Douglas J Karolak vs. VVE – Casa Grande Homeowners Association

Posted on May 21, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020041-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-05-21
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the community documents by improperly recording Amended CC&Rs without proper owner consent. The Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. However, the ALJ could not grant the requested relief (rescission of the Amended CC&Rs) due to a lack of statutory authority.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

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

20F-H2020041-REL Decision – 792824.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T09:47:41 (102.9 KB)

20F-H2020041-REL Decision – 792824.pdf

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Case Overview

Case Name

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

Case Number

20F-H2020041-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Hearing Date

May 1, 2020

Decision Date

May 21, 2020

The Central Dispute

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

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

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

Factual Background and Chronology

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Analysis and Key Provisions

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

Provision

Source

Summary of Stipulation

Amendment Process

CC&Rs Section 10.4

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

Rulemaking Authority

CC&Rs Section 3.4

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

Statutory Requirement

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

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

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

The Court’s Decision and Final Order

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

Key Findings:

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

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

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

Final Order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)

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

Amended CC&Rs

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

Association Rules

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

Burden of Proof

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

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

Department

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

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

Office of Administrative Hearings

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

Petitioner

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Respondent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the key facts of the case:

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

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

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

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

Recording a Document Doesn’t Magically Make It Valid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Victory on Paper, A Question in Practice

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Douglas J. Karolak (petitioner)

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Donna M Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019033-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Donna M Bischoff	Counsel	—
Respondent	Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
Bylaws Article 3, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Petition was upheld on all issues asserted by the Petitioner. The Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) (failure to provide election documents), A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) (failure to hold an annual meeting in 2019), and Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws (improperly prohibiting write-in ballots). Respondent was ordered to supply Petitioner with relevant documents and refund the Petitioner's filing fee of $1,500.00. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

Voting; proxies; absentee ballots; applicability; definition

Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with the required election materials and documentation from the October 2018 elections, violating statutory requirements for retention and availability of these materials for owner inspection.

Orders: Respondent ordered to supply Petitioner with the relevant documents, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C), within ten (10) days of the Order.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)

Open meetings; exceptions

Respondent postponed its required yearly 2019 meeting until January 2020, resulting in a failure to hold a unit owners' association meeting in 2019 as required by statute.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)

Selection

Respondent's board of directors declared write-in ballots invalid for the November 20, 2019, election. Since the Bylaws were silent on prohibiting write-in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.

Orders: Petition upheld on this issue.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article 3, Section 2 of the Bylaws

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Condominium Association, Election Procedures, Annual Meeting, Statutory Violation, Bylaw Interpretation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)
A.R.S. § 33-1248(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Bylaws Article 3, Section 2
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:24:42 (108.5 KB)

20F-H2019033-REL Decision – 778923.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:15 (108.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Donna M. Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc. (No. 20F-H2019033-REL), heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge found entirely in favor of the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, concluding that the Respondent, Country Hills West Condominium Association (“the Association”), committed multiple violations of Arizona state statutes and its own governing documents.

The core violations upheld by the court are:

1. Failure to Hold a Required Annual Meeting: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold its required annual meeting within the 2019 calendar year, repeatedly postponing it until January 2020.

2. Failure to Provide Election Records: The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with complete election materials for inspection, including ballots, envelopes, and sign-in sheets from the October 2018 election.

3. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots: The Association violated Article 3, Section 2 of its Bylaws by unilaterally prohibiting write-in ballots for the 2019 election, despite its governing documents being silent on the issue.

As a result, the Association was ordered to provide the requested documents to the Petitioner within ten days and to reimburse her $1,500 filing fee within thirty days. The decision underscores the legal obligation of homeowners’ associations to adhere strictly to statutory requirements for meetings, elections, and record transparency.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

The dispute was adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by homeowner Donna M. Bischoff with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 11, 2019.

