Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Posted on October 29, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H070-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-10-29
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Sally Magana	Counsel	—
Respondent	Wynstone Park Homeowners Association	Counsel	Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
CC&Rs Section 7.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's two-issue petition. The OAH lacked jurisdiction over the alleged violation of the City of Mesa Code Ordinance (parking/nuisance). On the CC&R violation claim (mischaracterizing maintenance), Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 7.1, as the evidence established that Petitioner made unapproved changes/alterations to the driveway extension.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the municipal code violation claim.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA assessed a fine for public nuisances for parking on approved driveway extension

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Mesa City Ordinance by fining her for parking on her approved driveway extension. The extension approval dated back to 1998 and 2018.

Orders: Petition dismissed. The OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on alleged violations of City of Mesa Code Ordinances.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1803

HOA mischaracterizing maintenance as an unauthorized modification

Petitioner claimed the work performed (lifting pavers, replacing sand with gravel/decomposed granite, and altering slope) was routine maintenance. Respondent argued this constituted an exterior change or alteration requiring prior written architectural approval, which Petitioner failed to obtain.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent violated CC&Rs 7.1. Evidence showed Petitioner made changes to the surface under the pavers and the slope of the driveway extension without prior approval.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 7.1
CC&Rs Section 10.1
Powell v. Washburn
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Architectural Review, Maintenance vs Modification, Jurisdiction, Mesa Code Ordinance, Pavers, Driveway Extension

Additional Citations:

Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I – 8-6-3(T)
CC&Rs Section 7.1
CC&Rs Section 10.1
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1350920.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:35 (50.9 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1352025.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:40 (48.7 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1355826.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:45 (59.1 KB)

25F-H070-REL Decision – 1363586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:50 (144.5 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H070-REL

Briefing Document: Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in case number 25F-H070-REL, Sally Magana v. Wynstone Park Homeowners Association. The petitioner, Sally Magana, filed a two-issue petition alleging the Homeowners Association (HOA) improperly fined her for a public nuisance related to parking and mischaracterized necessary property maintenance as an unauthorized architectural modification.

The respondent, Wynstone Park HOA, countered that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over the alleged city ordinance violation and that the work performed by the petitioner was, in fact, an unapproved “alteration” under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HOA maintained its enforcement actions were authorized and appropriate.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s case in its entirety. The decision was based on two key findings: 1) The OAH does not have the jurisdiction to rule on violations of a municipal (City of Mesa) ordinance, and 2) The petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that the HOA violated its own governing documents. The ALJ concluded that the work performed—which included removing the original paver base, installing a new gravel surface, and altering the slope of the driveway—constituted a “change or alteration” requiring prior approval under CC&R Section 7.1, which the petitioner did not obtain.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Sally Magana (Homeowner)

Respondent

Wynstone Park Homeowners Association (HOA)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Case Number

25F-H070-REL

Hearing Date

October 9, 2025

Decision Date

October 29, 2025

Timeline of Key Events

July 3, 2019

HOA granted a variance allowing Ms. Magana to park anywhere on her driveway extension.

Feb 26, 2021

HOA sent a notice to Ms. Magana for parking past the garage, citing nuisance under CC&R Section 8.4.

Jan 27, 2025

Ms. Magana submitted a Design Review Application to modify drainage under her paver extension.

Feb 11, 2025

HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disapproved the application, citing the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from a neighbor.

March 12, 2025

The HOA Board met with Ms. Magana at her property to discuss the matter.

May/June 2025

Ms. Magana proceeded with work on the pavers without ARC approval.

June 2, 2025

HOA issued a courtesy notice for an unapproved architectural change under CC&R Section 7.1.

June 11, 2025

HOA issued a Violation Notice with a $25 fine for the unapproved change.

July 14, 2025

HOA issued a second Violation Notice with a $50 fine.

July 17, 2025

Ms. Magana filed her petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Oct 29, 2025

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments

Ms. Magana’s case was centered on two primary allegations:

1. Violation of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The petitioner alleged the HOA violated “Title 8, Chapter 6, Article I, 8-6-3: PUBLIC NUISANCES PROHIBITED” of the City of Mesa code by fining her for parking on her driveway extension. She argued that the extension was approved in 1998 and reaffirmed by an HOA variance in 2019, making the fine improper.

2. Violation of CC&R Section 7.1 (Architectural Approval): The petitioner contended that the HOA mischaracterized routine maintenance as an “unauthorized modification.” She argued the work was necessary to correct a drainage issue causing water pooling against her foundation and creating a risk of termites. Her position was that since no new pavers were installed and the layout was not changed, the work did not constitute an architectural change requiring ARC approval. She also raised the issue of selective enforcement, providing photos of other homes with alleged violations that had not been cited.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

The HOA’s defense, presented by attorney Ashley Turner and Board President Andrew Hancock, rested on the following points:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The HOA argued that the OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the association violated a City of Mesa ordinance, and that this issue should be dismissed on that basis alone.

2. The Work Was an “Alteration,” Not “Maintenance”: The HOA asserted that the work performed went beyond simple maintenance. Testimony revealed that the original play sand base was removed, a new decomposed granite base was installed, and the grade of the surface was altered to change the slope and water flow. The HOA considered these actions a “change or alteration” as defined in CC&R Section 7.1, which explicitly requires prior written approval from the ARC.

3. Proper Denial and Enforcement: The HOA’s denial of Ms. Magana’s initial application was based on established Design Guidelines, specifically that the total parking area “may not exceed… fifty percent (50%) of the lot width.” The denial also cited ongoing nuisance complaints from a neighbor regarding noise and access issues caused by vehicles parked on the extension. The subsequent fines were issued in accordance with the HOA’s enforcement policy after Ms. Magana completed the work without approval.

4. Authority to Enforce: The HOA cited CC&R Section 10.1, which grants it the right to enforce all covenants and restrictions in the governing documents.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Witness Testimony

• Rita Elizalde (Petitioner’s Witness; Owner, JLE Heartscape and Design):

◦ Testified that the initial proposal, which included drains, was not executed due to the HOA’s denial.

◦ Characterized the work performed as “a maintenance on what you already had” to correct sinking pavers and water pooling against the foundation.

◦ Confirmed that the previous installer had used an improper “play sand base,” which her company removed.

◦ Stated they installed a new base of “decomposite granite,” replaced the original pavers in the same design, and added polymeric sand to lock them in.

◦ Confirmed the ground “had to be sloped back a little bit” to ensure water ran toward the street and not toward the neighbor’s property or the house foundation.

• Andrew Hancock (Respondent’s Witness; HOA Board President):

◦ Testified that the board considered the work a “change to the design of the pavers” because it addressed slope and drainage issues, which is more than basic maintenance.

◦ Stated that the board denied the initial application due to the 50% lot coverage rule and nuisance complaints from the neighbor, which included “the sound of the vehicle’s wake child” and the car blocking the neighbor’s access for taking out trash cans.

◦ Clarified that the board offered Ms. Magana two potential compromises: stopping the pavers at the garage line or bringing her fence/gate forward to be in line with the garage.

◦ Testified that photos of the work in progress (Exhibit G) showed all pavers removed and the base grading “manipulated.” He also noted what appeared to be new PVC piping.

◦ Referencing a photo of the pre-maintenance water pooling (Exhibit E), he testified that it showed water flowing “over the end border into the gravel and the neighbor’s yard.”

Key Exhibits

Exhibit #

Description & Significance

Respondent

The HOA’s CC&Rs, establishing the rules for architectural approval (Sec 7.1) and enforcement (Sec 10.1).

Respondent

Ms. Magana’s initial Design Review Application (denied) and a photo showing significant water pooling on the pavers and onto the neighboring lot.

Petitioner

Before and after photos of the paver extension, intended to show no visual change in design.

Respondent

Photos taken during the project showing all pavers removed, piled up, and the underlying base exposed and re-graded.

H, I, K

Respondent

The series of enforcement letters: Courtesy Notice (June 2), $25 Fine (June 11), and $50 Fine (July 14) for the unapproved alteration.

Petitioner

The HOA’s Design Guidelines, which include the 50% lot width limitation for parking areas.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision dismissed Ms. Magana’s petition. The ruling was grounded in the following conclusions of law:

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Municipal Ordinance: The ALJ determined that “The OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a planned community organization has violated a City of Mesa Code Ordinance.” This effectively dismissed the first issue of the petition without ruling on its merits.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: For the second issue, the ALJ found that the petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated its CC&Rs and failed to do so. The decision noted:

◦ CC&R Section 7.1 regulates homeowners, requiring them to obtain prior approval for any “exterior addition, change, or alteration.”

◦ The preponderance of evidence, including testimony from the petitioner’s own witness (Ms. Elizalde), showed that changes were made to the surface under the pavers and to the slope of the driveway.

◦ These actions constitute an “alteration” under the CC&Rs.

◦ Because Ms. Magana made these changes without prior approval, she did not establish that the HOA mischaracterized her actions or violated Section 7.1.

• HOA’s Authority to Enforce: The decision affirmed that CC&R Section 10.1 authorizes the respondent to enforce its governing documents.

