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	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.
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 2026-04-24T12:18:46 (52.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:49 (49.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1180545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:52 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198622.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:56 (50.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1198623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:18:59 (7.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1225107.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:04 (52.6 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227639.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:08 (48.7 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1227642.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:18 (5.9 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1230660.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:23 (45.0 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1241815.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:27 (48.8 KB)

24F-H031-REL Decision – 1250037.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:19:30 (113.0 KB)

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)

This summary focuses on the hearing held on November 19, 2024 before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson, concerning the dispute between Keystone Owners Association (Petitioner) and Bernadette M. Bennett (Respondent).

Key Facts and Main Issues

The core issue was Petitioner's allegation that Respondent violated the Governing Documents by installing a driveway extension that exceeds 35% of the total yard frontage area. This included allegations of violating Article IV, Section 2 of the Mountain Park Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Article V, Section 5.19 of Petitioner’s CC&Rs.

Key Facts Presented:

Respondent owns a home within Keystone, a subassociation of Mountain Park Ranch. Both associations' Governing Documents required Respondent to obtain prior written approval for any alteration to the exterior appearance.
Mountain Park Ranch Rules, which Keystone relied upon for enforcement, state that the parking surface shall not exceed 35 percent of the total yard frontage area.
Petitioner asserted that the Respondent installed the cement driveway extension without obtaining mandatory written approval.
An on-site inspection conducted in May 2024 determined that the driveway slabs (original 16 ft + unapproved 8 ft modification) measured 24 ft wide. Based on the lot frontage measurement of approximately 60 ft, the driveway covered 40% of the yard frontage, exceeding the 35% limit.
The Petitioner's right to enforce the Master Association’s rules was formalized by an Assignment Agreement signed on August 16, 2023.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The Petitioner presented testimony from Harry Whitesell, a board member and former property appraiser, who detailed the measurements and the history of the Respondent's failed architectural requests (2015, 2017) to add parking. Petitioner argued that the Respondent ignored denial notices and that the modification was installed without approval and remains out of compliance.

The Respondent's legal strategy focused entirely on the affirmative defense of laches. Respondent's counsel argued that the condition had existed, open and obvious, since late 2017/early 2018 without enforcement. Respondent argued the HOA's delay was unreasonable, causing prejudice, and that the motivation to pursue the violation only arose after securing the enforcement authority from Mountain Park Ranch in 2023. Respondent also questioned the interpretation of "yard frontage area" used for the calculation, arguing it was ambiguous. Respondent did not present witness testimony at the hearing.

Petitioner countered the laches argument by citing a provision in the Keystone CC&Rs stating that failure to enforce a restriction "shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter".

Legal Points and Outcome

The ALJ admitted Petitioner’s Exhibits A through M and Respondent’s Exhibit 1 into evidence.

The ALJ made the following legal conclusions:

Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The preponderance of the evidence showed that Respondent erected a cement driveway extension that exceeds 35 percent of the total yard frontage area, without obtaining prior approval.
Respondent failed to meet the burden of establishing the affirmative defense of laches. The ALJ found that Respondent had not established sufficient "unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice" to deny the relief sought by Petitioner.

Final Decision and Order:

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party.
Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner its filing fee of $1,500.00 within thirty days.
Respondent was ordered to henceforth comply with the provisions of the Governing Documents.
No Civil Penalty was found to be appropriate.

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

A sub-association (like a specific neighborhood HOA within a larger master planned community) generally enforces its own documents. However, this decision clarifies that a sub-association may be authorized to enforce the master association's governing documents if there is a specific assignment agreement executing that transfer of authority.

Alj Quote

The Governing Documents authorize Petitioner to enforce the Governing Documents, as further memorialized by an executed Assignment Agreement by and between Mountain Park Association and Keystone Owners Association signed on August 16, 2023.

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

While the HOA bears the initial burden of proof for the violation, the lack of testimonial or written evidence showing that the homeowner received approval helps establish that the modification was unauthorized.

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

The HOA does not need to prove a violation 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (the criminal standard). They must only show that their contention is 'more probably true than not' or carries superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9 by a preponderance of the evidence… '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

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

Laches is an affirmative defense. It is not enough to simply show a delay; the homeowner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the delay was unreasonable and that it resulted in sufficient prejudice to deny the HOA's relief.

Alj Quote

Laches is an affirmative defense, and Respondent bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence… Respondent has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was unreasonable delay that has resulted in prejudice to Respondent sufficient to deny the relief Petitioner seeks…

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

Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, the administrative law judge has the discretion to order compliance and also levy a civil penalty for each violation. In this specific case, the judge found no civil penalty was appropriate, but the authority exists.

Alj Quote

The administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.

