the HOA’s Board and also failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

4. The Petitioner argued that the ballot used for the 2017 vote was defective under A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide an option to vote “no.” He contended this made the entire vote improper and the resulting CCRs invalid.

5. The Petitioner argued that the 1993 Amendment, which first introduced the 10-foot setback, was itself based on an invalid vote. He also argued that because this language was not “redlined” as a change in the 2017 CCRs, homeowners were not properly notified of its adoption.

6. Brad Johns, President of the HDCA, testified that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but specifically because the carport violated the 10-foot setback requirement outlined in Section 21(m) of the CCRs.

7. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 was unfounded because it applies to corporation voting. The judge determined that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), which governs planned community voting and only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent,” was the controlling statute.

8. The ALJ concluded there was no selective enforcement. Evidence showed that the Board routinely worked with other homeowners who failed to get prior approval, and that Mr. Trezza was not discriminated against but was given an opportunity to cure the problem.

9. The ALJ reasoned that by failing to seek prior approval before construction, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the expenses required to remedy the situation. Therefore, it was reasonable to make the Petitioner comply with the CCRs, regardless of the cost.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be denied on all issues. The judge further ordered that the Respondent (Haciendas Del Conde Association) be deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the case document.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the 1993 Amendment and the 2017 CCRs. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find these arguments, including the “redlining” and statute of limitations claims, to be unpersuasive?

2. Discuss the concept of “selective enforcement” as an affirmative defense in this case. What evidence did the Petitioner and Respondent present on this issue, and how did the judge ultimately rule?

3. Examine the legal distinction made between A.R.S. § 10-3708 and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). Explain how this distinction was critical to the judge’s conclusion about the validity of the 2017 CCRs and the enforceability of Section 21(m).

4. Evaluate the significance of the Petitioner’s failure to obtain prior Board and Pima County approval for the carport. How did this action impact the judge’s ruling, particularly concerning the reasonableness of the enforcement costs and the allegation of unfair treatment?

5. Compare and contrast the testimony presented by the Petitioner’s side (Steven Trezza, Phil Rosenberg) with the testimony from the Respondent’s side (Brad Johns, Philip Worcester). How did their differing accounts shape the central issues of the hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, in this case, for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments presented by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the petitioner’s claim. In this case, “selective enforcement” was an affirmative defense.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules and regulations that govern a planned community or subdivision, which property owners agree to abide by upon purchasing property.

Easement

A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose. The Petitioner unsuccessfully argued for an easement for the carport under Section 33 of the CCRs.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Haciendas Del Conde Association is the HOA in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, it was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is more likely true than not. The Petitioner bore this burden to prove their claims.

Redlined

A method of marking a document to show additions, deletions, or changes, typically by underlining new text and striking through deleted text. The Petitioner argued a lack of redlining was misleading.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, it was the Haciendas Del Conde Association.

Setback

The minimum required distance that a building or other structure must be located from a property line, street, or other feature. The dispute centered on a 10-foot setback requirement.

Statute of Limitations

A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. The Petitioner argued the statute of limitations had not run for challenging the 1993 Amendment.

Trustee

An individual or entity that holds and administers property or assets for the benefit of a third party. Steven Trezza, Esq. appeared as Trustee for the Petitioner.

Variance

An officially granted exception to zoning ordinances or CCRs. The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a variance for the carport.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020045-REL



📔

20F-H2020045-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (Respondent). This Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute arose because the Petitioner constructed a carport without prior approval, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s), specifically a ten-foot setback requirement in Section 21(m). The Petitioner argued that the setback language was unenforceable due to flawed voting procedures in both 1993 and 2017 when the CCR’s were adopted, and also claimed selective enforcement. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the CCR’s were legally enforceable and properly adopted, concluding that the Petitioner must comply with the setback rule, and denied all issues raised in the petition.



Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Stephen Trezza (Trustee)
    Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust
    Appeared for Petitioner; Testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Philip Rosenberg (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Sharon Briggs (HOA attorney)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
  • Brad Johns (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    President of HDCA; Testified for Respondent
  • Philip Worcester (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    Secretary/Treasurer of HDCA; Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Order transmitted electronically to

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust Counsel —
Respondent Haciendas Del Conde Association Counsel Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition on all issues, concluding that the CCRs contained legally enforceable setback language (Section 21(m)) properly passed in 2017 under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). The ALJ rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding improper voting procedures, statute of limitations, and selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Petitioner asserted that the HOA violated CCR 21(m) by improperly adopting the 2017 CCRs and sought resolution on whether the setback language was enforceable, whether forcing Petitioner to move the carport was reasonable, whether selective enforcement was applied, and whether an easement existed. The ALJ concluded the CCRs were valid and enforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), rejected the selective enforcement claim, and denied the petition.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 837850.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:55 (132.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020045-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Trezza Irrevocable Trust vs. Haciendas Del Conde Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA/Respondent). The ALJ denied the Petitioner’s petition on all issues, finding in favor of the HDCA and deeming it the prevailing party.

The core of the dispute was a carport constructed by the Petitioner in August 2019 without prior approval from the HDCA and in violation of a 10-foot property line setback requirement detailed in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CC&Rs, alleged selective enforcement by the HDCA, and argued the setback rule was unreasonable.

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions:

• The HDCA’s 2017 CC&Rs, including the 10-foot setback rule in Section 21(m), were properly adopted and are legally enforceable. The Petitioner’s challenge to the voting procedure was unfounded, as it incorrectly cited corporate voting law instead of the statute governing planned communities.

• The HOA has the right to enforce rules that are more restrictive than municipal codes, rendering the Pima County code’s zero-foot setback irrelevant.

• There was no evidence of selective enforcement. The HDCA’s denial was based on the substantive setback violation, not the procedural failure to obtain prior approval, and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to cure the issue.