The final order concluded: “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to establish that Respondent violated Respondent’s CC&Rs, governing document, or any statutes that regulate planned communities. Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed.”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sally Magana (petitioner)
Also referred to as Complainant
Rita Elizalde (witness)
JLE Heartscape and Design
Also referred to as Rita Estelle
Jesus Ortiz (witness)
Adeline Escudero-Mendoza (witness)
Also referred to as Adeline Escudero

Respondent Side

Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law
Andrew Hancock (board president/witness)
Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
President of Respondent's Board
Jennifer Irving (board member)
Wynstone Park Homeowners Association
Vice President of the HOA Board
Dawn Feigert (property manager)
Trestle Management Group
Community Manager
Lea Austin (property manager)
Trestle Management Group
Community Manager

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Posted on July 5, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H043-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-07
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Keith A. Shadden	Counsel	—
Respondent	Las Brisas Community Association	Counsel	Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 5.10 & Article 5.12 of CC&Rs (Las Brisas Community Association)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA used incorrect CC&R sections for the violation concerning reflective material on garage door glass cutouts. The ALJ concluded that the plain meaning of "window" in CC&R Section 5.10 applies to any transparent opening and does not exclude garages.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by using incorrect sections for the violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts.

Key Issues & Findings

Allegation that Respondent is using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12.

Petitioner alleged the HOA misapplied CC&R Section 5.10 (Windows) to enforce a violation regarding reflective tint on garage door glass cutouts, asserting that Section 5.10 was not intended to cover garage doors as they are addressed under Section 5.12.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16
A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
A.R.S. § 33-1803
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Window Restriction, Garage Door, Reflective Material, Planned Communities Act, Burden of Proof, Violation Notice

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16
A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
A.R.S. § 33-1803
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Powell, 211 Ariz. at 557 ¶ 16, 125 P.3d at 377

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H043-REL Decision – 10_TAB H – Denial of Architectural Design hearing request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:34 (284.5 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 11_TAB I – Email concerning unable to attend hearing on Architectural Design with HOA Board.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:39 (517.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1298924.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:43 (219.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 12_TAB J – HOA Board denial Letter of Architectural Design appeal.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:47 (5.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1303564.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:51 (78.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312135.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:19:53 (77.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1312136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:00 (5991.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1314210.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:04 (45.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315443.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:08 (75.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1315444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:13 (200.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:19 (59.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1316554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:23 (8.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317444.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:27 (74.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:32 (241.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317647.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:36 (254.0 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1317648.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:39 (1112.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325514.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:43 (71.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325661.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:47 (88.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1325928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:51 (17.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 13_TAB K – Email for HOA Board consideration before rendering Architectural Design Appeal Decision.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:20:56 (1963.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 14_TAB L – Email to Community Manager with Owner Building Option List for window blinds.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:00 (162.2 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 15_Table of Content.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:04 (56.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 1_Homeowner Association HOA Dispute Process Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:09 (2571.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 2_Statement of Facts and Argument.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:14 (93.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 3_TAB A – Home Build option sheet.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:19 (391.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 4_TAB B – Violation notification from HOA.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:24 (446.9 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 5_TAB C – Hearing Request and communication with Community Manager.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:29 (472.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 6_TAB D – Las Brisas.3.Declaration of Covenants Conditions Restrictions.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:33 (175.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 7_TAB E – HOA Board Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:36 (5.3 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 8_TAB F – Architectural Design Request.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:40 (13.8 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – 9_TAB G – Architectural Design Request Response Letter.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:45 (60.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Answer – Las Brisas (1).pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:50 (226.4 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Arizona Corporation Commission.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:54 (149.1 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Filing Fee Receipt.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:21:58 (92.7 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:02 (235.6 KB)

25F-H043-REL Decision – Notice of Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:22:06 (496.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H043-REL

Briefing Document: Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association, Case No. 25F-H043-REL

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between homeowner Keith A. Shadden (Petitioner) and the Las Brisas Community Association (Respondent) concerning a violation for reflective material on garage door windows. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on whether the Association correctly applied its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

On July 7, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition. The judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Association had violated its governing documents.

The core of the dispute was Mr. Shadden’s allegation that the Association improperly used CC&R Section 5.10 (“Windows”) to cite him for reflective tint on his garage door’s glass cutouts. He argued that the garage door should be governed by Section 5.12 (“Garages and Driveways”). His primary evidence was that the original builder, Taylor Morrison, did not install window treatments on the garage door (a requirement of 5.10), implying the builder did not consider the cutouts to be “windows.”

The Association maintained that the plain language of the CC&Rs prohibits reflective materials on windows, that the glass cutouts are functionally windows, and that this rule is consistently enforced throughout the community. The Judge ultimately agreed with the Association’s interpretation, defining a “window” in its plain meaning as “any transparent opening through which light passes” and noting that Section 5.10 does not explicitly exclude garages.

Case Overview

Case Name

In the Matter of: Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association

Case Number

25F-H043-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

June 16, 2025

Decision Date

July 7, 2025

Petitioner

Keith A. Shadden (representing himself)

Respondent

Las Brisas Community Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq.

Core Dispute and Allegations

The central issue of the hearing, as defined in a June 5, 2025 order, was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent was “using incorrect CC&R section (5.10) to create violation for garage door glass cutouts which fall under section 5.12”.

The dispute originated from a violation notice issued to Mr. Shadden on August 19, 2024, for having reflective material on his garage door windows. Subsequent notices with escalating fines were issued on February 13, 2025 (25fine),March21,2025(50 fine), and April 23, 2025 ($100 fine).

Relevant Governing Documents

The case revolved around the interpretation of two specific sections of the Las Brisas Community Association CC&Rs.

Section

Full Text

Article 5.10

Windows

“Within ninety (90) days of occupancy of a Residential Unit each Owner shall install permanent suitable window treatments that are Visible from Neighboring Property. No reflective materials, including, but without limitation, aluminum foil, reflective screens or glass, mirrors or similar type items, shall be installed or placed upon the outside or inside of any windows.”

Article 5.12

Garages and Driveways

“The interior of all garages situated on any lot shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition. Garages shall be used only for the parking of Vehicles and the storage of normal household supplies and materials and shall not be used for or converted to living quarters or recreational activities after the initial construction thereof without the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. Garage doors shall be left open only as needed for ingress and egress.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

The evidentiary hearing was conducted virtually via Google Meet on June 16, 2025. Both parties presented arguments, testimony, and exhibits.

Petitioner’s Case (Keith A. Shadden)

Mr. Shadden argued that the Association’s application of Section 5.10 to his garage door was incorrect and unreasonable.

• Argument from Declarant’s Intent: Mr. Shadden testified that as the original homeowner, he paid the declarant, Taylor Morrison, nearly $1,600 for window treatments on all windows in the home. Because Taylor Morrison did not install any treatments on the garage door’s glass cutouts, he contended this showed the declarant’s intent that these cutouts were not to be considered “windows” under Section 5.10.

• Unreasonable Application: He argued that applying the entirety of Section 5.10, including the requirement for window treatments like blinds, to a garage door is an “unrealistic expectation for a homeowner.”

• Conflicting Communication: Mr. Shadden presented an email (Exhibit M) from the assistant community manager, K. White, which stated, “you do not have to install window treatment you can leave the windows without the treatments or you may install window treatments.” He argued this showed the Association itself did not apply the full scope of Section 5.10 to the garage.

• Testimony on “Window” Definition: Under cross-examination, Mr. Shadden offered several definitions of a window, including “something you look through.” He eventually conceded that the glass cutouts meet a common-sense understanding of a window but maintained his position based on the specific context of the CC&Rs.

Respondent’s Case (Las Brisas Community Association)

The Association, represented by Emily Cooper, Esq., with testimony from Community Manager Jamie Cryblskey, argued its actions were proper and consistent.

• Plain Language Interpretation: The Association asserted that the governing documents, including the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines, have “clear and plain language” that expressly prohibits reflective materials on windows.

• Consistent Enforcement: Ms. Cryblskey testified that the rule against reflective tint is enforced consistently across all 1,321 lots in the community. She noted that at the time of the hearing, one or two other homeowners had active violations for the same issue and were being treated in the same manner.

• Definition of “Window”: The Association argued that a “garage window is a window.” Ms. Cryblskey testified that she personally considers the glass inserts in a garage door to be windows.

• Adherence to Due Process: The Association outlined the procedural history, noting Mr. Shadden was provided a hearing before the Board of Directors on October 15, 2024. After his dispute was denied, he was required to submit an architectural application, which was also denied. His subsequent appeal of that denial was heard and denied by the board on December 17, 2024.

• Compliance Status: During opening statements, Ms. Cooper noted that Mr. Shadden had since installed a charcoal tint, which is permissible, rendering the petition moot. During testimony, Mr. Shadden stated he had applied black masking tape. Ms. Cryblskey confirmed that as of her last inspection on June 12, 2025, the reflective material was removed and the lot was in compliance.