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

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	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).
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

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1133251.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:36 (51.2 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1135497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:40 (54.9 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1168799.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:43 (47.6 KB)

24F-H023-REL Decision – 1178674.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:48 (136.5 KB)

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)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Robert P. Fink and Brittany L. Oleson (Petitioners) versus Casas Arroyo Association, Inc. (Respondent), Docket No. 24F-H023-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The hearing spanned two dates: January 18, 2024, and April 18, 2024.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Respondent Association violated Article II Section 1(c) of the community's CC&Rs when it installed a security gate at the community entrance. The gate measure passed with 27 "yes" votes and 10 "no" votes, equating to 69% of the 39 eligible votes in the association. The Board, citing security concerns related to criminal activity including human trafficking and drug smuggling, moved forward with the installation, funding the $2,650 gate through general assessment funds without a special assessment.

Petitioner's Argument

Petitioners argued that the security gate constitutes an "improvement placed upon the common area". They asserted that Article II Section 1(c) unequivocally requires approval by "not less than three quarters (3/4) of the eligible votes of the Association" (30 votes out of 39) for such improvements. Petitioners contended the Board improperly utilized an arbitrary standard of two-thirds (2/3) of those who voted, and that the 2/3 standard found in Article IV Section 4 applies only to authorizing a *special assessment* for a capital improvement, not the installation itself.

Respondent's Argument

The Respondent argued that Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable. They contended that the provision primarily governs the dedication or transfer of common area property to a public utility or agency, and also applies to improvements that "would increase the density of residences on the Properties". Since the gate neither transferred land nor increased density, the 3/4 voting requirement was unnecessary. Respondent further argued that Article IV Section 2 grants the board authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "health, safety, and welfare of the residents," justifying the gate installation for crime deterrence.

Outcome and Legal Rationale

The ALJ determined that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ's interpretation centered on the structure and applicability of Article II Section 1(c).

Inapplicable CC&R: The ALJ concluded that Article II Section 1(c) is written in the conjunctive. Therefore, the 3/4 vote is required only when improvements are placed upon the common area and those improvements increase the density of residences.
Gate Does Not Increase Density: Since the security gate did not dedicate or transfer common area property to an outside entity, nor did it increase the density of residences, the ALJ ruled that the 3/4 voting requirement under Article II Section 1(c) was inapplicable to the instant matter.
Authority Found in Article IV: The ALJ noted that Article IV Section 2 grants the Association authority to use general assessment funds to promote the "recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents".

The ALJ issued a decision dismissing the Petition and ordering no action be required of the Respondent. The record formally closed on May 7, 2024, with the decision issuing on May 16, 2024.

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden falls on the homeowner filing the petition to prove that the HOA committed the alleged violation. The standard of proof required is a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear 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) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
procedural requirements
evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This legal standard requires that the evidence presented has superior weight and is convincing enough to incline a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other. It is not necessarily about having a greater number of witnesses.

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 (1960)

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot cherry-pick a specific clause or sentence to claim a violation. The Administrative Law Judge will look at the entire section to understand the intended scope and application of the restriction.

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

CC&R interpretation
legal standards
context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

If a CC&R provision lists restrictions connected by 'and' (e.g., no improvements AND no actions increasing density), it implies the conditions are linked. The ALJ distinguished this from the disjunctive 'or'. In this case, a restriction on improvements was linked to increasing density/transferring land because they were joined by 'and'.

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

contract interpretation
grammar
legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs state that assessments are for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents, the Board may use general funds for improvements like security gates without a specific supermajority vote typically reserved for special assessments or land transfers.

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

assessments
HOA powers
safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

A CC&R clause requiring a supermajority vote to dedicate or transfer common area to a public agency does not apply to the installation of a security gate, as the gate does not constitute a transfer of land ownership.

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

voting requirements
common area
improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

If a voting requirement in the CC&Rs is triggered by actions that 'increase the density of residences,' it does not apply to infrastructure improvements like security gates that have no effect on the number of homes or density.

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear 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) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
procedural requirements
evidence

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows 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 (1960)

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
definitions

Question

Can I interpret a specific sentence in the CC&Rs in isolation to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, CC&R provisions must be interpreted within the context of the entire provision.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

One cannot read Section 1(c) of Article II without taking into consideration the context of the entire provision

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation Principles

Topic Tags

CC&R interpretation
legal standards
context

Question

How does the word 'and' affect the interpretation of restrictions in the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

The word 'and' is conjunctive, meaning clauses it connects must be read together, not as separate independent choices.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

This sentence is written in the conjunctive. The word 'and' is used to connect the two clauses. It is not written in the disjunctive, as the word 'or' is not part of the sentence.

Legal Basis

Grammatical Interpretation of Contracts

Topic Tags

contract interpretation
grammar
legal standards

Question

Can the HOA use general assessment funds for safety improvements without a special homeowner vote?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant authority to use assessments for health, safety, and welfare.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Article IV Section 2 of the 2006 recorded CC&Rs grant authority to Respondent to use the general assessment monies to 'promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents.'

Legal Basis

CC&R Article IV Section 2

Topic Tags

assessments
HOA powers
safety improvements

Question

Does a CC&R requirement for a 3/4 vote to 'transfer' common area apply to installing a gate?