• The Petitioner is solely responsible for any financial burden associated with bringing the carport into compliance, as the situation was created by the failure to seek prior approval before construction.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

• Case Number: 20F-H2020045-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone

• Date of Decision: November 18, 2020

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq.

◦ Respondent: Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

• Central Issue: The legal enforceability of the HDCA’s CC&Rs, specifically Section 21(m), which prohibits the construction of structures within ten feet of any side or back property line for specified lots. The Petitioner sought relief after the HDCA denied approval for a carport built in violation of this rule.

II. Factual Background

Steven Trezza, trustee for the Petitioner, testified that he has resided at the property for approximately 14 years. In August 2019, he designed and built a carport on the property. Crucially, he admitted to the following:

• He had not read the community’s CC&Rs prior to the HDCA’s denial of his application.

• He failed to obtain prior approval from the HDCA Board for the carport’s construction.

• He failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

The HDCA Board President, Brad Johns, testified that he first noticed the carport construction in late August 2019 and placed architectural approval forms on the Petitioner’s door. Johns clarified that the eventual denial was not based on the failure to obtain prior approval but on the substantive violation of the 10-foot setback rule.

On November 14, 2019, the HDCA’s Secretary/Treasurer, Philip Worcester, sent formal correspondence informing the Petitioner of the failure to submit a proposal and providing an additional thirty days to do so before facing penalties.

III. Petitioner’s Core Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Trezza, presented several arguments to invalidate the HDCA’s enforcement action:

• Invalidity of the 2017 CC&Rs Vote: Mr. Trezza claimed the 2017 vote that adopted the current CC&Rs was improper.

◦ He argued the ballot was defective under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide a place to vote “no.”

◦ He contended that Section 21(m), the setback rule, was not “redlined” in the proposed document sent to homeowners, implying it was not a change and therefore not properly adopted.

• Invalidity of the 1993 Amendment: The language of Section 21(m) originated in a 1993 Amendment. Mr. Trezza argued this amendment was also passed via an invalid vote. He claimed the statute of limitations had not expired on challenging it, as he only became aware of the 1993 Amendment during the course of the present dispute.

• Conflict with Pima County Code: Mr. Trezza testified that the 10-foot setback is incorrect under Pima County code, which he stated requires a zero-foot setback. He argued the HDCA Board had misinterpreted zoning requirements in 1993.

• Selective Enforcement: Mr. Trezza asserted that he was not treated fairly, claiming other HDCA members who had failed to obtain prior approval for projects were later granted it.

• Unreasonable Withholding of Approval: The Petitioner argued that the HDCA’s approval was unreasonably withheld because the carport was not unattractive, did not devalue community property, and did not violate county code.

IV. Respondent’s (HDCA) Position and Testimony

The HDCA countered each of the Petitioner’s claims through legal arguments and witness testimony:

• Validity of the CC&Rs: Ms. Briggs, counsel for the HDCA, argued that the 2017 vote was valid pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817, the statute governing planned communities. This statute requires only an “affirmative vote or written consent,” which was obtained. She asserted that the “redlining” argument was irrelevant because the entire CC&Rs document was presented to homeowners for a vote, and they could have rejected it if they disagreed with any provision, changed or not. This rendered the challenge to the 1993 amendment moot.

• Absence of Discrimination:

◦ HDCA President Brad Johns testified that the denial was based solely on the 10-foot setback violation, not the failure to obtain prior approval.

◦ He stated that the Board had successfully worked with other homeowners who failed to seek prior approval, but Mr. Trezza’s case was different because it involved a stand-alone structure rather than an addition.

◦ Both Mr. Johns and Secretary/Treasurer Philip Worcester testified that they had not known or interacted with Mr. Trezza prior to this issue, negating any claim of personal bias.

• Fair Process and Opportunity to Cure: Mr. Worcester testified that he complied with multiple document requests from Mr. Trezza and offered on at least two occasions for Mr. Trezza to accompany him to the association’s storage facility, an offer that was not accepted. The Board provided a 30-day window for the Petitioner to submit a formal proposal to resolve the issue.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s arguments and found the HDCA’s position to be supported by law and evidence.

1. The CC&Rs Contain Legally Enforceable Setback Language:

◦ The Judge concluded that the 2017 CC&Rs vote was proper. The Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 (corporate voting) was “unfounded.” The correct and controlling statute is A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) (planned community voting), which only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent.”

◦ The argument that Section 21(m) was not “redlined” was deemed “not persuasive,” as the entire proposed document was provided to members, who voted to accept the CC&Rs as written.

◦ An HOA may require different, and more restrictive, setback requirements than a municipality. Therefore, the Pima County code does not override the CC&Rs.

2. The Petitioner is Bound by the CC&Rs:

◦ The Judge found the argument regarding the 1993 Amendment and the statute of limitations “unpersuasive.” Upon purchasing the property, the Petitioner became bound by the CC&Rs in existence at that time, “whether he read them or not.”

3. No Selective Enforcement Occurred:

◦ Evidence showed that the Board “routinely allowed homeowners to provide a chance to cure their failure to obtain prior approval.”

◦ Testimony from Mr. Johns and Mr. Worcester clearly established that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but the substantive setback violation. The Petitioner was offered the same opportunity to cure the problem as others but chose not to.

4. The Cost of Compliance is Reasonable:

◦ The Judge concluded that it is reasonable to compel the Petitioner to comply with the setback requirement, regardless of the cost. The decision states: “it brought the additional expenses upon itself for failure to obtain prior approval.” By not seeking approval beforehand, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the financial burden of a remedy.

VI. Final Order and Implications

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on November 18, 2020:

• The Petition filed by the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust is denied on all issues.