Final Decision and Legal Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge issued a final decision on July 7, 2025, dismissing Mr. Shadden’s petition.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Shadden, bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its CC&Rs.

• Legal Interpretation: The judge’s central conclusion addressed the definition of “window.”

• Final Ruling: The judge found that Mr. Shadden failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

• Order: The recommended order stated, “IT IS ORDERED that Keith A. Shadden’s petition against Respondent Las Brisas Community Association is dismissed.” The decision is binding unless a party files for a rehearing within 30 days of the order.

Study Guide – 25F-H043-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H043-REL”, “case_title”: “Keith A. Shadden v. Las Brisas Community Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-07”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I file a petition against my HOA, who is responsible for proving the violation occurred?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filing the dispute must prove that the HOA violated the governing documents. It is not automatically the HOA’s job to prove they were right; the petitioner must first establish the violation.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence do I need to win a hearing against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “You need a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning your claim is more likely true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (like in criminal cases). It is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show that the homeowner’s argument is more probably true than the HOA’s.”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “legal standards”, “definitions” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA apply ‘Window’ restrictions (like tint bans) to glass cutouts in my garage door?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the cutouts function as windows (allow visibility) and the homeowner fails to prove the specific garage section overrides the window section.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ dismissed the homeowner’s claim that the HOA used the ‘incorrect’ CC&R section by applying window rules to garage door glass. The ALJ noted it was undisputed that one could see through the cutouts.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that there are glass door cut outs on Petitioner’s garage door. Petitioner admitted during hearing that a person can see through the glass door cut outs… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs when it issued its VIOLATION NOTICE.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Section 5.10 vs 5.12”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “garage doors”, “windows”, “interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to prove anything during the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA asserts any ‘affirmative defenses,’ they must prove them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner has the initial burden to prove the violation, if the HOA claims a specific legal defense justifies their actions, they carry the burden of proof for that specific defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “affirmative defense”, “burden of proof”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I argue that a restriction doesn’t apply because the builder didn’t install the item (like blinds) originally?”, “short_answer”: “That argument may fail if the text of the CC&Rs explicitly restricts the item in question.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner argued that because the builder didn’t put blinds on the garage door, the ‘Window’ section (requiring treatments and banning reflective tint) shouldn’t apply. The ALJ rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner contended that because Taylor Morrison did not place window treatment on the garage door cut outs, Taylor Morrison did intend for Section 5.10 of the CC&Rs to apply to garage doors… Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent used incorrect sections of the CC&Rs”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “builder intent”, “interpretation”, “architectural restrictions” ] }, { “question”: “What agency handles hearings regarding HOA disputes in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives petitions, which are heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).”, “detailed_answer”: “State law authorizes the Department of Real Estate to receive petitions from association members regarding violations of planned community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “The Arizona Department of Real Estate (hereinafter “the Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations… concerning violations of planned community documents”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “OAH” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H043-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Keith A. Shadden (petitioner)
Homeowner of Lot #1-175; appeared pro se
Donna M. Shadden (petitioner)
Co-owner of the property

Respondent Side

Emily E. Cooper (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Appeared at hearing
Kyle Banfield (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Attended hearing
Suzanne Hilborn (legal assistant)
CHDB Law LLP
Signed proofs of service
Jaime Cryblskey (property manager)
City Property Management Company
Community Manager; testified at hearing
Makayla White (property manager)
City Property Management Company
Community Assistant
Erica Golditch (property manager)
City Property Management Company
Observer at hearing
Lauren Nabulsi (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
President
Dakota Ball (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
Treasurer; asked question during October hearing
Terrance Thomas (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
Vice-President
Frank Grigsby (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
Secretary
Timothy J. Hansell (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
Director

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Gabe Osborn (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Filed Notice of Hearing
Vivian Nunez (agency staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
HOA Dispute Process
Chandni Bhakta (mediator)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ADRE Ombudsman

Other Participants

Barry Merklin (witness)
Taylor Morrison
Sales Associate listed on purchase agreement
Karla Paulsen (unknown)
Taylor Morrison
Authorized Officer listed on purchase agreement
G. Thomas Hennessy (board member)
Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
Declarant Vice President (2010)
Lynne M. Dugan (board member)
Taylor Morrison/Arizona, Inc.
Director (2010)
Leah Grogan (board member)
Las Brisas Community Association
Secretary/Treasurer (2010)
Amanda Shaw (unknown)
Las Brisas Community Association
Resigned Statutory Agent

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on June 2, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H030-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-06-02
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Sharon Maiden	Counsel	—
Respondent	Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws
Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) or selectively enforced Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws regarding term limits.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both issues. The closed board meeting was authorized for discussing legal advice, and the HOA's interpretation of the term limit provision aligned with the amendment's purpose to prevent Board members from serving long terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of Bylaws regarding term limits.

Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced the 2021 Bylaws amendment concerning term limits by retroactively applying the two-term limit to disqualify her 2024 candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Failure to hold an open meeting to decide candidacy disqualification.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated open meeting laws by holding a closed executive session vote on October 11, 2024, to disqualify her candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Term Limits, Open Meeting Law, Selective Enforcement, ADR

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
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)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272425.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:02 (57.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272426.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:06 (49.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:12 (60.5 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:15 (9.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1284492.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:19 (56.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288176.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:23 (60.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:27 (7.4 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1293820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:31 (41.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1313134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:35 (114.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H030-REL

Administrative Hearing Briefing:Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing case Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 25F-H030-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Sharon Maiden, a former board member, alleged that the association selectively enforced its bylaws to disqualify her from running for the board and violated Arizona’s open meeting laws by making this decision in a closed executive session.

The central conflict revolved around the interpretation of a 2021 bylaw amendment that shortened board member term limits. The petitioner argued for a prospective application, which would reset the term-limit clock for sitting board members, while the respondent association argued for an interpretation that counted prior service.

On June 2, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the association’s board acted within the bounds of Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)) by holding a closed session to consider legal advice. Furthermore, the judge found that the petitioner failed to prove a bylaw violation, reasoning that the association’s interpretation was consistent with the membership’s clear intent to shorten, not lengthen, the potential tenure of board members.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Name

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Case Number

25F-H030-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Petitioner

Sharon M. Maiden

Respondent

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Josh Bolen, Esq. (CHDB Law LLP)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Petition Allegations

The petition, filed by Sharon Maiden on December 15, 2024, asserted two primary violations by the Val Vista Lakes Community Association:

1. Selective Enforcement of Bylaws: An alleged violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws, stemming from the board’s decision to disqualify the petitioner from running for a board position in 2024 based on its interpretation of term limits.

2. Open Meeting Law Violation: An alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A), contending that the board failed to hold an open meeting when it made the binding decision to disqualify her candidacy.

Initially filed as a single-issue petition for which a $500 fee was paid, the OAH ordered on March 12, 2025, that the petitioner must either pay an additional $500 to pursue both issues or select one to proceed with at the hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History

• January 27, 2025: The Arizona Department of Real Estate refers the petition to the OAH for an administrative hearing.

• February 4, 2025: Respondent files a Motion to Strike the Petition, arguing the petitioner improperly disclosed attorney-client privileged communications.

• February 11, 2025: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn denies the Motion to Strike. The hearing is continued to March 26, 2025.

• March 26, 2025: The first day of the evidentiary hearing is conducted.

• April 11, 2025: A further hearing is conducted. At its conclusion, the record is held open to allow for post-hearing briefing.

• May 13, 2025: The post-hearing briefing period concludes, and the record is closed.

• June 2, 2025: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the final decision, denying the petition.

Central Dispute: Interpretation of Bylaw Term Limits

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of Article IV, Section 2 of the association’s bylaws, which was amended in 2021. The amendment’s purpose, as testified by multiple witnesses, was to shorten the length of time directors could serve on the board.

Evolution of the Bylaw

• 2012 Bylaws: Introduced term limits for the first time, establishing a maximum of three consecutive two-year terms (six years total), followed by a required one-year break.

• 2021 Bylaws: The membership approved a rewrite that reduced term limits to two consecutive elected two-year terms (four years total), followed by a required two-year break.

Both versions of the bylaw contained the following critical sentence: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.” The meaning of this sentence became the primary point of contention.

Competing Interpretations

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Position (Prospective Application)

The “Commencing with…” language resets the clock. Terms served before the 2021 amendment should not count toward the new, shorter limits. The association’s sudden shift to a retroactive interpretation was selective and targeted.

William Sutell (Former President): Testified the intent was to “reset the clock for everybody.” His 2022 newsletter stating his “term limit of four years is up” was “ineloquent” and meant to express he was tired of serving.
Douglas Keats (Former Board Member): Stated the intent of the rewrite was to “Go forward.”
Historical Precedent: The association, based on a 2016 legal opinion from Goodman Law Group, had allowed Director Cheryl McCoy to serve nine consecutive years despite the 2012 bylaw’s six-year limit.
Legal Opinions: An opinion from Krupnik & Speas in November 2023 stated the 2021 bylaws were prospective, not retroactive.