Case Detail

Information

Case Name

Donna M Bischoff, Petitioner, v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019033-REL

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera

Hearing Date

March 10, 2020

Decision Date

March 30, 2020

Petitioner Representative

Donna M. Bischoff (on her own behalf)

Respondent Representative

Doug Meyer, President and Director

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, asserted that the Country Hills West Condominium Association committed violations of state law and its own governing documents. The specific allegations were:

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B): Failure to hold the mandatory annual unit owners’ association meeting within the 2019 calendar year.

• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1250(C): Failure to make election materials, including ballots and related items, available for inspection by a unit owner.

• Violation of Bylaws Article 3, Section 2: Improperly invalidating election ballots by prohibiting write-in candidates without any authority from the governing documents.

The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish these violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

III. Core Issues and Factual Findings

The hearing established several key facts that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. The testimony from both Ms. Bischoff and the Association’s President, Doug Meyer, was central to these findings.

A. Failure to Hold the 2019 Annual Meeting

• Timeline of Events: The Association’s required annual meeting for 2019 was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019. It was subsequently postponed three times: first to December 19, 2019; then to December 30, 2019; and ultimately held on January 24, 2020.

• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer testified that the postponements were necessary because write-in candidates appeared on the ballot, which the board had prohibited. He stated that the board “needed time to reprint the ballot and mail them out.”

• Conclusion of Law: The evidence was undisputed that no annual meeting took place during the 2019 calendar year. The Judge concluded that by postponing the meeting into the following year, the Association was in direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248(B), which mandates that “A meeting of the unit owners’ association shall be held at least once each year.”

B. Denial of Access to Election Records

• Petitioner’s Request: In October 2018, Ms. Bischoff requested to see the election results from the October 2018 meeting, specifically seeking to know which units had voted.

• Respondent’s Response: The Association initially did not provide the results. A few weeks prior to the March 2020 hearing, it supplied Ms. Bischoff with vote tallies and a list of unit members who voted. However, it failed to provide the full scope of required materials.

• Missing Documentation: The Association did not provide the “ballots, envelopes, related materials, and sign-in sheets” as mandated by statute for inspection.

• Respondent’s Justification: Mr. Meyer argued that no election actually occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting because there was no quorum. He further made the admission that the Association had not achieved a quorum for any meeting in the preceding 20 years. He claimed that without an election, there was no obligation to publish ballots.

• Conclusion of Law: The Judge found that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C). The statute requires that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… and made available for unit owner inspection for at least one year.” The partial and delayed provision of records was insufficient to meet this legal requirement.

C. Improper Prohibition of Write-In Ballots

• The Dispute: The November 20, 2019, meeting was cancelled because some ballots contained write-in candidates. The board of directors informed members that write-in ballots were prohibited and would be “thrown out.”

• Petitioner’s Argument: Ms. Bischoff argued that the board could not “choose how to interpret a silent document.” She pointed out that the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation do not prohibit write-in ballots and that the same board had allowed them in a 2017 election.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the Bylaws were silent on the issue but stated the Association needed to “figure out how to handle” them. A membership meeting to discuss the issue was held on December 30, 2019, but failed to achieve a quorum.

• Conclusion of Law: The Judge determined that the Association violated its own Bylaws. The decision states, “absent any clear language in the A.R.S. or the Bylaws prohibiting write in ballots, Respondent failed to show how the ballots were invalid.” The board’s unilateral prohibition was therefore found to be improper.

IV. Legal Conclusions and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the petition on all issues, finding that the Petitioner had successfully proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Final Order:

Based on the foregoing conclusions, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Petition filed by Donna M. Bischoff is upheld on all issues.

2. The Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

3. The Respondent must supply the Petitioner with the relevant election documents pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) within ten (10) days of the Order.

4. The Respondent must pay the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 directly to the Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the Order.

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

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

Study Guide: Bischoff v. Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2019033-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and a condominium association. It includes a quiz with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found in the source document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties in the legal dispute, and what were their roles?

2. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Donna M. Bischoff, allege against the Respondent?