• The Respondent, Haciendas Del Conde Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

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

The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020045-REL


Study Guide: Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust and the Haciendas Del Conde Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions to encourage deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific provision of the community’s governing documents was at the center of the dispute?

3. What structure did the Petitioner build, and what two key approvals were initially neglected?

4. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the 2017 vote on the CCRs was improper?

5. How did the Petitioner challenge the validity of the original 1993 Amendment concerning the setback?

6. What was the Respondent’s reasoning for denying the carport application, separate from the failure to get prior approval?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between the two Arizona statutes cited regarding voting procedures?

8. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim of selective enforcement?

9. Why did the ALJ rule that it was reasonable to force the Petitioner to bear the cost of moving the carport?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq. The Respondent was the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), a Homeowners Association represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

2. The dispute centered on the Haciendas Del Conde Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Section 21(m). This section mandates a ten-foot setback from any side or back property line for structures on specific lots.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Trezza, designed and built a carport in August 2019. He failed to obtain prior approval from the HOA’s Board and also failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

4. The Petitioner argued that the ballot used for the 2017 vote was defective under A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide an option to vote “no.” He contended this made the entire vote improper and the resulting CCRs invalid.

5. The Petitioner argued that the 1993 Amendment, which first introduced the 10-foot setback, was itself based on an invalid vote. He also argued that because this language was not “redlined” as a change in the 2017 CCRs, homeowners were not properly notified of its adoption.

6. Brad Johns, President of the HDCA, testified that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but specifically because the carport violated the 10-foot setback requirement outlined in Section 21(m) of the CCRs.

7. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 was unfounded because it applies to corporation voting. The judge determined that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), which governs planned community voting and only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent,” was the controlling statute.

8. The ALJ concluded there was no selective enforcement. Evidence showed that the Board routinely worked with other homeowners who failed to get prior approval, and that Mr. Trezza was not discriminated against but was given an opportunity to cure the problem.

9. The ALJ reasoned that by failing to seek prior approval before construction, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the expenses required to remedy the situation. Therefore, it was reasonable to make the Petitioner comply with the CCRs, regardless of the cost.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be denied on all issues. The judge further ordered that the Respondent (Haciendas Del Conde Association) be deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the case document.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the 1993 Amendment and the 2017 CCRs. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find these arguments, including the “redlining” and statute of limitations claims, to be unpersuasive?

2. Discuss the concept of “selective enforcement” as an affirmative defense in this case. What evidence did the Petitioner and Respondent present on this issue, and how did the judge ultimately rule?

3. Examine the legal distinction made between A.R.S. § 10-3708 and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). Explain how this distinction was critical to the judge’s conclusion about the validity of the 2017 CCRs and the enforceability of Section 21(m).

4. Evaluate the significance of the Petitioner’s failure to obtain prior Board and Pima County approval for the carport. How did this action impact the judge’s ruling, particularly concerning the reasonableness of the enforcement costs and the allegation of unfair treatment?

5. Compare and contrast the testimony presented by the Petitioner’s side (Steven Trezza, Phil Rosenberg) with the testimony from the Respondent’s side (Brad Johns, Philip Worcester). How did their differing accounts shape the central issues of the hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, in this case, for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments presented by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the petitioner’s claim. In this case, “selective enforcement” was an affirmative defense.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules and regulations that govern a planned community or subdivision, which property owners agree to abide by upon purchasing property.

Easement

A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose. The Petitioner unsuccessfully argued for an easement for the carport under Section 33 of the CCRs.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Haciendas Del Conde Association is the HOA in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, it was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is more likely true than not. The Petitioner bore this burden to prove their claims.

Redlined

A method of marking a document to show additions, deletions, or changes, typically by underlining new text and striking through deleted text. The Petitioner argued a lack of redlining was misleading.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, it was the Haciendas Del Conde Association.

Setback

The minimum required distance that a building or other structure must be located from a property line, street, or other feature. The dispute centered on a 10-foot setback requirement.

Statute of Limitations

A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. The Petitioner argued the statute of limitations had not run for challenging the 1993 Amendment.

Trustee

An individual or entity that holds and administers property or assets for the benefit of a third party. Steven Trezza, Esq. appeared as Trustee for the Petitioner.

Variance

An officially granted exception to zoning ordinances or CCRs. The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a variance for the carport.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020045-REL



📔

20F-H2020045-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (Respondent). This Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute arose because the Petitioner constructed a carport without prior approval, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s), specifically a ten-foot setback requirement in Section 21(m). The Petitioner argued that the setback language was unenforceable due to flawed voting procedures in both 1993 and 2017 when the CCR’s were adopted, and also claimed selective enforcement. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the CCR’s were legally enforceable and properly adopted, concluding that the Petitioner must comply with the setback rule, and denied all issues raised in the petition.



Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Stephen Trezza (Trustee)
    Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust
    Appeared for Petitioner; Testified on behalf of Petitioner
  • Philip Rosenberg (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Sharon Briggs (HOA attorney)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
  • Brad Johns (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    President of HDCA; Testified for Respondent
  • Philip Worcester (board member)
    Haciendas Del Conde Association
    Secretary/Treasurer of HDCA; Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Order transmitted electronically to

Douglas J Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-05-21
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas J. Karolak Counsel —
Respondent VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association Counsel David Fitzgibbons

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1); CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the community documents by improperly recording Amended CC&Rs without proper owner consent. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. However, the ALJ could not grant the requested relief (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) due to a lack of statutory authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation regarding the validity of Amended CC&Rs due to lack of required owner approval.