Respondent’s Position (Prior Service Counts)

The clear intent of the membership and the bylaw committee was to shorten terms. The petitioner’s interpretation creates a loophole allowing sitting board members to serve for 8 or more years, directly contradicting the amendment’s purpose.

Jill Brown (Bylaw Committee Chair): Testified the committee’s intent was to apply the new limits to sitting directors and there was no discussion of “grandfathering” anyone.
Bryan Patterson (Current President): Testified that the membership voted for two two-year terms “and that’s it.”
Sutell’s 2022 Newsletter: Presented as a direct admission from the former president that the four-year limit applied to him based on his service from 2018-2022.
Drafting Logic: The “Commencing with…” clause is a standard legal provision to prevent a new rule from invalidating a board member’s current term, not to erase their entire service history.

Central Dispute: Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation

The second major issue concerned the board’s decision-making process. On October 11, 2024, the board held a closed executive session where it voted 5-4 to accept the legal opinion of its counsel (CHDB Law) and disqualify Ms. Maiden from the ballot.

Competing Arguments

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Argument (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))

The vote to disqualify a candidate was a final, binding decision that must be made in an open meeting. The closed session was not justified under the narrow exceptions of the statute.

Improper Notice: The meeting notice cited the incorrect statute (for condominiums, not planned communities) and was not properly distributed to all board members.
Lack of Statutory Justification: No attorney was present at the meeting, and there was no pending litigation at that specific moment. The agenda item was to “accept opinion,” not simply “receive advice.”

Respondent’s Argument (Compliance with Law)

The executive session was permissible under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows closed meetings for the “consideration of… Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association” and matters concerning “pending or contemplated litigation.”

Contemplated Litigation: Testimony indicated that Ms. Maiden had threatened to file an ADR complaint or lawsuit.
Consideration of Legal Advice: The board was reviewing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility.
Petitioner’s Participation: Ms. Maiden was present at the meeting, participated in the vote, and did not object to the session being held in private at that time.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ denied Ms. Maiden’s petition on both counts, finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling on the Open Meeting Law

The ALJ concluded that the board did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

• Key Rationale: The evidence demonstrated that the board met in executive session “to consider a legal opinion regarding the 2021 Amendment.” This action falls squarely within the statutory exception outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

• On Disclosure: The statute permits, but does not require, the board to disclose information from such a session after a “final resolution.” As the matter was still being litigated, no final resolution had been reached.

Ruling on the Bylaw Violation

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Article IV of its bylaws.

• Key Rationale: The judge focused on the underlying purpose of the 2021 amendment, which testimony from both sides confirmed was to “prevent Board members from serving for long periods of time.”

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Interpretation: The decision noted that the petitioner, along with her witnesses, admitted that their interpretation “would have allowed the then-sitting Board Members the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” The ALJ found this outcome would be contrary to the amendment’s purpose.

• Jurisdictional Note: The decision explicitly stated that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” The ruling was based on the interpretation of the bylaw’s text and intent, not on whether it was applied unevenly.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that Respondent’s Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 or Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.”

Study Guide – 25F-H030-REL

Administrative Hearing Study Guide: Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.

1. What were the two primary legal issues Sharon Maiden raised in her petition against the Val Vista Lakes Community Association?

2. What was the key phrase in the 2021 bylaws that became the central point of interpretive conflict regarding term limits?

3. According to the hearing testimony, what were the main purposes of the 2021 bylaw committee’s rewrite of the association’s bylaws?

4. Explain the Respondent’s justification for holding a closed executive session on October 11, 2024, to decide on Sharon Maiden’s eligibility.

5. How did the legal opinions from the Goodman Law Group (Ashley Turner) and Krupnik & Spees (Adrien Speed) support the Petitioner’s case?

6. Describe the key piece of evidence the Respondent used involving former board president William (Bill) Sutell to argue against a prospective interpretation of the term limits.

7. What decision did the Board of Directors make during the October 11, 2024, executive session, and what was the final vote count?

8. What procedural issue did Petitioner Douglas Keats identify with the notice for the October 11, 2024, executive session?

9. According to witness Jill Brown, what was the general intent of the bylaw committee and community members regarding the length of board service?

10. What were the final conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the June 2, 2025, decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Petitioner Sharon Maiden alleged that the Respondent (1) selectively enforced the Bylaws in violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3, and (2) failed to hold an open meeting when it decided to disqualify her from running for the Board, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A).

2. The central point of conflict was the phrase in Article IV, Section 2: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits…” The Petitioner argued this indicated a prospective “reset,” while the Respondent argued it did not erase prior service.

3. Testimony from witnesses like Douglas Keats and William Sutell indicated the rewrite was intended to address multiple issues, not just term limits. Key purposes included establishing secret ballots, eliminating the nominating committee which was seen as counter to the CCNRs, and creating a formal procedure for replacing board members based on vote counts rather than board appointments.

4. The Respondent justified the closed session under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows for closed meetings to consider legal advice from an attorney. The board was discussing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility and also noted that Ms. Maiden had contemplated legal action against the association.

5. The Petitioner argued that these opinions demonstrated a consistent historical interpretation by the association’s own general counsels. Both opinions stated that the term limit language in the 2012 and 2021 bylaws should be interpreted prospectively, meaning terms served prior to the adoption of the new bylaws did not count toward the new limits.

6. The Respondent heavily relied on a November 2022 newsletter message from then-president Bill Sutell. In it, Mr. Sutell stated, “This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up,” which the Respondent argued was an admission that the term limits were not reset by the 2021 bylaw amendment.

7. The Board of Directors voted to accept the opinion of CHDB Law LLP regarding term limits, which effectively disqualified Sharon Maiden from running in the 2024 election. The motion passed with a vote of 5 to 4.

8. Douglas Keats testified that the email notice for the executive session was not sent to him or two other board members (Christine Rucker and Curtis Weile) at their correct addresses, while it was sent to a former board member. He also noted the notice cited an incorrect statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248 for condominiums) instead of the one for planned communities.

9. Jill Brown, who chaired the bylaw committee, testified that the general consensus of the committee and community members was that they did not want directors serving for long periods. The intent was to shorten the available terms to encourage turnover and prevent directors from serving for “excessive amounts of time.”

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied Sharon Maiden’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the closed meeting to consider legal advice was permissible. Furthermore, the Judge found Maiden failed to prove a violation of the bylaws, stating the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent long service periods, and deemed the issue of selective enforcement to be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, synthesizing evidence and arguments from across the source documents. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent regarding the proper interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law). Discuss the specific actions taken by the board and how each party framed those actions in the context of the statute’s exceptions for closed sessions.

2. Compare and contrast the testimonies of William Sutell and Douglas Keats with that of Jill Brown. How did their recollections and interpretations of the bylaw committee’s intent differ, particularly concerning whether the new term limits should apply prospectively or retroactively to sitting board members?

3. Trace the evolution of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s bylaws regarding term limits from 2012 to 2021. Evaluate the arguments concerning “long-standing practice” and “selective enforcement,” referencing the specific cases of board members Cheryl McCoy, William Sutell, and Sharon Maiden.

4. Examine the role of conflicting legal advice in this dispute. Discuss the different opinions offered by the Goodman Law Group, Krupnik & Spees, and CHDB Law LLP, and analyze how the Board of Directors chose to navigate these contradictory recommendations.

5. The Administrative Law Judge’s final decision states that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” Based on the testimony and arguments presented, construct an argument that Sharon Maiden might have made regarding selective enforcement, and explain why the Respondent would have refuted it.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Kay A. Abramsohn and Velva Moses-Thompson served as ALJs.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions from members of homeowners’ associations. It referred this case to the OAH.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Key statutes in this case include § 33-1804(A) and § 32-2199.

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

The Arizona statute concerning open meeting laws for planned community associations. It mandates that meetings be open to members but provides specific, limited exceptions for closed (executive) sessions, such as to discuss legal advice.

Bolen, Josh

An attorney with CHDB Law LLP who served as counsel for the Respondent, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Brown, Jill

A witness for the Respondent. She served as the chair of the 2021 bylaw committee and was a current board member at the time of the hearing.

Bylaw Committee

A committee established by the board in 2021 to review and recommend changes to the association’s bylaws. Its members included Jill Brown, William Sutell, and Douglas Keats.

Carpenter Hazelwood (CHDB LAW LLP)

The law firm that represented the Respondent. The Petitioner filed an unsuccessful motion to disqualify the firm.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The governing documents for the community. The 2021 bylaw committee sought to address bylaw provisions that were counter to the CCNRs, such as the nominating committee.

Commencing with…

The key phrase in Article IV, Section 2 of the bylaws that was central to the dispute. The Petitioner argued it signaled a prospective application of term limits, while the Respondent disagreed.

Executive Session

A closed meeting of the Board of Directors, permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) for specific purposes, such as discussing legal advice or pending litigation.

Keats, Douglas

A witness for the Petitioner. He was a former board member who served as secretary of the 2021 bylaw committee.

Maiden, Sharon M.