3. Why was the 2019 yearly meeting for the Country Hills West Condominium Association repeatedly rescheduled?

4. What was the Respondent’s position on the validity of write-in ballots for the November 20, 2019, election?

5. What information did the Petitioner request from the October 2018 election, and what was the initial response?

6. What is the definition of “quorum” according to the association’s Bylaws, and why was it significant in this case?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet in this hearing?

8. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) regarding association meetings?

9. According to the decision, how did the Respondent violate A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) regarding election materials?

10. What were the key components of the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and the Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the homeowner who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the homeowners association accused of violations.

2. The Petitioner alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1250(C) and § 33-1248(B), as well as Article 3, Section 2 of the association’s Bylaws. These allegations related to the handling of yearly meetings and elections.

3. The 2019 yearly meeting was initially scheduled for November 20, 2019, but was rescheduled three times, ultimately taking place in January 2020. The first cancellation was because some ballots contained write-in candidates, which the board deemed prohibited.

4. The Respondent’s representative, Doug Meyer, testified that members were informed that write-in ballots were not valid for the November 20, 2019, election. He stated that any ballots with write-in candidates would have been thrown out.

5. The Petitioner requested to see the election results from the October 2018 election, specifically wanting to know which units voted. While she was eventually given the voting tallies, the Respondent did not initially provide the requested results.

6. Quorum is defined in Article 4, Section 3 of the Bylaws. It was significant because the Respondent’s president, Mr. Meyer, acknowledged that the association had not achieved a quorum for its meetings in the last 20 years, and thus no election occurred at the October 18, 2018, meeting.

7. The Petitioner had the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

8. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) by failing to hold a required yearly meeting within the calendar year of 2019. The evidence showed that the meeting scheduled for 2019 was postponed until January 2020.

9. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1250(C) by failing to provide the Petitioner with all required election materials from the 2018 election. While vote tallies were eventually provided, the statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related materials be retained and made available for inspection for at least one year.

10. The Administrative Law Judge’s Order upheld the Petition on all issues, deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party, and required the Respondent to supply the relevant documents within 10 days. The Order also mandated that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,500.00 within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Use the information presented in the source document to construct a comprehensive argument for each prompt.

1. Analyze the Respondent’s handling of the write-in ballot issue for the 2019 election. Discuss the legal basis (or lack thereof) for their actions as presented in the hearing, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled that their prohibition of these ballots was a violation of the Bylaws.

2. Explain the concept of “quorum” as it relates to this case. How did the association’s failure to achieve a quorum for 20 years impact its governance, specifically regarding the 2018 meeting and the Respondent’s obligation to produce election records?

3. Describe in detail the specific violations of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) that the Country Hills West Condominium Association was found to have committed. For each statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248(B) and A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)), detail the legal requirement and explain how the Respondent’s actions failed to meet that standard.

4. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Using testimony and evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent, explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof for her allegations.

5. Outline the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Beyond the simple outcome, explain the significance of each component of the order, including the validation of the petition, the designation of a “prevailing party,” the directive to supply documents, and the financial remedy awarded.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Antara Nath Rivera.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which a homeowner or planned community organization can file a petition for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statutes cited were A.R.S. §§ 33-1250(C) and 33-1248(B).

Bylaws

The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of an organization, such as a homeowners association. In this case, the Bylaws of Country Hills West Association, Inc. were a key document.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state agency where petitions filed with the Department of Real Estate are heard before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Donna M. Bischoff.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. The Respondent had not achieved quorum for 20 years.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or a legal action is brought. In this case, Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.

Select all sources

778923.pdf

No emoji found

20F-H2019033-REL

1 source

This source is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Donna M. Bischoff, the Petitioner, and Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc., the Respondent. The document details the hearing held on March 10, 2020, where the Petitioner alleged the Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the association’s Bylaws. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed violations related to the failure to hold a required yearly meeting in 2019, the failure to provide election materials for inspection, and the improper prohibition of write-in ballots where the Bylaws were silent. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately upheld the Petition on all issues, finding the Respondent in violation, and ordered the Association to provide the requested documents and pay the Petitioner’s $1,500.00 filing fee.