Short Answer

No, installing a gate is not considered dedicating or transferring land.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The installation of a security gate does not dedicate or transfer all or any part of the common area to any public agency, authority or utility. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

voting requirements
common area
improvements

Question

Does a restriction on increasing the 'density of residences' apply to security improvements?

Short Answer

No, security improvements like gates do not increase residential density.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Further, the installation of a security gate is not an improvement that increases the density of the residences. Therefore, a three quarters vote is not required.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article II Section 1(c)

Topic Tags

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	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.
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)

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1075520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:40 (45.8 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078604.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:43 (47.9 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1078608.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:46 (5.5 KB)

23F-H058-REL Decision – 1099484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:11:49 (104.5 KB)

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)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing held on September 14, 2023, in the matter of John R. Ashley v. Rancho Reyes II Community Association, INC (No. 23F-H058-REL).

Key Facts and Main Issues

Petitioner John R. Ashley challenged the actions of the Rancho Reyes II Community Association (Respondent). The sole issue of the hearing was whether the Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of the Community Bylaws. This bylaw requires the affairs of the Association to be managed by "not less than three (3) nor more than nine (9) directors".

The violation Petitioner alleged was that two sitting Board Directors (Sherry Ortega and Maria Ruelas) acted alone (on or about January 19, 2023) in dismissing the results of the January 2023 Annual Membership Meeting and ordering a redo election for March 7, 2023, when at least three directors were required to handle Association affairs. It was established that the Board operated with only two members from late 2021 until the March 2023 election.

The January 2023 election, in which five members were elected, was invalidated by the two existing board members after the community manager suspected fraud and irregularities (including stuffed ballots, improper envelopes, and an elected candidate whose husband stated she did not submit her name and was not fluent in English).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued the decision to redo the election was invalid because it was made by fewer than three directors, thus violating the Bylaw. Petitioner also contended that the two directors (Ortega and Ruelas) were not duly elected in 2022, asserting that there were effectively zero legal board members when the re-election was ordered. Petitioner further argued that the Respondent's claims of fraud were "non-existent" under ARS title 33, Section 1812, because the board was responsible for approving returned ballots prior to the meeting.

Respondent's Legal Defense: Respondent asserted that operating with only two members was due to impossibility or impracticability of performance. Respondent argued that it actively sought a third board member, but homeowners were not interested in serving. Respondent relied on Arizona case law, stating 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" (*Garner v. Ellingson*). The Respondent maintained that the re-election was necessary due to the severe irregularities in the January vote.

Outcome and Legal Decision

On October 4, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision dismissing the Petition.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ found that while the Bylaws required a minimum of three directors, the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Respondent actively sought a third member, and it was "unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws" due to lack of interest from members. The ALJ implicitly accepted the Respondent's defense that non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.

Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the Association currently has at least three duly elected board members (elected in March 2023), meaning the issue of Bylaw compliance "is no longer in dispute". Based on the impossibility defense and the resolution of the current dispute regarding board size, the Petition was ordered dismissed.

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

The decision establishes that if an HOA board is understaffed (e.g., 2 members when bylaws require 3) because homeowners refuse to volunteer despite recruitment efforts, the HOA is not held liable. The legal principle of 'impossibility' applies when circumstances beyond the parties' control prevent compliance with the bylaws.

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

In this case, the homeowner sued because the board had too few members. However, by the time of the hearing, a full board had been elected. The judge dismissed the petition because the violation was no longer active and compliance was not in dispute.

Alj Quote

Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence has shown that Respondent was unable to comply with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws and compliance with Article IV, Section 1 of the Bylaws is no longer in dispute, the Petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

Mootness

Topic Tags

Procedural
Mootness
Dismissal

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, 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
Hearing Procedures

Question

What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

Evidence
Legal Definitions

Question

How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.

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

Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

CC&R Interpretation
Bylaws

Question

Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?

Short Answer

Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.

Detailed Answer

The decision notes that the community manager and board members decided to hold a new election after consulting with an attorney regarding suspected fraudulent tactics and unfair processes in the initial election.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s community manager suspected that the election was not a fair process and that certain individuals used fraudulent tactics to influence the election. After consulting with Respondent’s attorney, the community manager along with Ms. Ortega decided to hold a new election in March of 2023.

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

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

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws, 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
Hearing Procedures

Question

What counts as 'preponderance of the evidence' in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Evidence that makes a claim 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

It is not about the quantity of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. It must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

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

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

Evidence
Legal Definitions

Question

How are HOA bylaws and restrictive covenants interpreted by the judge?

Short Answer

They are interpreted to support the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.

Detailed Answer

The judge will look at the documents as a whole rather than isolating a single sentence, ensuring that the interpretation gives effect to the intended purpose of the rules.

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

Contract Interpretation Principles (Powell v. Washburn)

Topic Tags

CC&R Interpretation
Bylaws

Question

Can an HOA board order a new election if they suspect fraud in the previous one?