The Petitioner in the case, a homeowner in Val Vista Lakes and a former member of its Board of Directors who was disqualified from running for a third consecutive term.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH / Tribunal)

The independent state agency that conducted the administrative hearing for this case after referral from the Department of Real Estate.

Patterson, Bryan

A witness for the Respondent. He was the HOA President at the time of the hearing and was Vice President when the vote to disqualify the Petitioner occurred.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Sharon M. Maiden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this administrative hearing, defined as evidence that is more likely true than not. The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

Prospective Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies only “going forward” from its effective date and does not consider service or actions that occurred prior to that date. This was the Petitioner’s central argument.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Retroactive Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies to past events, meaning prior service on the board would count against the newly established term limits. This was the Respondent’s position.

Sutell, William (Bill)

A witness for the Petitioner. He is an attorney, a former board president, and served on the 2021 bylaw committee.

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association (HOA) in Gilbert, Arizona.

Blog Post – 25F-H030-REL

5 Surprising Lessons from an HOA War Over a Single Sentence

Introduction: The Butterfly Effect of Bylaws

For many homeowners, the rules set by their homeowners’ association (HOA) can feel arbitrary, buried in dense legal documents. But the precise wording of those governing documents has massive, unforeseen consequences—a legal butterfly effect where a minor change creates a major storm. This dynamic was on full display in the case of Sharon Maiden vs. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, where one seemingly simple sentence sparked a complex, year-long legal dispute.

The case offers a masterclass in the tension between the technical reading of a text versus its clear, underlying intent. It provides surprising insights into law, community governance, and human nature. Here are five key lessons from this HOA war over a single sentence.

——————————————————————————–

1. One Sentence, Two Meanings, and a Mountain of Legal Bills

A 2021 bylaw amendment, designed to reduce board member term limits, lit the fuse for the central conflict. The entire dispute hinged on the interpretation of one introductory phrase, demonstrating just how much can ride on a few words.

The critical sentence from Article IV, Section 2 of the 2021 Bylaws reads:

“Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.”

This single sentence gave rise to two completely opposite interpretations:

• The “Reset” Theory (Petitioner’s view): Proponents argued this language meant the term limit clock reset for all sitting board members. Under this view, their prior years of service didn’t count toward the new, shorter limit. This interpretation seemed solid, even supported by a formal legal opinion from the association’s previous general counsel, attorney Adrien Spees.

• The “Look-Back” Theory (Respondent’s view): The association argued the phrase was merely a legal formality to prevent sitting members from being disqualified mid-term. They contended that a board member’s prior service absolutely still counted toward the new limit.

The fact that this ambiguity was enough to fuel a formal administrative hearing shows the high stakes of precise legal drafting. What’s truly surprising is how a standard legal phrase like “Commencing with…” could be interpreted so diametrically as to potentially erase years of board service from the term-limit calculation.

2. The Architect of the Rule Became Its Most Complicated Case

One of the most fascinating aspects of the case involved the testimony of Bill Sutell, the former Board President. Mr. Sutell was in charge when the 2021 bylaw changes were drafted and approved, and he testified in support of the “reset” theory, which would have allowed him and other members to serve longer.

However, the strongest piece of evidence used against his position came from his own hand. In a 2022 newsletter to the community, Mr. Sutell had written:

“This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up.”

When questioned, he explained the statement was “ineloquent.” He testified he was tired and had a “self-imposed term limit” because he “didn’t want to be a career board member.” This created a paradox where the rule’s architect argued for one interpretation in court while his own public statement seemed to support the opposing view. As community governance analysts, we see a crucial lesson here: for HOA volunteers, informal communications like a newsletter can be scrutinized with the same intensity as a legal document—a trap many well-meaning leaders are unprepared for.

3. Why a “Correct” Interpretation Can Still Be Wrong

The petitioner’s side came to the hearing with what seemed like very strong evidence. They had testimony about the bylaw committee’s intent and presented a formal legal opinion from attorney Adrien Spees that appeared to settle the matter:

“This amendment is prospective not retroactive. The Term limits only apply to directors elected beginning the first annual meeting following November 9th, 2021. Thus, a director who has served for several years before November 9th, 2021 will still be eligible to serve two consecutive terms after November 9th, 2021.”

This seems clear-cut. However, the argument that ultimately won focused not on what the words said, but on what they would do. The fatal blow to the “reset” theory came not from the respondent’s lawyers, but from the petitioner’s own key witnesses. During testimony, both Sutell and another witness, Douglas Keats, admitted that their interpretation would create a massive loophole, allowing sitting board members “the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” This admission was critical. The Administrative Law Judge rejected an interpretation—even one supported by a legal opinion—because it led to an “absurd result” that directly contradicted the stated purpose of the rule, which was to shorten term limits, not accidentally lengthen them for a select few.

4. The Peril of a Closed-Door Meeting

The second major issue was the claim that the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws. The vote to disqualify Sharon Maiden from the 2024 ballot was not taken in public. Instead, it happened during a closed executive session while she, a sitting board member, was present.

The board justified the closed-door meeting by stating they were discussing legal advice and contemplated litigation, a valid exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804. However, the ALJ’s final decision highlighted a crucial detail:

“Petitioner was a member of the Board at the time of the meeting and did not object to the Board voting on whether Article IV, Section 2 of Respondent’s Bylaws permitted Petitioner to run for the board…”

This offers a stark lesson. A person’s failure to object to a process in the moment can significantly weaken their ability to challenge it later. It’s easy to see why someone might stay silent: they may be intimidated, unsure of the rules, or simply not realize the procedural gravity of their silence. This surprising takeaway underscores that understanding the rules of order as they are happening is critical, because silence can be interpreted as consent.

5. The “Why” Trumped the “What”

The story concluded when the Administrative Law Judge denied the petitioner’s case on both counts. In the face of ambiguous text and competing legal opinions, the judge focused on the fundamental purpose of the 2021 bylaw amendment. The final decision stated:

“…the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing shows that the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent Board members for serving on the Board for long periods of time.”

In this legal gray area, the underlying intent—the “why” behind the rule—proved more powerful than the technical arguments about the “what.” The judge determined that an interpretation creating 10-year term limits could not possibly align with the members’ vote to prevent people from serving for long periods. The surprising lesson is that even when the text is debatable, the spirit of a rule can become the most decisive factor in its application.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What Your Rules Mean?

The Val Vista Lakes case is a powerful reminder that the words in bylaws are not just suggestions; they have real-world power to shape communities, define rights, and launch costly legal battles. Bylaws are “living documents” in the sense that they have a daily impact, but they are dangerously “dead documents” if members don’t understand them. The consequences are not just financial. At the hearing, former president Bill Sutell gave a poignant final statement explaining his departure from the community he had worked so hard to serve: “I sold my home that this was more than I needed in my retirement.”

This case is a cautionary tale about the human cost of ambiguity. It leaves every HOA member with a final, thought-provoking challenge: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and are you willing to actively question ambiguity and push for clarity before a conflict arises?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sharon M. Maiden (petitioner)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Former board member/candidate
William Sutel (witness)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Former board president; bylaw committee member
Douglas Keats (witness)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Board member; bylaw committee member; requested subpoena for him
Jeremy Whitaker (petitioner)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Filed ADR complaint

Respondent Side

Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel for Val Vista Lakes Community Association; requested subpoena for him
Jill Brown (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Bylaw committee chair; respondent witness
Bryan Patterson (board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Respondent witness; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
Chuck Oldham (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Mel McDonald (board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena; board member
Vicki Goslin (attorney staff)
CHDB Law LLP

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
OAH
Ashley Turner (attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Wrote 2016 legal opinion; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
Jessica Misto (attorney)
Provided legal review/opinion
Adrienne Speed (attorney)
Cartik and Speed
General counsel who wrote 2023 opinion

Other Participants

Diana Ebertshauser (witness)
Requested subpoena; candidate
Brodie Hurtado (witness)
Requested subpoena; candidate
Timothy Hedrick (witness)
Requested subpoena
Christine Rucker (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena
Curtis Weile (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena
Cheryl McCoy (former board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Brian Solomon (former board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Dustin Snow (former director)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Wendy Rhodess (bylaw committee member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Jonathan Everhouser (attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Bylaw committee member
Laura Henry (property manager)
First Service Residential
General Manager
Leslie Johnson (former director)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
John Walls (former board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Community member

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association,

Posted on February 20, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H021-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Deatta M. Pleasants	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.	Counsel	David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&Rs by the Association. The Association maintained the underground culverts in accordance with Navajo County approved plans, and the evidence established the culverts were functioning as intended. Flooding experienced by the Petitioner was expected due to the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during an exceptional storm (likely a 100-year event).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&R provision; the culverts were maintained and functioning as intended, and flooding was anticipated given the lot's location in a FEMA Floodway during the exceptional storm event.