The Petitioner alleged that the Amended CC&Rs recorded by the Board were invalid because they were not approved by two-thirds (2/3) of the lot owners as required by the CC&Rs and statute. The ALJ agreed, finding the Board acted improperly and violated the documents and statute.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00. No civil penalty was assessed. The ALJ determined she lacked the statutory authority to order the rescission of the Amended CC&Rs requested by the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
  • CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Amendment, Board Authority, Filing Fee Refund, Partial Win
Additional Citations:

  • 20F-H2020041-REL
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020041-REL Decision – 792824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:22 (102.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020041-REL


Briefing Document: Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL). The central issue was whether the HOA Board had the authority to unilaterally amend and record changes to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) without the required homeowner vote.

The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, successfully argued that the HOA violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law by filing “Amended CC&Rs” on October 5, 2018, without securing the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners. The HOA contended its actions were a valid exercise of its authority to create “Association Rules.”

ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner. The decision established a clear legal distinction between the Board’s power to adopt rules and the separate, more stringent process required to formally amend the CC&Rs. The judge found the Board acted improperly, declaring Karolak the prevailing party and ordering the HOA to reimburse his $500 filing fee. Notably, while the judge found the amended document was improperly recorded, she concluded she lacked the statutory authority to order its rescission, which was the remedy the petitioner had requested.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020041-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

May 1, 2020

Decision Date

May 21, 2020

The Central Dispute

The core of the dispute revolved around the legitimacy of a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs), which the HOA Board recorded with the Pinal County Recorder on October 5, 2018.

• Petitioner’s Position (Douglas J. Karolak): The Amended CC&Rs are invalid because they were not approved by “owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots,” a requirement explicitly stated in Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs and supported by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1). Karolak argued that the Board’s action of recording an amendment is fundamentally different from its power to adopt internal “Association Rules.”

• Respondent’s Position (VVE – Casa Grande HOA): The Board argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the authority granted to it under the CC&Rs. It claimed that because the only changes were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), they fell under the Board’s power to “adopt, amend, or repeal such rules and regulations as it deems reasonable and appropriate” (Section 3.4) and to “modify or waive the foregoing restrictions… by reasonable rules and regulations” (Section 7.43). The Respondent’s counsel did, however, concede that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

Factual Background and Chronology

• The VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association is a 56-lot community in Casa Grande, Arizona, with 19 lots remaining vacant at the time of the hearing.

• April 30, 1999: The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” (CC&Rs) was recorded.

• 2014 and 2015: The HOA Board made unsuccessful attempts to amend the CC&Rs through membership votes.

• 2018: Following the failed votes, the Board determined it would make changes to the “rules section” of the CC&Rs under the authority it believed was granted by Section 3.4.

• October 5, 2018: The Board recorded the Amended CC&Rs with the Pinal County Recorder. The HOA acknowledged that these amendments had not been approved by the required two-thirds of lot owners.

Legal Analysis and Key Provisions

The decision rested on the interpretation of specific sections of the community’s CC&Rs and Arizona state law. The judge concluded that the document’s structure clearly separates the process of rulemaking from the process of formal amendment.

Provision

Source

Summary of Stipulation

Amendment Process

CC&Rs Section 10.4

Requires an instrument “executed by the Owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots” and recorded to become effective.

Rulemaking Authority

CC&Rs Section 3.4

Empowers the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” governing the use of the property. States rules have the “same force and effect as if they were set forth in” the CC&Rs.

Statutory Requirement

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

Provides that a declaration may be amended by the association via an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

The judge’s rationale emphasized that the distinct sections for rulemaking (3.4) and amendments (10.4) demonstrate that the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the power to unilaterally amend the CC&Rs. The judge stated, “The fact that the two topics are covered as separate topics in the CC&Rs leads to the conclusion that the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

The Court’s Decision and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, had successfully proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent HOA had acted improperly.

Key Findings:

• The HOA Board did not have the authority to amend the CC&Rs without the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners.

• The Board’s action of recording the Amended CC&Rs on October 5, 2018, was a violation of the community’s governing documents (Section 10.4) and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)).

• The Board’s ability to create “Association Rules” is a separate and distinct process from the formal procedure required to amend the Declaration.

Final Order:

• The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, was deemed the prevailing party.

• The respondent HOA was ordered to pay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.

• No civil penalty was found to be appropriate in the matter.

• Critically, the judge determined that under the applicable statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02), the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded, despite this being the remedy requested by the petitioner.

The order is binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020041-REL


Study Guide: Karolak v. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL).

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was the petitioner’s core allegation?

2. What specific statute and section of the community documents did the petitioner claim the respondent violated?

3. According to Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs, what was the required procedure for amending the Declaration?

4. Under what authority did the VVE – Casa Grande HOA Board claim it could make changes to the community documents without a membership vote?

5. What key event occurred on or about October 5, 2018, that became the central point of the dispute?

6. What was the respondent’s primary argument for why their actions were valid?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and which party bears the burden of proof to establish a violation?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” was a separate process from amending the CC&Rs?

9. What remedy did the petitioner request, and why was it not granted by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. What was the final order issued by the Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Douglas J. Karolak, a homeowner. The respondent was the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association. Karolak’s core allegation was that the HOA had improperly amended the community’s governing documents.

2. The petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1817(A)(1). He also claimed a violation of Part 10, Section 10.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. Section 10.4 of the CC&Rs stipulated that the Declaration could be amended by an instrument executed by the owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the lots. The amendment would not be effective until that instrument was officially recorded.

4. The HOA Board claimed it had the authority to make the changes under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs. This section empowered the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” as it deemed reasonable and appropriate.

5. On or about October 5, 2018, the Board recorded a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs) with the Pinal County Recorder. This was done without the required two-thirds vote from the lot owners.

6. The respondent argued that because the only changes made were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), which fell under the type of rules the Board was authorized to adopt, the Amended CC&Rs were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority. Their counsel did acknowledge, however, that perhaps the document should not have been recorded.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the respondent committed the alleged violations by this standard.