Short Answer

Yes, this action was accepted in the context of this decision.

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	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.
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

Decision Documents

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1043132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:56 (55.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1048244.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:02 (37.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049662.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:16 (18.7 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:31 (23.9 KB)

23F-H035-REL Decision – 1049666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:03:40 (87.4 KB)

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)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing held on March 27, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Parties

The case, *In the Matter of Barbara J. Ryan vs. Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association*, Docket No. 23F-H035-REL, involved Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan (Petitioner) and the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA). The Petitioner paid $500.00 to file the dispute. The Respondent was represented by attorney Jody Corrales.

Main Issue and Core Dispute

The issue set for determination was whether the Respondent HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804 and § 33-1318) and the HOA’s Bylaws (specifically Article 7.1) by failing to hold an annual member meeting in two years.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Petitioner’s Position: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent's Board of Directors had failed to hold an annual member meeting since February 2020, a period exceeding three years. This failure violated both the association's bylaws and Arizona statutes, despite multiple requests from members.
Undisputed Fact: The Respondent's counsel stipulated and confirmed that there had been no annual members meeting held since February 2020.
Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent's primary defense for the lack of meetings was attributed to ongoing legal turbulence, including contentious state court litigation (initiated around September 2021) and a subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing (August 25, 2022). The HOA argued that this reorganization process justified the delay. The Respondent also asserted that a vote by written ballot for directors in February 2021 served the same function as an annual meeting for that year.
ALJ Determination on Jurisdiction: The ALJ strictly limited the hearing's scope to the single paid issue concerning the failure to hold the required annual meeting, explicitly rejecting discussion on related issues such as board elections, removal proceedings, or the details of the bankruptcy, stating these matters were outside the ALJ's jurisdiction.
Legal Concession: Ultimately, the Respondent's counsel conceded that they had no legal defenses to the fact that they failed to hold the annual meeting.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued the decision on April 17, 2023:

Violation Found: The ALJ concluded that the preponderance of the evidence established that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold an annual meeting of the members in 2021 and 2022.
Prevailing Party: Petitioner Barbara J. Ryan was deemed the prevailing party.
Remedy: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.
Compliance Order: The Respondent was further directed to comply with the requirements of section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward.
Penalty: No civil penalty was found appropriate in this matter.

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

In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.

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

The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.

Alj Quote

The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.

Legal Basis

Procedural Rule

Topic Tags

filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure

Question

Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.

Alj Quote

The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

corporate actions
validity
bylaws

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on 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)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standard
evidence

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.

Detailed Answer

After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

reimbursement
filing fees
penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.

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

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

Question

Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.

Alj Quote

The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Section 7.1

Topic Tags

corporate actions
validity
bylaws

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on 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)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standard
evidence

Question

Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.

Detailed Answer

After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.

Legal Basis

Order of the ALJ

Topic Tags

reimbursement
filing fees
penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?

Short Answer

No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.

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	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.
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

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:24 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:28 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:32 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:37 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:41 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:45 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:50 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:58:53 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:00 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:06 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:09 (114.5 KB)

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)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe versus Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association (SVHA), Case No. 23F-H017-REL, held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on February 21, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The dispute centered on the maintenance responsibility for the subdivision's perimeter walls and the SVHA's action of charging homeowners for repairs. Petitioner Wefsenmoe alleged the SVHA violated community documents, specifically CC&R's Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Summit View Community Plat Notes, by refusing to maintain the walls. The SVHA, represented by Chad Gallacher, Esq., argued the walls were located on individual Lots, making maintenance the homeowner's responsibility.

Key Legal Arguments and Proceedings

Plat vs. CC&Rs: Petitioner relied heavily on language in the June 1996 Final Plat Notes, which stated that a Homeowners Association "WILL BE FORMED AND HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ALL COMMON AREAS, TO BE NOTED AS… SUBDIVISION PERIMETER WALLS". Petitioner noted that her wall abutted the Natural Area Open Space (NAOS), designated as a Common Area.
Governing Documents Hierarchy: Respondent countered that the Plat statement was a "forecasting" or "foreshadowing". This statement was qualified by the phrase "IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS," referring to the later Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2004.
Lot Owner Responsibility: The SVHA argued that the CC&Rs placed maintenance burdens on the individual owner for all improvements on their Lot (Article III, Section 3). Furthermore, specific CC&R provisions required owners to obtain written architectural approval to perform maintenance or erect walls on their Lots (Article VIII, Sections 5 and 15), suggesting the maintenance obligation rested with the homeowner.
Evidence of Location and Damage: The SVHA presented testimony that the walls in question were generally understood to be built on the individual lots, noting that the wall lines were not uniformly straight across the lots. SVHA's witness, Vic Smith, also testified that many wall damages were attributable to poor drainage and water runoff coming from the homeowner's Lot side, not the NAOS Common Area, which had no watering.
Burden of Proof: Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that no professional survey had been conducted to definitively determine whether the walls were located on the Common Area or the individual Lots. The ALJ noted that Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision denying Petitioner's petition. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof. Absent persuasive evidence, such as a survey, demonstrating the walls were constructed in the Common Area, Petitioner could not establish that the SVHA was responsible for the maintenance or that the Association acted in violation of the community documents.