What were the specific legal violations found against the Condominium Association regarding meetings and documents?

How did the lack of clarity in the Bylaws regarding write-in ballots impact the association’s actions?

What was the ultimate outcome of this administrative hearing, including the ordered remedies for the petitioner?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Donna M Bischoff (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Doug Meyer (president, director, witness)
Country Hills West Condominium Association, Inc.
Appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Decision transmitted electronically to Commissioner

Will Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners

Posted on March 16, 2020 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019003-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge decision, issued following a rehearing, dismissed the Petitioner's dispute petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its governing documents by reasonably denying the retroactive application for the unapproved glass view fence.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Will Schreiber	Counsel	Aaron M. Green
Respondent	Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge decision, issued following a rehearing, dismissed the Petitioner's dispute petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its governing documents by reasonably denying the retroactive application for the unapproved glass view fence.

Why this result: Petitioner installed the fence prior to seeking approval, failing to comply with the procedural requirements (Design Guidelines Section HH). Consequently, the HOA's denial based on consistency and maintenance concerns was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of Petitioner's glass view fence modification

Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly denied the retroactive approval of a glass view fence installed without prior permission. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval pursuant to Design Guidelines Section HH, and that the Respondent's denial was reasonable due to procedural failure, community inconsistency (Design Guidelines Section E), and liability/maintenance concerns (CC&R Article 12.3).

Orders: Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_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)
CC&R’s Article 12.3
Design Guidelines Section HH
Design Guidelines Section E
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowner dispute, View fence, Architectural approval, Design Guidelines, CC&R's violation, Retroactive approval, Burden of Proof

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. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 769789.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:11 (42.2 KB)

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG Decision – 775433.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:17 (123.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcome of the dispute between homeowner Will Schreiber (Petitioner) and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning an unapproved glass fence. The case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, centered on Mr. Schreiber’s retroactive application for a glass view fence he installed without prior permission, which replaced a wrought iron fence.

The Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the application, citing a lack of consistency with community design standards, as well as significant maintenance and liability concerns stipulated in the governing documents. The Petitioner argued the denial was unreasonable, asserting that a glass fence is visually similar to having no fence (an approved option), that the HOA failed to provide a valid reason for denial, and that safety concerns were unfounded.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed Mr. Schreiber’s petition. The final decision concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof showing the HOA had violated its own rules. The ruling affirmed that the HOA’s denial was reasonable because the Petitioner did not follow the required procedure of seeking approval before installation, as mandated by the community’s Design Guidelines. The decision underscored the HOA’s right to enforce uniformity and manage its maintenance and liability responsibilities as defined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Case Identification and Participants

Detail

Information

Case Name

Will Schreiber, Petitioner, vs. Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, Respondent

Case Number

20F-H2019003-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Antara Nath Rivera

Petitioner

Will Schreiber

Petitioner’s Counsel

Aaron M. Green, Esq.

Respondent

Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (a subdivision of McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association)

Respondent’s Counsel

Nick Nogami, Esq. (at hearing); Mark K. Sahl, Esq. (on record)

Property Address

11551 East Caribbean Lane, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85255

Procedural History and Timeline

1. November 2017: Petitioner submitted an architectural form for backyard work, which was approved by the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). This submission did not mention any changes to fencing.

2. January 2019: During a violation tour, the HOA discovered that Petitioner had replaced the pre-existing wrought iron view fencing with an unapproved glass fence.

3. January 24, 2019: After being contacted by the HOA, Petitioner submitted a second variance request seeking retroactive approval for the installed glass fence.

4. March 5, 2019: The HOA sent a letter to Petitioner requesting that the fence be returned to its original wrought iron condition.

5. May 10, 2019: The HOA officially notified Petitioner that his appeal was denied because the application was not filed in a timely manner (i.e., prior to installation).