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to repair or connect a culvert (common area), causing her lot located in a regulatory floodway to flood during a severe (100-year) storm in July 2021. The Respondent contended the drainage system was maintained, functioned as intended, and the flooding was due to the exceptional storm magnitude and the property's location in a floodway.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
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 Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
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 Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1252432.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:12 (52.5 KB)

25F-H021-REL Decision – 1275219.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:14 (128.4 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H021-REL

Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision in the matter of Deatta M. Pleasants versus the Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The core of the dispute centered on Ms. Pleasants’ allegation that the HOA violated community CC&Rs by failing to repair a common area culvert, which she claimed caused her property (Lot 185) to flood during a severe storm in July 2021.

The Respondent HOA countered that the drainage system was constructed in accordance with plans approved by Navajo County in the 1980s and has been properly maintained. The defense’s central arguments were that the July 2021 storm was a “100-year storm,” a weather event that exceeded the system’s “50-year storm” design capacity, and that Ms. Pleasants’ lot is situated within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway, where flooding during such an event is an expected occurrence.

Expert testimony from Dr. Zachary Barlo, a licensed civil engineer retained by the HOA, was pivotal. Dr. Barlo concluded that the drainage system was constructed in “general substantial conformance” with the original plans, is adequately maintained, and functions as designed. He testified that the feature Ms. Pleasants believed to be a disconnected culvert was, in fact, a roadway hatch pattern on the design plans. Crucially, he affirmed that flooding on Lot 185 would be expected during a major storm event due to its location in the floodway, regardless of culvert improvements.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Ms. Pleasants’ petition. The final decision held that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs. The ruling affirmed that the HOA had maintained the system and that the flooding was a predictable consequence of an exceptionally severe storm impacting a property located in a high-risk flood zone.

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

The Petitioner, Deatta M. Pleasants, alleged that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the revised 2022 CC&Rs. This section assigns the HOA the “full power and duty to maintain, repair and make necessary improvements in the COMMON AREA,” including underground culverts. The petition asserted, “The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.”

Central Arguments and Evidence

• The July 2021 Storm: The complaint originated from a single, severe storm in July 2021, which caused significant flooding on Petitioner’s property, Lot 185. Ms. Pleasants testified that while the storm was severe, she believes subsequent flooding was due to a malfunctioning drainage system, not the storm’s magnitude alone.

• Interpretation of Design Plans: Ms. Pleasants asserted that a double-line feature on the original circa 1986 drainage plans represented a proposed culvert. She believed this culvert was intended to connect a roadside ditch to the main regional drainage infrastructure but was improperly installed or left disconnected, causing a blockage and subsequent overflow.

• Observed Conditions: The Petitioner presented photographs from the 2021 storm depicting a 21-foot by 5-foot ditch in front of her property completely full of water and not draining. She argued this demonstrated a functional failure of the system.

• Rejection of Floodway Argument: Ms. Pleasants testified that she was “highly disappointed in the engineering report” and that her lot’s location within a FEMA flood plain “has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality and performance of this storm drain channel that is meant to keep from flooding.”

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

The Respondent HOA’s position was that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations under the CC&Rs and that the flooding was an unavoidable result of an extreme weather event impacting a property in a high-risk area.

Key Arguments and Testimony

• System Design and Approval: The drainage system was constructed in the mid-1980s based on plans approved by Navajo County. The design standards at the time, and currently, require the system to handle a 50-year storm event.

• Storm Severity: The July 2021 storm was characterized as an exceptional event, a “100-year storm,” that produced approximately three inches of rain within hours. This exceeded the design capacity of the drainage infrastructure.

• FEMA Floodway Designation: A critical element of the defense was that Lot 185 is located within a FEMA-designated regulatory floodway. Testimony established this as the highest-risk flood category, specifically designated to allow for the unimpeded flow of floodwater.

• Maintenance Record: HOA President Sharon Seekins testified that the association periodically inspects and maintains the common area drainage system, including recent improvement projects on the Oklahoma Draw Wash. She noted that under the CC&Rs, individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the drainage ditches directly in front of their properties.

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Dr. Zachary Barlo, a Senior Civil Engineer with a PhD, was retained by the Respondent to inspect the drainage system and provide an expert opinion. His testimony was a cornerstone of the Respondent’s case.

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The existing infrastructure was found to be in “general substantial conformance with the original plan.” Notably, a 24-inch pipe was installed where an 18-inch pipe was specified, which he described as a “betterment to the design” as it increases the capacity to convey water.

The Disputed “Culvert”

The double-line feature on the plans, which the Petitioner believed was a disconnected culvert, is not a culvert. Dr. Barlo identified it as part of the “hatch pattern of the roadway track.” He supported this by noting the absence of design specifications like invert elevations, which are present on all actual culverts shown in the plans.

System Functionality

The drainage system is designed to handle a 50-year storm. The July 2021 storm was “generally believed” to be larger than a 50-year event. He opined that the Respondent has adequately maintained the drainage system and that it is not in a state of disrepair.

Impact of FEMA Designation

Lot 185’s location in a regulatory floodway is highly significant. Dr. Barlo explained this area is designed for “unimpeded discharge” and is expected to have “deeper discharge depths” during major storms.

Conclusion on Flooding

Dr. Barlo stated definitively: “flooding of the area would be expected in this area in large storm events based on the FEMA designation regardless of the culvert improvements.” He testified that the conditions Ms. Pleasants experienced were what he would expect during a 100-year storm event on that specific lot.

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• The ruling stated, “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

The Judge concluded that the flooding experienced by the Petitioner was a predictable and expected outcome given the circumstances: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Study Guide – 25F-H021-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H021-REL”, “case_title”: “Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-02-20”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “Office of Administrative Hearings”, “agency”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner to prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The HOA does not have to prove they are innocent unless they are establishing an affirmative defense.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA maintains its drainage system according to the approved design plans, it is not necessarily liable for flooding caused by extreme weather events (like a 100-year storm) that exceed the system’s design capacity, especially if the home is located in a known flood zone.”, “alj_quote”: “Unfortunately, Petitioner’s lot is located in a FEMA Floodway and flooding of the area would be expected in large storm events which is exactly what occurred in July 2021, and has not occurred since.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding / Liability Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Flooding”, “Maintenance”, “Liability” ] }, { “question”: “Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?”, “short_answer”: “The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA met its obligations by maintaining the system in accordance with the plans approved at the time of construction (late 1980s), which were designed for a ’50-year storm,’ even if modern severe storms exceed that capacity.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Infrastructure”, “Grandfathering” ] }, { “question”: “How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “A ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the claim is more probably true than not.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must provide evidence that has ‘superior evidentiary weight’ and is more convincing than the HOA’s evidence. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence presented.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Legal Standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the homeowner believed a marking on the plan was a missing culvert, but the HOA’s expert engineer testified it was a roadway hatch pattern. The ALJ relied on the expert’s interpretation over the homeowner’s assumption.”, “alj_quote”: “Dr. Barlow testified that Petitioner’s belief that double lines in the red box on the plans are supposed to be a designated culvert, is erroneous, as those lines are part of the roadway designation.”, “legal_basis”: “Expert Testimony”, “topic_tags”: [ “Evidence”, “Expert Witnesses”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn’t maintaining common areas?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the petition was based on a single storm event in July 2021 described as ‘exceptional and unusually severe,’ and there were no other complaints. This isolated incident was insufficient to prove a failure to maintain.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Seekins testified (and Petitioner agreed) that the Petition was filed due to an occurrence from a single storm in July 2021, and that there have been no other complaints to the Board regarding the culverts.”, “legal_basis”: “Factual Finding”, “topic_tags”: [ “Maintenance”, “Enforcement”, “Violations” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H021-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Deatta M. Pleasants (petitioner)
Lot 185 owner; testified on her own behalf
Larry Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
Present with Petitioner
Daphna Rice (co-owner, present with petitioner)
Present with Petitioner (referred to as 'D. Rice')

Respondent Side

Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. (respondent (entity))
David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Represented Respondent
Sharon Seekins (board president, witness)
Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.
President of Respondent's Board
Zachary Barlo (witness, civil engineer)
Ironside Engineering and Development, Inc.
Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Decision
vnunez (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
djones (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
labril (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
mneat (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
lrecchia (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision
gosborn (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient of documents/decision

Other Participants

Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Affiliated with Respondent's counsel; specific hearing role unclear

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on February 20, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H021-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-02-20
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Deatta M. Pleasants	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.	Counsel	David Onuschak

Alleged Violations

CC&R Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2. Maintenance and Repair, By the Association

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

The association will not repair the culvert (common area) to allow the ditch to drain.

Orders: No action required of Respondent; Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
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 Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Maintenance Violation, Drainage System, Culvert Maintenance, FEMA Floodway, 100-Year Storm, Civil Engineer Testimony

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
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 Rev 2022, Article II., Sec. I (alpha) 2
CC&Rs Rev. September 2022, Article 1, D.

Briefing Doc – 25F-H021-REL

Briefing Document: Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H021-REL

• Petitioner: Deatta M. Pleasants, owner of Lot 185

• Respondent: Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Phoenix, Arizona

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella

• Hearing Date: February 4, 2025

• Decision Date: February 20, 2025

2. Petitioner’s Allegation and Testimony

Core Claim

Central Arguments and Evidence

• HOA Responsibility: The Petitioner maintained that it is the HOA’s “fiduciary responsibility” to remedy the issue by connecting what she believes to be the main drain.