8. The Judge concluded they were separate processes because the CC&Rs cover the topics in different sections. This separation led the Judge to believe the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the authority to amend the CC&Rs on its own.

9. The petitioner requested that the improperly recorded Amended CC&Rs be rescinded. This remedy was not granted because the applicable statute, A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, does not give the Administrative Law Judge the specific authority to order a document rescinded.

10. The final order deemed the petitioner the prevailing party. It further ordered the respondent to repay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days, but found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, using only the information presented in the legal decision.

1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” under Section 3.4 and the process for amending the Declaration under Section 10.4. Why was this distinction critical to the case’s outcome?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. How did the petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violation, and what specific facts supported this conclusion?

3. Examine the respondent’s (HOA’s) argument regarding its authority to amend the CC&Rs. What were the fundamental flaws in this argument, and how did their counsel’s acknowledgment about the recording of the Amended CC&Rs potentially weaken their position?

4. Explain the legal framework governing this dispute, citing the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the decision. Detail the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge in resolving this type of HOA conflict.

5. Evaluate the final Order of the Administrative Law Judge. While the petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, why was their requested remedy (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) denied? What does this reveal about the specific limits of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority in such cases under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Office of Administrative Hearings made the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and issued the final order.

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the petitioner. It states that a declaration may be amended by the association with an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

Amended CC&Rs

The document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates,” which the HOA Board recorded on October 5, 2018, without the required two-thirds owner approval.

Association Rules

Rules and regulations that the HOA Board is empowered to adopt, amend, or repeal under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs to govern the use of Common Areas and other parts of the Project. The Board argued their changes fell under this authority.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents for a planned community. The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” was recorded on April 30, 1999.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the petitioner filed his Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, an association of 56 lot owners in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The office responsible for conducting hearings for disputes filed with state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowner Douglas J. Karolak.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020041-REL


Your HOA Just Changed the Rules? Why This Homeowner’s $500 Victory is a Warning to Everyone

For millions of Americans, living in a planned community means living under the authority of a Homeowners Association (HOA). While intended to protect property values, these relationships can often feel one-sided, with boards issuing mandates and homeowners feeling powerless to push back. It’s a common frustration, but it’s rare to see a single homeowner challenge their board and force a legal reckoning.

A recent case from Arizona, Douglas J. Karolak versus the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, provides a critical case study in board overreach and the surprising limits of legal victory. Karolak alleged his HOA board violated its own governing documents and state law by improperly changing the community’s core rules.

He took his case to an administrative law judge and, in a significant ruling, he won. But the outcome of this seemingly straightforward dispute was far from simple. The final decision reveals a shocking twist that holds critical lessons for every homeowner about the difference between being right on paper and getting the remedy you actually want.

There’s a Huge Difference Between a ‘Rule Change’ and a ‘Declaration Amendment’

The first lesson from this case is a critical one for every homeowner: understand the constitutional hierarchy of your community’s documents. The core of the dispute was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its foundational document, the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), without getting the required approval from the homeowners.

Here are the key facts of the case:

• The Original Rule: The community’s CC&Rs explicitly stated in Section 10.4 that any amendment required a vote and execution by “at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots.” This is the highest level of authority in a planned community, akin to a constitution.

• The Failed Attempts: The Board had tried to get this two-thirds vote in both 2014 and 2015, but was unsuccessful.

• The Workaround: In 2018, the Board decided to bypass the homeowners. It used a separate power granted in Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs—the authority to create day-to-day “Association Rules”—to make what it called changes to the “‘rules section’ of the CC&Rs, specifically targeting the Use Restrictions in Part 7.”

The judge’s conclusion was crystal clear: The CC&Rs were drafted to treat the power to create “rules” and the power to “amend” the declaration as two entirely separate processes. This separation acts as a crucial check on the board’s power, preventing a small group from unilaterally changing the fundamental property rights of all owners. As the judge noted, “the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

Recording a Document Doesn’t Magically Make It Valid

To make their changes appear official, the HOA Board took a significant step. On October 5, 2018, they filed a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates (Amended CC&Rs)” with the Pinal County Recorder.

For the average homeowner, a formally recorded document filed with the county looks final, official, and legally binding. It’s an intimidating piece of paper that suggests any challenge would be futile.

However, the judge’s ruling highlights a critical legal truth: procedural legitimacy is paramount. An official-looking document, even one filed with the county, is invalid if the legal process required to create it was ignored. The judge found that because the Board did not follow the correct internal procedure—securing the two-thirds vote from homeowners—the very act of recording the document was improper. Even the HOA’s own lawyer seemed to concede this point during the hearing, acknowledging that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

The Winner’s Paradox: You Can Be Right and Still Not Get Your Desired Fix

The final order from the Administrative Law Judge was unambiguous: Douglas Karolak, the petitioner, was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge concluded that the HOA had acted in violation of its own community documents and Arizona state law. This was a clear-cut victory for the homeowner.

But here is the shocking twist. Karolak’s requested remedy was for the illegally filed “Amended CC&Rs” to be rescinded—in other words, to have them officially nullified and removed. This seems like the logical and necessary fix to the problem.

The judge, however, was bound by the limits of her authority. The final decision states plainly: “The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded.” This highlights a critical jurisdictional gap. The Administrative Law Judge’s role in this venue is to determine if a violation occurred and assign limited penalties, not to perform the function of a higher court, which might have the power to void a recorded document.

So, what was the actual remedy for this clear violation? The judge ordered the HOA to repay Karolak his $500 filing fee. No other civil penalty was issued. The homeowner won the argument but did not get the one thing he asked for to correct the board’s improper action.

A Victory on Paper, A Question in Practice

The case of Douglas J. Karolak is a powerful real-world lesson. It proves that a single homeowner, armed with a thorough understanding of their community’s governing documents, can successfully challenge an overreaching HOA board and win. It confirms that procedural shortcuts, even when filed and recorded, do not make an illegal action legal.