6. July 2, 2019: Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging violations of community documents.

7. August 9, 2019: The HOA filed its Answer, denying all claims, and a Motion to Dismiss.

8. October 2, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the HOA’s Motion to Dismiss.

9. December 10, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Rehearing.

10. January 30, 2020: A rehearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

11. February 4, 2020: The HOA’s counsel submitted a Posthearing Memorandum without leave from the tribunal.

12. February 14, 2020: The ALJ issued an order reopening the record solely to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the HOA’s unauthorized filing by February 24, 2020.

13. March 16, 2020: The ALJ issued the final decision, ordering that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Analysis of Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Will Schreiber)

The Petitioner’s case rested on the argument that the HOA’s denial of his glass fence was arbitrary and unreasonable.

• Lack of Justification: Petitioner claimed the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) met with him but failed to provide any verbal or written reasons for the initial disapproval.

• Aesthetic and Functional Equivalence: He argued a glass fence is “just as invisible” as having no fence at all, an option permitted by the HOA. He contended that since his neighbor did not have a wrought iron fence, denying his glass fence on grounds of consistency was illogical.

• Safety and Maintenance: Petitioner asserted that the safety glass used was comparable to that of the Grand Canyon Skywalk and had been inspected and approved by a Scottsdale City Inspector. He argued the HOA’s concerns about safety, fire barriers, and continuity were manufactured “excuses.” He also offered to waive the HOA’s maintenance responsibility for the fence.

• Procedural Failure: The core of the petition was the allegation that the HOA violated its own community documents, specifically “Design Guidelines HH Walls/View Fences and CC&R’s Article 12.”

Respondent’s Position (Cimarron Hills HOA)

The HOA’s defense, presented primarily through the testimony of Whitney Bostic, focused on procedural compliance, community uniformity, and non-negotiable maintenance responsibilities.

• Violation of Process: The HOA established that the Petitioner installed the glass fence prior to seeking approval, in direct violation of the Design Guidelines which require submission of detailed plans for any view fence modifications. His approved 2017 plans made no mention of fencing.

• Lack of Consistency: Ms. Bostic testified that out of 656 homes in the Cimarron Hills subdivision and 3,800 homes in the master McDowell Mountain Ranch association, none had a glass fence. The established design standard allows only for a wrought iron fence or no fence at all to maintain community conformity.

• Maintenance and Liability: The HOA argued that under Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, it is legally responsible for maintaining the exterior half of all boundary view fences and the five-foot easement from the boundary wall. This responsibility cannot be waived by a homeowner. A glass fence introduces unique maintenance concerns and liability risks, such as shards of glass falling into an area of HOA responsibility.

• Multi-Level Review: The decision to deny the request was made after consideration by both the Cimarron Hills DRC and the master association (MMRHA), which weighed factors of consistency, responsibility, and maintenance before issuing a denial.

Governing Documents Cited

The decision in this case was based on the interpretation of several key sections of the community’s governing documents.

• CC&Rs Article 12.3 (Boundary Walls and Association Responsibility): This article explicitly states that the Association “shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This formed the basis of the HOA’s argument regarding non-waivable liability and maintenance obligations.

• Design Guidelines Section HH (View Fencing): This section mandates that “The Owner shall submit for approval from the DRC including detailed drawings of proposed changes… for view fence modifications.” The Petitioner’s failure to do this prior to installation was a central fact in the case. It also specifies the approved paint color for fences, “MMR Brown Fence.”

• Design Guidelines Section E (General Principles): This section outlines the DRC’s goal to “maintain consistency of the community and of its decisions.” It notes that variances may be granted but “shall remain consistent with the architectural and neighborhood characteristics.” This supported the HOA’s argument against introducing a unique fence type.

• Design Guidelines Section GG (View Decks): While pertaining to decks, this section was cited to show the level of detail required in applications to the DRC, including materials, dimensions, and impact on views, underscoring the formal process the Petitioner bypassed.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ, Antara Nath Rivera, dismissed Will Schreiber’s petition, finding in favor of the Cimarron Hills HOA.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.

• Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval to change his existing fence, pursuant to Section HH of the Design Guidelines.” The key issue was not the aesthetics of the fence, but the Petitioner’s failure to abide by the required approval process before installation.