3. Respondent’s Position and Defense

Core Defense

Key Arguments and Testimony

• Lack of Other Complaints: Ms. Seekins testified that no other homeowners filed formal complaints about the drainage system’s performance following the July 2021 storm.

4. Expert Witness Testimony: Dr. Zachary Barlo

Credentials and Experience

• Position: Senior Engineer at Ironside Engineering Development, Inc.

• Education: PhD and Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University; undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech.

• Licensure: Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arizona.

• Expertise: Extensive experience with drainage systems, Navajo County codes, and FEMA regulations.

Inspection and Analysis

Dr. Barlo conducted two field visits in June and December of 2024. His process involved:

1. Reviewing the original circa 1986 construction and drainage plans.

2. Conducting a visual and physical inspection of the as-built infrastructure near Lot 185, including measuring culverts.

3. Speaking with both Ms. Pleasants and HOA representatives to understand the concerns.

Key Findings and Professional Opinion

Finding Category

Dr. Barlo’s Testimony and Conclusions

Conformance with Plans

The Disputed “Culvert”

System Functionality

Impact of FEMA Designation

Conclusion on Flooding

5. Hearing Outcome and Judicial Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on February 20, 2025, ruled conclusively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• The Judge found that the Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article II, Section I of the CC&Rs.

• It was further established that “the underground culverts are functioning as intended.”

Final Determination

IT IS ORDERED that no action is required of Respondent in this matter and that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Maintenance
Enforcement
Violations

Case

Docket No

25F-H021-REL

Case Title

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Decision Date

2025-02-20

Alj Name

Sondra J. Vanella

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings

Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the CC&Rs during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Procedure

Question

Is the HOA responsible for flooding damage caused by an unusually severe storm?

Short Answer

Generally no, if the drainage system was properly maintained and the flooding was due to the severity of the storm and property location.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Factual Finding / Liability Standards

Topic Tags

Flooding
Maintenance
Liability

Question

Does the HOA have to upgrade old infrastructure to meet modern standards?

Short Answer

The decision implies no, as long as the system is maintained according to the originally approved plans.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Respondent has maintained the underground culverts that were constructed in accordance with the Navajo County approved plans.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

Maintenance
Infrastructure
Grandfathering

Question

How much evidence is needed to win a case against the HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

Evidence
Legal Standards

Question

Can I rely on my own interpretation of engineering plans to prove a violation?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the HOA presents conflicting expert testimony.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Expert Testimony

Topic Tags

Evidence
Expert Witnesses
Dispute Resolution

Question

Is a single incident of failure enough to prove the HOA isn't maintaining common areas?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Factual Finding

Topic Tags

Maintenance
Enforcement
Violations

Case

Docket No

25F-H021-REL

Case Title

Deatta M. Pleasants v. Pinecrest Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.

Decision Date

2025-02-20

Alj Name

Sondra J. Vanella

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings

Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Keystone Owners Association V. Bernadette M. Bennett

Posted on December 9, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H031-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-12-09
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Keystone Owners Association	Counsel	Erica L. Mortenson
Respondent	Bernadette M. Bennett	Counsel	Thomas A. Walcott

Alleged Violations

Mountain Park Association CC&Rs Art. IV, Sec. 2; Keystone CC&Rs Art. V, Sec. 5.19; Rules (35% Frontage Limit)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner (HOA) prevailed. The Respondent (Homeowner) was found in violation of Governing Documents for installing an unapproved driveway extension that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area. Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner the $1,500.00 filing fee and comply with all Governing Documents henceforth. No civil penalty was levied.

Why this result: Respondent failed to obtain prior written approval for the driveway alteration and failed to prove the affirmative defense of laches.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Driveway Extension Exceeding 35% of Total Yard Frontage Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by installing a driveway extension exceeding 35% of the total yard frontage area without prior written approval. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred and the Respondent failed to establish the affirmative defense of laches.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $1,500.00 for the filing fee and comply henceforth with the Governing Documents.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, ARC, Driveway, Frontage Area, CC&Rs, Laches

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design and Construction, Inc., 170 Ariz. 598, 600, 826 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Ct. App. 1992)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
Flynn v. Rogers, 172 Ariz. 62 (1992)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1159036.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:53 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:04:56 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:00 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:04 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:09 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:13 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:18 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:23 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:26 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:30 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:05:33 (113.0 KB)

civil penalties
fines
statutory authority

Case

Docket No: 24F-H031-REL
Case Title: Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date: 2024-12-09
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can a sub-association enforce the rules and CC&Rs of the master association?

Short Answer

Yes, if the master association has assigned those enforcement rights to the sub-association.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Assignment Agreement / Governing Documents

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
sub-associations
master association
enforcement authority

Question

If I extend my driveway without approval, does the HOA have to prove I didn't get permission, or do I have to prove I did?

Short Answer

The absence of written evidence granting approval can be used to establish a violation.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

However, there was no testimonial or written evidence presented to establish that Respondent was granted approval to install a driveway that exceeded 35% of the total yard frontage area.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

architectural approval
evidence
driveways
modifications

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for an HOA to win a violation hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
hearing procedures

Question

Can I use the defense that the HOA waited too long to enforce the rule (laches)?

Short Answer

Yes, but you bear the burden of proving that the delay was unreasonable and caused you prejudice.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.C.C. R2-19-119(B)(2); Flynn v. Rogers

Topic Tags

defenses
laches
enforcement delay

Question

If I lose the hearing, can the judge make me pay the HOA's filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA's filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge ordered the Respondent (homeowner) to pay the Petitioner's (HOA) filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

fees
costs
penalties

Question

How do judges interpret the meaning of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

They are interpreted as a whole, looking at the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

Legal interpretation does not isolate single phrases but looks at the document in its entirety to understand the intent of the parties and the purpose of the restrictions.

Alj Quote

Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.

Legal Basis

Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs.

Topic Tags

legal interpretation
CC&Rs
covenants

Question

Can the judge issue a civil penalty (fine) in addition to ordering me to fix the violation?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, though they may choose not to.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

civil penalties
fines
statutory authority

Case

Docket No: 24F-H031-REL
Case Title: Keystone Owners Association vs. Bernadette M. Bennett
Decision Date: 2024-12-09
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Erica L. Mortenson (attorney)
Goodman Law Group
HOA attorney
Harry Whitel (board member/witness)
Keystone Owners Association
Secretary of the Board
Tim Seyfarth (board member/president)
Keystone Owners Association
Board President
Glenn Steinman (board member)
Keystone Owners Association
Board Vice President
Debbie Burch (board member)
Keystone Owners Association
Board Treasurer
Cherry Collins (board member)
Keystone Owners Association
Member at large; Architectural Advisory Committee member
Joe Getti (ARC member/former board member)
Keystone Owners Association
Architectural Advisory Committee member
Mary Hamilton (ARC member)
Keystone Owners Association
Architectural Advisory Committee member
Dan (attorney/staff)
Goodman Law Group

Respondent Side

Bernadette M. Bennett (respondent)
Lot Owner
Thomas A. Walcott (attorney)
Provident Lawyers
Respondent attorney
Noah Alvarado (staff)
Staff/assistant for Respondent's Counsel
Christopher J. Charles (attorney/staff)
Provident Lawyers

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Amy Haley (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge (prior to VMT)
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Isabella (property manager)
Vision Management
Keystone Property Manager who was asked for documents
Annette Wthbon (property management agent)
City Management
Former Property Management Agent
Carla Garvin (property management agent)
City Management
Former Property Management Agent

Robert P Fink & Brittany L Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.

Posted on May 16, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H023-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-05-16
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	total_loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson	Counsel	—
Respondent	Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.	Counsel	David Onuschak, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 1(c)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c). The cited provision was inapplicable because the security gate installation did not involve transferring common area to a public agency or increasing the density of residences (the clause was read conjunctively).

Why this result: CC&R Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable because the sentence regarding improvements and density was written in the conjunctive using the word “and,” meaning the improvement must both be placed upon the common area AND increase the density of residences, neither of which applied to the security gate installation.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding vote threshold for placing improvements on common area.

Petitioners alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article II Section 1(c) by approving the installation of a security gate on the common area using a two-thirds standard of those who voted (resulting in 27 affirmative votes, 69-72% approval rate) when they asserted three quarters (3/4 or 30 votes out of 39 eligible lots) of eligible votes was required for an improvement on the common area.

Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
CC&R Article II Section 1(c)
CC&R Article IV Section 2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:24 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:25 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:26 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:29 (136.5 KB)

density
improvements
voting requirements

Case

Docket No: 24F-H023-REL
Case Title: Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2024-05-16
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

density
improvements
voting requirements

Case

Docket No: 24F-H023-REL
Case Title: Robert P. Fink & Brittany L. Oleson v. Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2024-05-16
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert P. Fink (petitioner)
Testified on own behalf
Brittany L. Oleson (petitioner)
Also referred to as Brittany L. Olsen
Juanita Havill (witness)
Former HOA board President, Vice President, and Treasurer

Respondent Side

David Onuschak (HOA attorney)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli
Tom Hardesty (board president)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Thomas Ryan (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Current Treasurer
Eric Powell (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Also referred to as Erik Powell; testified for Respondent; former President and Secretary
Jim Chepales (board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Paula Miller (witness)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Board Secretary
Leslie Kramer (HOA attorney)
Provided legal opinions to the HOA; Affidavit admitted as Exhibit 32
Edwin Gaines (HOA attorney)
Provided legal opinion to the HOA; Declaration admitted as Exhibit 31
Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
Consulted by the Board regarding the petition
Kevin Wallace (former board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Former Vice President

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Rosalyn Buchas (Border Patrol Agent)
US Customs and Border Protection
Author of 2014 report referenced
Ben Cummings (Border Patrol Agent)
US Customs and Border Protection
Attended 2014 meeting

Other Participants

David Steedman (former board member)
Casas Arroyo Association, Inc.
Former Treasurer; present as an observer
Emily Masta (community member)
Mentioned in board email communications
Jay Deforest (community member)
Called 2014 Border Patrol meeting
Mark Stroberg (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
Barbara Stoneberg (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
Steven Sue Archbald (community member)
Attended 2014 Border Patrol meeting
Laura Brown (community member)
Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal
Archerald Brown (community member)
Long-time resident referenced regarding historic gate removal

John R Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC

Posted on October 4, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H058-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-10-04
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John R. Ashley	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC	Counsel	James Brewer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner John R. Ashley's petition against Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc. The ALJ found that the HOA did not violate the Bylaws regarding the minimum number of directors because compliance was impossible due to lack of member interest, and the issue was subsequently moot as the board currently met the minimum requirement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim that it actively sought a third board member. The Respondent was exonerated under the legal doctrine of impossibility of performance, and the current compliance with the three-member minimum rendered the dispute moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding the minimum number of Board Directors

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws by having only two Board Directors dismiss and order a redo of the 1/9/2023 Annual Membership Meeting for 3/7/2023, arguing that three directors were required to properly handle the Association’s affairs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed. Respondent was unable to comply with the Bylaws requiring three directors due to impossibility (lack of member interest) while actively seeking compliance, and the dispute is currently moot as the board now has three or more members.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: impossibility of performance, board structure, election dispute, bylaw violation, Planned Communities Act, mootness

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
Garner v. Ellingson, 18 Ariz. 181, 182 (App. 1972)
Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Company, 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. App., 1961)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Assân v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:49 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:52 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:56 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:01 (104.5 KB)

Elections
Fraud
Board Powers

Case

Docket No: 23F-H058-REL
Case Title: John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-10-04
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency: Arizona Department of Real Estate

Questions

Question

Can my HOA be penalized for having fewer than the required number of board members if no one volunteers to serve?

Short Answer

Likely not. If the HOA actively seeks candidates but no one steps up, they may be exonerated due to 'impossibility of performance.'

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

It is well settled that when, due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties the performance of a contract is rendered impossible, the party failing to perform is exonerated.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles (Garner v. Ellingson); Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Topic Tags

Board Composition
Impossibility Defense
Bylaws

Question

If my HOA has already fixed a violation by the time of the hearing, can I still get a ruling against them?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA comes into compliance before the decision is made, the dispute may be considered resolved and the petition dismissed.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Mootness

Topic Tags

Procedural
Mootness
Dismissal

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Board Authority

Topic Tags

Elections
Fraud
Board Powers

Case

Docket No: 23F-H058-REL
Case Title: John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-10-04
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency: Arizona Department of Real Estate

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John R. Ashley (petitioner)
Represented himself
Rmulo Gonzalez (board member elect)
Elected in March 2023 election; contested re-election procedures
James Canella (board member elect)
Elected in January 2023 election; member of the community who desired to serve
Daniel Walker (board member elect)
Elected in January 2023 election
Richard Springer (witness reference)
Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board
Charles Seers (witness reference)
Homeowner mentioned by Petitioner as willing to serve on the board; name variations include Charles Zippers

Respondent Side

James Brewer (attorney)
Tyson & Mendes, LLP
Represented Respondent Rancho Reyes II Community Association
Leah M. McKeever (attorney)
Tyson & Mendes, LLP
Lynn M. Allen (attorney)
Tyson & Mendes, LLP
Sherry Ortega (board member)
Rancho Reyes II Community Association
Vice President since March 2023; President previously; testified for Respondent
Maria Ruelas (board member)
Rancho Reyes II Community Association
Director in 2022 until March 2023
Kimberly Schone (COO/witness)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
Chief Operating Officer, testified for Respondent
Ronda Raal (CEO/property manager)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
CEO of the management company
Sammy (assistant)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
Assistant who helped count ballots for January 2023 election; name variations include Tammy, Cammy, Samantha
Joy (manager)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
Manager during January 2023 election period
Jennifer (manager)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
Current manager of the account
Vince (management staff)
Mission Management (Community Manager)
Saw ballot video footage

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Also referred to as Fala Moses Thompson
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Recipient of official documents
VNunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Recipient of official documents
DJones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Recipient of official documents
Labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
Recipient of official documents

Other Participants

Cordova Sapola (board member elect)
Elected in March 2023 election; unresponsive and did not attend meetings
Eugenia Francisco (elected candidate)
Elected in January 2023 election but refuted candidacy; name variations include Eugene Silva
Yolanda Molina (former board member)
Former Treasurer; resigned December 2021
Mario Martinez (witness reference)
Adam LMC
Diane (former property manager)
First manager for the HOA around 2017-2018

Barbara J. Ryan v. Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property

Posted on April 17, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H035-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-04-17
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Barbara J. Ryan	Counsel	—
Respondent	Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association	Counsel	Jody Corrales, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804, A.R.S. § 33-1318, Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1, 7.2, 12.1 – 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.

Why this result: The violation (failure to hold an annual member meeting) was undisputed by the Respondent, and Respondent's counsel conceded there were no legal defenses to this fact.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual members meeting in two years and ignoring members written petitions and requests for a meeting

It was undisputed that the Respondent HOA failed to hold an annual meeting of the members from March 2020 to the time of the hearing. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days and is directed to comply with section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1318
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting, Bylaws Violation, Filing Fee Refund, Administrative Hearing, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1318
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/427Jtvhv86O3eSaVHmEQjV

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:21 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:24 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:28 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:31 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:36 (87.4 KB)

civil penalty
fines
enforcement

Case

Docket No: 23F-H035-REL
Case Title: Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2023-04-17
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?

Short Answer

No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

annual meetings
HOA defenses
bankruptcy

Question

If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?

Short Answer

No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure

Detailed Answer

Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

civil penalty
fines
enforcement

Case

Docket No: 23F-H035-REL
Case Title: Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2023-04-17
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Barbara J. Ryan (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of herself
Bill Nethery (witness)
Meadows Property Association member
Listed as a witness on Petitioner's petition
Damon Rosen (applicant for board vacancy)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board

Respondent Side

Jody A. Corrales (HOA attorney)
DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy
Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Dorothy Marine (board member/witness)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Director and President of the board; testified at hearing
Cindy Celeste (board member)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Director
Jim Kasa (board member)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Director

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Gail Olia (former board member)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia
Sorl Tate (homeowner)
Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member
Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on February 22, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H017-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carolyn Wefsenmoe	Counsel	—
Respondent	Summit View Homeowner's Association	Counsel	Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
CC&R Article XI, Section 1
CC&R Article XI, Section 2
CC&R Article XI, Section 3
Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&R Article XI, Section 1
CC&R Article XI, Section 2
CC&R Article XI, Section 3
Summit View Plat Notes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/71FsAzQZjyvSrdExtF4eXX

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:50 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:54 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:57 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:02 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:05 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:10 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:15 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:21 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:29 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:33 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:37 (114.5 KB)

cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation

Case

Docket No: 23F-H017-REL
Case Title: Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date: 2023-03-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

evidence
surveys
property lines

Question

Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?

Short Answer

Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

maintenance
construction
HOA obligations

Question

Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation

Case

Docket No: 23F-H017-REL
Case Title: Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date: 2023-03-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carolyn Wefsenmoe (petitioner)
Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Bick Smith (witness/board president)
Summit View Homeowner's Association
Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
Henry (board member)
Summit View Homeowner's Association
Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
Denise (board member)
Summit View Homeowner's Association
Participated in special board meeting
Larry Burns (property manager/GM)
Summit View Homeowner's Association
General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmitted minute entry to
James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmitted order to
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmitted ALJ decision to
AHansen (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for transmitted documents
vnunez (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for transmitted documents
djones (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for transmitted documents
labril (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for transmitted documents
c. serrano (OAH Staff)
OAH
Signed minute entries for transmission
Helen Purcell (county recorder)
Maricopa County
Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
Maria Rosana Pira (notary public)
Maricopa County
Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004

Other Participants

Elelliana (unknown)
Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
Beth Mulcahy (attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
LizzieG (customer service rep)
Brown Community Management
Customer service contact listed on billing document