But it also reveals the frustrating limitations that can exist within the legal process. The homeowner was proven right, but the improperly filed document remains on the books, unable to be rescinded in this specific venue. It raises a crucial question for homeowners everywhere: How do you ensure your victory has real teeth?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas J. Karolak (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • David A. Fitzgibbons III (HOA attorney)
    Fitzgibbons Law Offices PLC
    Represented VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • CV Mathai (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • John Kelsey (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Kristi Kelsey (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • William Findley (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Kay Niemi (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Mark Korte (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Felicia Del Sol (property manager rep)
    Norris Management

Neutral Parties

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

Douglas J Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-05-21
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas J. Karolak Counsel —
Respondent VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association Counsel David Fitzgibbons

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1); CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the community documents by improperly recording Amended CC&Rs without proper owner consent. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. However, the ALJ could not grant the requested relief (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) due to a lack of statutory authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation regarding the validity of Amended CC&Rs due to lack of required owner approval.

The Petitioner alleged that the Amended CC&Rs recorded by the Board were invalid because they were not approved by two-thirds (2/3) of the lot owners as required by the CC&Rs and statute. The ALJ agreed, finding the Board acted improperly and violated the documents and statute.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee of $500.00. No civil penalty was assessed. The ALJ determined she lacked the statutory authority to order the rescission of the Amended CC&Rs requested by the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
  • CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Amendment, Board Authority, Filing Fee Refund, Partial Win
Additional Citations:

  • 20F-H2020041-REL
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817
  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • CC&Rs Part 10, Section 10.4

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020041-REL Decision – 792824.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:49 (102.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020041-REL


Briefing Document: Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL). The central issue was whether the HOA Board had the authority to unilaterally amend and record changes to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) without the required homeowner vote.

The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, successfully argued that the HOA violated its own governing documents and Arizona state law by filing “Amended CC&Rs” on October 5, 2018, without securing the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners. The HOA contended its actions were a valid exercise of its authority to create “Association Rules.”

ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer ruled decisively in favor of the petitioner. The decision established a clear legal distinction between the Board’s power to adopt rules and the separate, more stringent process required to formally amend the CC&Rs. The judge found the Board acted improperly, declaring Karolak the prevailing party and ordering the HOA to reimburse his $500 filing fee. Notably, while the judge found the amended document was improperly recorded, she concluded she lacked the statutory authority to order its rescission, which was the remedy the petitioner had requested.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020041-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

May 1, 2020

Decision Date

May 21, 2020

The Central Dispute

The core of the dispute revolved around the legitimacy of a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs), which the HOA Board recorded with the Pinal County Recorder on October 5, 2018.

• Petitioner’s Position (Douglas J. Karolak): The Amended CC&Rs are invalid because they were not approved by “owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots,” a requirement explicitly stated in Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs and supported by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1). Karolak argued that the Board’s action of recording an amendment is fundamentally different from its power to adopt internal “Association Rules.”

• Respondent’s Position (VVE – Casa Grande HOA): The Board argued that its actions were a valid exercise of the authority granted to it under the CC&Rs. It claimed that because the only changes were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), they fell under the Board’s power to “adopt, amend, or repeal such rules and regulations as it deems reasonable and appropriate” (Section 3.4) and to “modify or waive the foregoing restrictions… by reasonable rules and regulations” (Section 7.43). The Respondent’s counsel did, however, concede that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

Factual Background and Chronology

• The VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association is a 56-lot community in Casa Grande, Arizona, with 19 lots remaining vacant at the time of the hearing.

• April 30, 1999: The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” (CC&Rs) was recorded.

• 2014 and 2015: The HOA Board made unsuccessful attempts to amend the CC&Rs through membership votes.

• 2018: Following the failed votes, the Board determined it would make changes to the “rules section” of the CC&Rs under the authority it believed was granted by Section 3.4.

• October 5, 2018: The Board recorded the Amended CC&Rs with the Pinal County Recorder. The HOA acknowledged that these amendments had not been approved by the required two-thirds of lot owners.

Legal Analysis and Key Provisions

The decision rested on the interpretation of specific sections of the community’s CC&Rs and Arizona state law. The judge concluded that the document’s structure clearly separates the process of rulemaking from the process of formal amendment.

Provision

Source

Summary of Stipulation

Amendment Process

CC&Rs Section 10.4

Requires an instrument “executed by the Owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots” and recorded to become effective.

Rulemaking Authority

CC&Rs Section 3.4

Empowers the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” governing the use of the property. States rules have the “same force and effect as if they were set forth in” the CC&Rs.

Statutory Requirement

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

Provides that a declaration may be amended by the association via an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

The judge’s rationale emphasized that the distinct sections for rulemaking (3.4) and amendments (10.4) demonstrate that the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the power to unilaterally amend the CC&Rs. The judge stated, “The fact that the two topics are covered as separate topics in the CC&Rs leads to the conclusion that the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

The Court’s Decision and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, had successfully proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent HOA had acted improperly.

Key Findings:

• The HOA Board did not have the authority to amend the CC&Rs without the approval of two-thirds of the lot owners.

• The Board’s action of recording the Amended CC&Rs on October 5, 2018, was a violation of the community’s governing documents (Section 10.4) and Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)).

• The Board’s ability to create “Association Rules” is a separate and distinct process from the formal procedure required to amend the Declaration.

Final Order:

• The petitioner, Douglas J. Karolak, was deemed the prevailing party.

• The respondent HOA was ordered to pay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order.

• No civil penalty was found to be appropriate in the matter.

• Critically, the judge determined that under the applicable statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02), the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded, despite this being the remedy requested by the petitioner.