• Reasonableness of Denial: The ALJ found that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial” and “did not violate any rules or regulations.” The evidence demonstrated that the HOA’s decision was based on established principles of uniformity, consistency, and its obligations under the CC&Rs.

• Final Order: The petition was formally dismissed. The order noted that as a decision from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.

Study Guide: Schreiber v. Cimarron Hills HOA

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Will Schreiber and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, based on the provided legal documents. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents.

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

2. What specific action did the Petitioner, Will Schreiber, take that initiated the dispute with the Homeowners Association?

3. According to the Respondent, what were the primary reasons for denying the Petitioner’s request for the glass fence?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument regarding the fairness of the Respondent’s denial, particularly in relation to his neighbor?

5. What was the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win his case, and did he meet it?

6. Identify two specific governing documents that were central to the Respondent’s defense and the final ruling.

7. Who was Whitney Bostic, and what key information did her testimony provide during the rehearing?

8. What procedural event occurred on or about February 4, 2020, that prompted the Administrative Law Judge to issue the “Order Holding Record Open” on February 14, 2020?

9. According to the CC&Rs, who is responsible for maintaining the “Boundary Wall” that separates a lot from an “Area of Association Responsibility”?

10. What was the final outcome of the administrative rehearing held on January 30, 2020?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Will Schreiber, the Petitioner and homeowner, and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Schreiber filed a petition against the HOA, alleging a violation of community documents after they denied his request for a fence modification.

2. Mr. Schreiber replaced his preexisting wrought iron view fencing with glass fencing without first receiving approval from the HOA’s Design Review Committee (DRC). He then submitted a variance request on January 24, 2019, seeking retroactive approval for the already-installed fence.

3. The Respondent denied the request based on several factors, including the need for design consistency across the community’s 656 homes, as no other home had a glass fence. They also cited maintenance concerns and potential liability, as the HOA is responsible for the exterior half of view fences and a five-foot easement from the boundary wall.

4. The Petitioner argued that the denial was unreasonable because his neighbor was allowed to have no fence at all. He contended that a glass fence was “just as invisible” as no fence and that the concept was essentially the same.

5. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means convincing the judge that his contention was more probably true than not. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

6. The two central documents were the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills (CC&Rs) and the Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living (Design Guidelines). The Respondent specifically cited Sections E (General Principles), GG (View Decks), and HH (Walls/View Fences) of the Design Guidelines.

7. Whitney Bostic testified on behalf of the Respondent HOA. She explained that the glass fence was unapproved, inconsistent with the 656 homes in the community, and posed maintenance and liability concerns for the HOA.

8. Counsel for the Respondent submitted a Posthearing Memorandum and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law without having been granted permission (leave) by the tribunal. Because the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to respond, the judge reopened the record to allow him to do so by February 24, 2020.

9. According to Article 12.3 of the CC&Rs, the resident is responsible for their side of the wall, but the Association is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Will Schreiber’s Petition be dismissed. The judge found that the Respondent HOA’s denial of the glass fence was reasonable and that it did not violate any of its rules or regulations.

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and facts presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the procedural timeline of the case from the initial filing of the petition on July 2, 2019, to the final decision on March 16, 2020. Discuss the significance of the initial dismissal, the subsequent rehearing, and the order to reopen the record.

2. Examine the concept of “consistency” as described in Section E of the Design Guidelines. How did this principle form the foundation of the Respondent’s case, and why was it a more compelling argument than the Petitioner’s claims about aesthetics and safety?

3. The Petitioner argued that since his neighbor was permitted to have no fence, his “invisible” glass fence should also be permitted. Deconstruct this argument and explain why it ultimately failed to persuade the Administrative Law Judge, citing the Respondent’s counterarguments regarding maintenance and responsibility.

4. Discuss the role of the governing community documents (the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines) in this dispute. Explain how specific articles, such as CC&R Article 12.3 and Design Guideline Section HH, were applied to the facts of the case to reach a final decision.