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Topic Tags

legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

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 (1960)

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

maintenance
common areas
boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

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

In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.

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

Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.

Alj Quote

Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.

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

Questions

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

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 violations 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

legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements

Question

What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?

Short Answer

A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely 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 (1960)

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
hearings

Question

If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?

Short Answer

No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

maintenance
common areas
boundaries

Question

Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?

Short Answer

Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law

Topic Tags

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

Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association

Posted on January 31, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-01-31
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Pamela McKinney	Counsel	—
Respondent	Valle Vista Property Owners Association	Counsel	Alan Meda

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote

Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Articles of Incorporation (1972)
Articles of Amendment (1994)
Articles of Amendment (1999)
CLRs Unit One (1972)
Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute

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(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H019-REL Decision – 1030077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:59:33 (140.1 KB)

23F-H019-REL Decision – 1030077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:52:48 (140.1 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision of the legal case, drawing on the provided sources.

***

Concise Summary of Administrative Hearing: Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association

Key Facts and Proceedings

The administrative hearing was held on January 17, 2023 (Docket No. 23F-H 019- REL) before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella. Petitioner Pamela McKinney appeared on her own behalf, alleging that the Valle Vista Property Owners Association (Respondent) violated community documents. The burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The dispute centered on the Respondent's use of a Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022 to extend the Declarations of Covenants, Limitations, and Restrictions (CLRs) for another 25 years without an approval vote from the Council of co-owners. The Petitioner, an owner in Unit One, contended that the Articles of Incorporation (the association charter) had expired after 50 years (in May 2022 for Unit One) and that the extension of the CLRs required a vote.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

The core issue determined by the ALJ was whether the Respondent violated Article 8 of the Articles of Incorporation (AOI) and Article 19 of the CLRs by attempting to extend the CLRs via resolution without a member vote.

Petitioner's Key Arguments:

AOI Expiration: Petitioner argued that the original AOI, dated 1972, specified a 25-year existence with the power of one renewal, meaning the charter expired after 50 years (in 2022). If the AOI expired, the association must form a new corporation.
CLRs Require Vote for Extension: Petitioner asserted that while the CLRs provide for an automatic 25-year renewal, this renewal constitutes a change in duration, and thus requires the approval of 66 2/3% or more of the owners of record, as stated in the CLRs (Section 19(a) and (b)).
Unlawful Amendments: McKinney testified she was unaware of any amendments extending the AOI and argued that even if they were recorded, they might be unlawful if done without the requisite member vote (which required 75% approval for amendments).

Respondent's Key Arguments:

Perpetual Existence: Respondent successfully demonstrated that the Articles of Incorporation (AOI) had been officially amended twice—on November 18, 1994, and January 15, 1999—specifically to declare the duration of the corporation shall be perpetual.
Automatic Renewal of CLRs: Respondent contended that the CLRs for all units automatically renew every 25 years without a vote. A vote is only required if the association attempts to make modifications or changes to the CLRs.
Resolution Purpose: Respondent explained that the September 27, 2022 Resolution was simply recorded to reflect the automatic renewal of the CLRs and contained no amendments or modifications. Failure to renew would cause the loss of valuable common assets (valued at approximately $2.5 million).

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ issued the decision on January 31, 2023. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The legal conclusions were:

The Respondent successfully established that the Articles of Incorporation had been amended in 1994 and 1999 to extend the duration perpetually.
The automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners under the governing documents.

Therefore, the Respondent did not violate Article 8 of the AOI or Article 19 of the CLRs when it passed the resolution extending the CLRs.

The final order stated that the Petitioner's Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?

Short Answer

No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents

Question

Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'

Detailed Answer

The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.

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

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Evidence

Question

Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?

Short Answer

Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'

Alj Quote

Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation

Question

Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?

Short Answer

A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction

Question

Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?

Short Answer

No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.

Alj Quote

Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments

Case

Docket No: 23F-H019-REL
Case Title: Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2023-01-31
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?

Short Answer

No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents

Question

Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.

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

Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means 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

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Evidence

Question

Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?

Short Answer

Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'

Alj Quote

Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation

Question

Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?

Short Answer

A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction

Question

Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?