The order is binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020041-REL


Study Guide: Karolak v. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and outcomes of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Douglas J. Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association (No. 20F-H2020041-REL).

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was the petitioner’s core allegation?

2. What specific statute and section of the community documents did the petitioner claim the respondent violated?

3. According to Section 10.4 of the original CC&Rs, what was the required procedure for amending the Declaration?

4. Under what authority did the VVE – Casa Grande HOA Board claim it could make changes to the community documents without a membership vote?

5. What key event occurred on or about October 5, 2018, that became the central point of the dispute?

6. What was the respondent’s primary argument for why their actions were valid?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and which party bears the burden of proof to establish a violation?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” was a separate process from amending the CC&Rs?

9. What remedy did the petitioner request, and why was it not granted by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. What was the final order issued by the Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Douglas J. Karolak, a homeowner. The respondent was the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association. Karolak’s core allegation was that the HOA had improperly amended the community’s governing documents.

2. The petitioner alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1817(A)(1). He also claimed a violation of Part 10, Section 10.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. Section 10.4 of the CC&Rs stipulated that the Declaration could be amended by an instrument executed by the owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the lots. The amendment would not be effective until that instrument was officially recorded.

4. The HOA Board claimed it had the authority to make the changes under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs. This section empowered the Board to adopt, amend, or repeal “Association Rules” as it deemed reasonable and appropriate.

5. On or about October 5, 2018, the Board recorded a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates” (Amended CC&Rs) with the Pinal County Recorder. This was done without the required two-thirds vote from the lot owners.

6. The respondent argued that because the only changes made were to Part 7 (Use Restrictions), which fell under the type of rules the Board was authorized to adopt, the Amended CC&Rs were a valid exercise of the Board’s authority. Their counsel did acknowledge, however, that perhaps the document should not have been recorded.

7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the respondent committed the alleged violations by this standard.

8. The Judge concluded they were separate processes because the CC&Rs cover the topics in different sections. This separation led the Judge to believe the original drafters did not intend for the Board to have the authority to amend the CC&Rs on its own.

9. The petitioner requested that the improperly recorded Amended CC&Rs be rescinded. This remedy was not granted because the applicable statute, A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, does not give the Administrative Law Judge the specific authority to order a document rescinded.

10. The final order deemed the petitioner the prevailing party. It further ordered the respondent to repay the petitioner his $500.00 filing fee within thirty days, but found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, using only the information presented in the legal decision.

1. Analyze the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between the Board’s authority to create “Association Rules” under Section 3.4 and the process for amending the Declaration under Section 10.4. Why was this distinction critical to the case’s outcome?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. How did the petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violation, and what specific facts supported this conclusion?

3. Examine the respondent’s (HOA’s) argument regarding its authority to amend the CC&Rs. What were the fundamental flaws in this argument, and how did their counsel’s acknowledgment about the recording of the Amended CC&Rs potentially weaken their position?

4. Explain the legal framework governing this dispute, citing the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the decision. Detail the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge in resolving this type of HOA conflict.

5. Evaluate the final Order of the Administrative Law Judge. While the petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, why was their requested remedy (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) denied? What does this reveal about the specific limits of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority in such cases under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Office of Administrative Hearings made the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and issued the final order.

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the petitioner. It states that a declaration may be amended by the association with an affirmative vote or written consent of the number of owners specified in the declaration.

Amended CC&Rs

The document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates,” which the HOA Board recorded on October 5, 2018, without the required two-thirds owner approval.

Association Rules

Rules and regulations that the HOA Board is empowered to adopt, amend, or repeal under Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs to govern the use of Common Areas and other parts of the Project. The Board argued their changes fell under this authority.

Burden of Proof

The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the respondent’s violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents for a planned community. The original “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for VVE” was recorded on April 30, 1999.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the petitioner filed his Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, an association of 56 lot owners in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The office responsible for conducting hearings for disputes filed with state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowner Douglas J. Karolak.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020041-REL


Your HOA Just Changed the Rules? Why This Homeowner’s $500 Victory is a Warning to Everyone

For millions of Americans, living in a planned community means living under the authority of a Homeowners Association (HOA). While intended to protect property values, these relationships can often feel one-sided, with boards issuing mandates and homeowners feeling powerless to push back. It’s a common frustration, but it’s rare to see a single homeowner challenge their board and force a legal reckoning.

A recent case from Arizona, Douglas J. Karolak versus the VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association, provides a critical case study in board overreach and the surprising limits of legal victory. Karolak alleged his HOA board violated its own governing documents and state law by improperly changing the community’s core rules.

He took his case to an administrative law judge and, in a significant ruling, he won. But the outcome of this seemingly straightforward dispute was far from simple. The final decision reveals a shocking twist that holds critical lessons for every homeowner about the difference between being right on paper and getting the remedy you actually want.

There’s a Huge Difference Between a ‘Rule Change’ and a ‘Declaration Amendment’

The first lesson from this case is a critical one for every homeowner: understand the constitutional hierarchy of your community’s documents. The core of the dispute was the HOA Board’s attempt to amend its foundational document, the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), without getting the required approval from the homeowners.

Here are the key facts of the case:

• The Original Rule: The community’s CC&Rs explicitly stated in Section 10.4 that any amendment required a vote and execution by “at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Lots.” This is the highest level of authority in a planned community, akin to a constitution.

• The Failed Attempts: The Board had tried to get this two-thirds vote in both 2014 and 2015, but was unsuccessful.

• The Workaround: In 2018, the Board decided to bypass the homeowners. It used a separate power granted in Section 3.4 of the CC&Rs—the authority to create day-to-day “Association Rules”—to make what it called changes to the “‘rules section’ of the CC&Rs, specifically targeting the Use Restrictions in Part 7.”