Short Answer

No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4

Topic Tags

Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments

Case

Docket No: 23F-H019-REL
Case Title: Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2023-01-31
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Pamela McKinney (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Alan A. Meda (HOA attorney)
Burch & Cracchiolo
Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Sharon Grossi (board member)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
Rebecca Bankov (property manager)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Also referred to as Rebecca fan
Amy Wood (board member)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Secretary on the board
Thomas Noble (board member)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
Stan Andrews (board member)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
Ray Rose (board member)
Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Recently resigned from the board

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Jean Newman (CPA)
Independent auditor who prepared financial report

Other Participants

Dennis Hope (Fire Chief)
Northern Arizona Fire District
External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on November 17, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H002-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Eileen Ahearn	Counsel	—
Respondent	High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association	Counsel	Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

HLR CCR 6.2.1
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty

Additional Citations:

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)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
HLR CCR 6.2.1
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:32 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:35 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:39 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:43 (7.5 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:47 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:54 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:58 (7.5 KB)

The hearing was conducted before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition filed by Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield (Petitioners) against the High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association (Respondent). The hearing took place on November 8, 2022.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners alleged a violation of community documents, specifically HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures, stemming from the denial of their right to vote at the July 5, 2022, Removal/Recall Special Election. Petitioners were only allowed to present a single issue, having paid the corresponding $500.00 filing fee.

The factual dispute centered on 19 ballots without post marks that were not considered in the election. Petitioners and several other homeowners had completed their ballots prior to the meeting and delivered them to the ballot box custodian, Claire Peachey, who placed them in the secure box. Petitioners testified this was accepted practice and the use of couriers for ballots was approved in the past.

When Petitioners learned these ballots would not be counted due to the lack of a post mark, they attempted to fill out new ballots in person at the meeting. These new ballots were rejected for various reasons, including "double voting" and being "too late" because the voting was declared "closed". Evidence showed that all homeowners whose ballots were rejected had signed the recall petition that prompted the election.

Key Arguments

Petitioners’ Argument: The board members running the election—who were subject to the recall—arbitrarily denied votes using unwritten or newly interpreted rules (e.g., requiring a US postmark). They argued the denial violated their right to vote (one vote per lot) and failed to follow the procedure documents.
Respondent’s Argument: Respondent argued that the cited CCNR 6.2.1 was irrelevant as it only established voting rights (one vote per lot), not voting processes. They maintained that the Petitioners failed to submit their ballots properly, either by mail (with postmark) or in person before the close of voting. Respondent also objected that Petitioners relied on documents (like draft procedures) that were not cited in the initial petition.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Sondra J. Vanella, issued the Decision on November 17, 2022.

The ALJ found that Petitioners established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures.

The ALJ concluded that the Elections Committee Chair (who was subject to the recall) refused to count ballots that could not be considered ineligible under the listed criteria (such as illegibility or lack of good standing). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to abide by its own procedure stating that “Every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election”.

Outcome

The Petition was upheld. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party.

The ALJ ordered the following relief:

Respondent must pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee.
Respondent must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
ballot validity
rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
fairness
HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

discrimination
deadlines
fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

penalties
fines
reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… '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

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process

Case

Docket No: 23F-H002-REL
Case Title: Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2022-11-17
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
ballot validity
rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

elections
fairness
HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

discrimination
deadlines
fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

penalties
fines
reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process

Case

Docket No: 23F-H002-REL
Case Title: Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date: 2022-11-17
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Eileen Ahearn (petitioner)
Robert Barfield (petitioner)
Randy Kling (witness / former board member)
Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
Claire Peachey (witness / election committee member)
Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
Joyce Green (witness)
Testified for Petitioners.
Jeffrey Knox (witness)
Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.

Respondent Side

Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
Smith & Wamsley PLLC
Nancy Sakarelli (board member)
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Board President; appeared virtually.
Corinthia Pangalinan (former board president / board member)
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
Becky Hilgart (Election Committee Chair / board member)
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
Tommy Smith (Election Committee Volunteer / property owner)
Involved in denying votes.
Wally Oliday (board member)
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Subject of recall petition.
Amanda Miller (board member)
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Subject of recall petition.

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
OAH staff transmitting documents.
c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
Staff transmitting documents.
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

Edna Barton (observer)
On the line during the hearing.
Jill Burns (observer)
Present in the hearing room.
John Kron (observer)
Present in the hearing room.
Stacy (board director)
Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
Deborah Bonesac (property owner)
Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
Billy McFarland (board member)
Subject of previous recall election.

Amy Hillburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association

Posted on November 17, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Amy Hilburn	Counsel	—
Respondent	Stetson Valley Owners Association	Counsel	Melissa Doolan, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804 and Article 6.2 of the Bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.

Why this result: The ARC successfully argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only mandates open access for 'any regularly scheduled committee meetings.' Since they transitioned to using an online portal on an irregular schedule, they were no longer holding 'regularly scheduled meetings,' meaning the statute did not require them to be open.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to hold open meetings where members can comment prior to a vote.

Petitioner alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meetings statute) by failing to hold open meetings, particularly after the ARC began processing requests using an online portal which allows for discussion and voting among members outside of noticed meetings. Historically, the ARC held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month until March 2022. The ALJ ultimately ruled that since March 2022, the ARC was not holding 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' as defined by the statute.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Article 6.2 of the Bylaws
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
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Regularly Scheduled Meetings, Online Portal, Statutory Interpretation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
Article 6.2 of the Bylaws

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H008-REL Decision – 1005178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-27T09:47:07 (48.8 KB)

23F-H008-REL Decision – 1005178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:08 (48.8 KB)

23F-H008-REL Decision – 1013302.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:51:12 (110.8 KB)

The hearing in the matter of *Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association* (No. 23F-H008-REL) was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella at the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 9, 2022.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Amy Hilburn, filed a dispute petition on or about August 19, 2022, alleging that the Stetson Valley Owners Association (HOA) violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 and Article 6.2 of its Bylaws. The sole issue determined at the hearing was whether the Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was failing to hold open meetings where homeowner members could comment prior to a vote of the committee.

The core legal point centered on A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), which mandates that "all meetings of the members' association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings" must be open to all members, who are permitted to attend and speak.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner Hilburn argued that the ARC previously held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month from 2011 until February 2022, often without proper notice. Petitioner provided evidence, including old Meeting Minutes (2017–2021) and the Respondent's Paint Architectural Change Request Form, which stated the ARC reviewed applications on the first Tuesday of every month, demonstrating the regularity of the meetings.

Petitioner acknowledged that the ARC ceased holding traditional open meetings after July 2022, choosing instead to process applications through an online portal. However, she argued that the ability for ARC members to exchange comments and make decisions via this portal constitutes "discussion" and a form of regularly occurring meeting that should be open to the community, consistent with the legislature's intent for transparency.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent, represented by Melissa Doolan, Esq., contended that the Association was following state law because the ARC does not currently hold regularly scheduled meetings. Testimony from Community Manager Danielle Miglio and ARC Member Ann Renee Wilsey established that since March 2022, the ARC moved to processing requests solely through an online portal to provide faster homeowner turnaround.

Respondent witnesses testified that under the portal system, ARC members are notified via email, but they view the request documentation and vote on their own time; there is no regularly scheduled time for them to convene, comment, or vote. Because the meetings are not "regularly scheduled," the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) does not apply. The Respondent noted that the few in-person or virtual meetings that occurred in 2022 (April, June, and July) were noticed to the members.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ found that while the ARC had held regularly scheduled meetings prior to utilizing the online portal system, the credible evidence established that since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) or Article 6.2 of the Bylaws, noting that the statute does not require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.

The ALJ ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… 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”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Amy Hilburn (petitioner)
Stetson Valley Owners Association member
Appeared pro se; former Board President

Respondent Side

Melissa Doolan (HOA attorney)
Travis Law Firm
Danielle Miglio (community manager, witness)
Oasis Community Management
Ann Renee Wilsey (ARC member, witness)
Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Nichollet Widner (board member, witness)
Stetson Valley Owners Association Board President
Tom Young (board member, observer)
Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Pam Weller (ARC member, observer)
Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Omar Chavez (board member, observer)
Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
Travis Law Firm
Transmitting staff
Elizabeth Franco (community manager staff)
Oasis Community Management
Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
Benjamin Butler (ARC chairperson)
Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (commissioner)
ADRE
AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
c. serrano (OAH staff)
OAH
Transmitting staff

Other Participants

Amanda McGawan (observer)
Lisa Vargas (observer)
Nick Jackson (observer)

John Zumph v. Sanalina Homeowners Association

Posted on August 1, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222049-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-08-01
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John Zumph	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sanalina Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nick Eicher

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors

Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222049-REL Decision – 988629.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:52:44 (105.3 KB)

22F-H2222049-REL Decision – 988629.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:27 (105.3 KB)

Summary of Hearing Proceedings and Decision

This matter, docket number 22F-H22249-REL, involved Petitioner John Zumph, a homeowner and former Board member, challenging his removal from the Sanalina Homeowners Association ("Sanalina") Board of Directors ("Board") by the Respondent, Sanalina. The hearing was held on July 19, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Issues:

Mr. Zumph served on the six-person Board for approximately seven years and was removed on March 10, 2022. The Board declared his office vacant pursuant to Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d), which permits removal if a member is absent from three consecutive regular meetings. The three meetings in question were regularly scheduled for July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021.

Zumph admitted sending an email prior to the July meeting stating that he, along with others, would not attend future meetings in 2021 unless certain conditions were met, specifically requiring the resignation of two specific directors (one from a household that had two members on the Board, and the current president).

Petitioner’s Argument (John Zumph):

The primary legal issue hinged on the definition and application of "quorum". Zumph argued that since the Board requires a majority (four out of six directors) to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business (Article VI Section 3), and a quorum was not met at the three meetings he missed, those gatherings were not officially recognized as "meetings" of the Board. Therefore, he asserted, he could not have missed three consecutive regular meetings as defined by the bylaws.