The judge’s conclusion was crystal clear: The CC&Rs were drafted to treat the power to create “rules” and the power to “amend” the declaration as two entirely separate processes. This separation acts as a crucial check on the board’s power, preventing a small group from unilaterally changing the fundamental property rights of all owners. As the judge noted, “the original drafters of the CC&Rs did not contemplate that the Board had the authority to, on its own, amend the CC&Rs.”

Recording a Document Doesn’t Magically Make It Valid

To make their changes appear official, the HOA Board took a significant step. On October 5, 2018, they filed a document titled “Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Val Vista Estates (Amended CC&Rs)” with the Pinal County Recorder.

For the average homeowner, a formally recorded document filed with the county looks final, official, and legally binding. It’s an intimidating piece of paper that suggests any challenge would be futile.

However, the judge’s ruling highlights a critical legal truth: procedural legitimacy is paramount. An official-looking document, even one filed with the county, is invalid if the legal process required to create it was ignored. The judge found that because the Board did not follow the correct internal procedure—securing the two-thirds vote from homeowners—the very act of recording the document was improper. Even the HOA’s own lawyer seemed to concede this point during the hearing, acknowledging that “perhaps the Amended CC&Rs should not have been recorded.”

The Winner’s Paradox: You Can Be Right and Still Not Get Your Desired Fix

The final order from the Administrative Law Judge was unambiguous: Douglas Karolak, the petitioner, was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge concluded that the HOA had acted in violation of its own community documents and Arizona state law. This was a clear-cut victory for the homeowner.

But here is the shocking twist. Karolak’s requested remedy was for the illegally filed “Amended CC&Rs” to be rescinded—in other words, to have them officially nullified and removed. This seems like the logical and necessary fix to the problem.

The judge, however, was bound by the limits of her authority. The final decision states plainly: “The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order the Amended CC&Rs rescinded.” This highlights a critical jurisdictional gap. The Administrative Law Judge’s role in this venue is to determine if a violation occurred and assign limited penalties, not to perform the function of a higher court, which might have the power to void a recorded document.

So, what was the actual remedy for this clear violation? The judge ordered the HOA to repay Karolak his $500 filing fee. No other civil penalty was issued. The homeowner won the argument but did not get the one thing he asked for to correct the board’s improper action.

A Victory on Paper, A Question in Practice

The case of Douglas J. Karolak is a powerful real-world lesson. It proves that a single homeowner, armed with a thorough understanding of their community’s governing documents, can successfully challenge an overreaching HOA board and win. It confirms that procedural shortcuts, even when filed and recorded, do not make an illegal action legal.

But it also reveals the frustrating limitations that can exist within the legal process. The homeowner was proven right, but the improperly filed document remains on the books, unable to be rescinded in this specific venue. It raises a crucial question for homeowners everywhere: How do you ensure your victory has real teeth?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas J. Karolak (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • David A. Fitzgibbons III (HOA attorney)
    Fitzgibbons Law Offices PLC
    Represented VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • CV Mathai (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • John Kelsey (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Kristi Kelsey (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • William Findley (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Kay Niemi (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Mark Korte (witness)
    VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association
  • Felicia Del Sol (property manager rep)
    Norris Management

Neutral Parties

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

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 loss
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)

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

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 loss
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 2025-10-09T03:34:41 (191.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2019020-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “20F-H2019020-REL”,
“case_title”: “Rick and Lisa Holly, Petitioners, vs. La Barranca II Homeowners Association, Respondent.”,
“decision_date”: “February 14, 2020”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Rick Holly”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Lisa Holly”,
“role”: “petitioner”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “La Barranca II Homeowners Association Member”,
“notes”: “Also referred to as Mrs. Holly”
},
{
“name”: “La Barranca II Homeowners Association”,
“role”: “respondent”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “HOA party”
},
{
“name”: “Kevin P. Nelson”,
“role”: “petitioner attorney”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Tiffany & Bosco”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Edward D. O\u2019Brien”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Alexia Firehawk”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Diane Mihalsky”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “OAH”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “William Bohan”,
“role”: “HOA board member/ARC member/witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “La Barranca II Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Board Vice President”
},
{
“name”: “Nancy Williams”,
“role”: “HOA board member/ARC member”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “La Barranca II Homeowners Association”,
“notes”: “Board Secretary”
},
{
“name”: “Brian Bracken”,
“role”: “witness/contractor’s principal”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Brilar Homes, LLC”,
“notes”: “Petitioners’ general contractor”
},
{
“name”: “Larry E. Smith”,
“role”: “witness/contractor’s principal”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: “Brilar Homes, LLC”,
“notes”: “Petitioners’ general contractor”
},
{
“name”: “Luke Hyde”,
“role”: “property manager staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hoamco”,
“notes”: “Architectural Department Manager”
},
{
“name”: “Josh Hall”,
“role”: “property manager staff”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hoamco”,
“notes”: “Architectural Department Staff”
},
{
“name”: “Neil True”,
“role”: “architect consultant”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hoamco/ARC Consultant”,
“notes”: “Consultant architect reviewing plans”
},
{
“name”: “John Davis”,
“role”: “fire marshall”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Sedona District Fire Marshall”,
“notes”: “Consulted by HOA regarding dumpster placement”
},
{
“name”: “Judy Lowe”,
“role”: “ADRE Commissioner”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: null
}
]
}


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

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 partial
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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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 Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


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 – 17F-H1716019-REL


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.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716019-REL


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

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 partial
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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:11 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:12 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


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.


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 partial
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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:23 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:24 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


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.


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 partial
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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 551057.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:13 (83.7 KB)

17F-H1716019-REL Decision – 559875.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:13 (794.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1716019-REL


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 – 17F-H1716019-REL


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.






Blog Post – 17F-H1716019-REL


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