Respondent’s Argument (Sanalina HOA):

Sanalina argued that regularly scheduled meetings were held on the specified dates, even if quorum was lacking. Lack of quorum prevents the *transaction of business* (i.e., votes and legal actions), but does not invalidate the meeting itself. Testimony from Board Secretary Lisa Terror confirmed that directors, the community manager, and homeowners attended the meetings, discussed agenda topics, and received community updates, though no business could be transacted. Sanalina emphasized that Zumph intentionally refused to attend to prevent quorum, which led to significant delays in association business (e.g., eight months for appeals, $9,000 cost increase for painting due to delayed votes).

Final Decision and Outcome:

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that a meeting can exist without a quorum, but no business (votes) can occur. The tribunal found Zumph's argument that the meetings did not exist due to lack of quorum "unpersuasive". The ALJ further determined that Zumph intentionally missed the meetings to "hijack" the process, halting association business, which was unacceptable and not in the spirit of the bylaws.

The ALJ found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Respondent violated Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d).

The petition was denied in a decision issued on August 1, 2022.

Select all sources

No emoji found

22F-H2222049-REL

2 sources

These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.

What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?

Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.

How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 1:35 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Select all sources

No emoji found

22F-H2222049-REL

2 sources

What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?

Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.

How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 1:35 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Zumph (petitioner)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei (board member)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe (board member)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings

Respondent Side

Nick Eicher (HOA attorney)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror (board member)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Board Secretary; witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)

Other Participants

Thomas Campanella (property manager)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez (management representative)
Sanalina Homeowners Association
Handled minutes for March meeting

Gregory Ehle V. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on July 11, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222031-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-07-11
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gregory Ehle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:06 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:11 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:22 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:28 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:34 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:38 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:41 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:44 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:47 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:47:50 (106.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)

22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the administrative hearing case of *Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association* (No. 22F-H2222031-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson.

Key Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner Gregory Ehle filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (AZDRE) around February 2, 2022, alleging four separate violations by the Respondent, Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association (Fulton Ranch). Ehle paid a $500 filing fee, but the tribunal ordered him to remit an additional $1,500 for the four claims. Ehle failed to pay the outstanding fee by the deadline (May 6, 2022). Consequently, and because Ehle failed to notify the tribunal of his preferred single issue, the ALJ determined that the sole issue to be addressed at the June 21, 2022, hearing was an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency meeting of the board members.

Hearing Proceedings and Main Arguments

The hearing took place on June 21, 2022. Petitioner Ehle, appearing on his own behalf, initially failed to appear, but the hearing proceeded after he connected virtually.

Petitioner's Argument: Ehle contended that a November 12, 2020, notice issued by Fulton Ranch regarding the cessation of responses to his emails constituted a matter of urgency that should have necessitated an emergency board meeting. Ehle alleged that if an emergency meeting had been conducted, the required minutes were not published at the next regular board meeting. However, under examination, Ehle conceded that he was unaware of whether an emergency board meeting was actually held.

Respondent's Argument: Fulton Ranch, represented by Emily Mann, Esq., argued for dismissal on multiple grounds, including a potential bar by the one-year statute of limitations. The primary argument, supported by testimony from Kevin Hearty (Division Vice President for the community manager, CCMC), was that no emergency board meeting occurred between September 2020 and November 12, 2020. Fulton Ranch asserted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) governs the *procedure* for an emergency meeting, and since no meeting was held, no violation of the procedure could have occurred.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on July 11, 2022.

Key Legal Points and Findings:

Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The weight of the evidence showed that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting regarding the decision concerning Mr. Ehle's emails.
The ALJ explicitly concluded that A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) allows the Board to conduct an emergency meeting, but the statute does not require the Board to hold one. Ehle failed to provide legal authority supporting his contention that a meeting was mandatory.

Final Decision: Because Ehle failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2), the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition.

Questions

Question

Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?

Short Answer

No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.

Alj Quote

Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

emergency meetings
board obligations

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?

Short Answer

Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.

Alj Quote

The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

filing fees
procedure

Question

Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?

Short Answer

No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.

Detailed Answer

You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

meeting minutes
evidence

Question

What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?

Short Answer

Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.

Detailed Answer

State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.

Alj Quote

An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

emergency meetings
definitions

Question

Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?

Short Answer

Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.

Alj Quote

Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

hearings
procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title: Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2022-07-11
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?

Short Answer

No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

emergency meetings
board obligations

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?

Short Answer

Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

filing fees
procedure

Question

Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?

Short Answer

No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.

Detailed Answer

You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

meeting minutes
evidence

Question

What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?

Short Answer

Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.

Detailed Answer

State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.

Alj Quote

An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)

Topic Tags

emergency meetings
definitions

Question

Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?

Short Answer

Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.

Alj Quote

Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.

Legal Basis

Procedural Order

Topic Tags

hearings
procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title: Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2022-07-11
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Gregory Ehle (petitioner)
Appeared on behalf of himself.

Respondent Side

Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy (witness)
CCMC
Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
ADRE
Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
OAH
Handled document transmission.
c. serrano (staff)
OAH
Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril (staff)
ADRE
Listed as contact for ADRE.

Other Participants

Natasha Bell (community manager)
CCMC
Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.