5. Define “preponderance of the evidence” as described in the legal decision. Detail the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent at the rehearing and evaluate why the Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this evidentiary standard.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding judge (Antara Nath Rivera) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who heard the evidence and issued the final decision.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent on August 9, 2019, denying all complaint items in the Petition.

Areas of Association Responsibility

Areas that the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining, as defined in the CC&Rs. This includes the exterior side of boundary walls and a five-foot easement.

An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Cimarron Hills, a primary governing document for the community.

Design Guidelines

A document titled Cimarron Hills Design Guidelines For Community Living that supplements the CC&Rs and provides specific rules on community aesthetics, including fences.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A committee within the HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying residents’ proposed architectural and landscape modifications.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by Will Schreiber with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 2, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.

McDowell Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (MMRHA)

The master association of which the Cimarron Hills HOA is a subdivision. The MMRHA also considered and denied the Petitioner’s request.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action; in this case, the homeowner, Will Schreiber.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required in the hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed; in this case, the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association.

Retroactive Approval

Approval sought for a modification or construction that has already been completed without prior authorization.

Variance

A formal exception to the standard Design Guidelines that the DRC may grant on a case-by-case basis.

The Glass Fence Standoff: 4 Critical Lessons from a Homeowner’s Losing Battle with His HOA

Introduction: The Dream Project and the Unseen Rules

Will Schreiber had a vision for his Scottsdale, Arizona home: a sleek, modern property with an uninterrupted backyard view. To preserve that stunning vista, he installed an elegant glass fence—a choice that seemed perfect for the landscape. His neighbors didn’t complain; in fact, there’s no evidence the fence bothered anyone. But his Homeowners Association (HOA) denied the project, triggering a legal dispute that went before an administrative law judge. Mr. Schreiber ultimately lost.

The conflict wasn’t driven by neighborhood animosity, but by the impersonal application of community documents. This case offers a masterclass in the often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. The reasons he lost reveal surprising and invaluable lessons for any homeowner considering a modification to their property.

1. The most critical mistake wasn’t the fence—it was the timing.

The core reason the homeowner lost his case had less to do with the aesthetics of glass versus wrought iron and everything to do with procedural failure. He installed the fence before getting formal approval from the HOA.

The timeline of events was fatal to his argument. In November 2017, the HOA approved Mr. Schreiber’s plan for backyard improvements, but this plan made no mention of fencing. At some point after, he installed the unapproved glass fence. It wasn’t until a routine violation tour in January 2019 that the HOA discovered the new fence. Only after being caught, on January 24, 2019, did the homeowner submit a request for retroactive approval.

In the end, the judge’s decision hinged on this sequence. The key question wasn’t whether a glass fence was a good idea, but whether the HOA’s denial was reasonable “because Petitioner failed to abide by the regulations to get approval for the glass fence prior to installing it.” In any dispute with an HOA, following the established process is paramount. Once you break the rules of that process, the merits of your project often become irrelevant.

2. A logical argument can lose to a written rule.

The homeowner presented a seemingly logical and compelling argument. He contended that his neighbor didn’t have a fence at all, and a glass fence was conceptually the same thing. In his words:

A glass fence was “just as invisible” as not having a fence. In essence, both were the same concept.

To add weight to his point, he made a powerful real-world comparison, arguing the safety glass he used was similar to that of the railing of the Grand Canyon Skywalk tourist attraction.

This “common sense” approach, however, failed to persuade the judge. The HOA’s decision wasn’t based on a subjective interpretation of “invisibility” or a comparison to national landmarks. It was based on the binding community documents. The Design Guidelines were written to promote uniformity and consistency. According to the HOA, the established rules were clear: a homeowner could have a wrought iron fence or no fence at all. A glass fence was not an approved option. The lesson here is stark: the governing documents create the binding reality for every member of the community. A personal, logical argument is not a valid defense against a clearly written rule you have contractually agreed to follow.

3. The HOA’s biggest concern wasn’t curb appeal; it was risk.

While the dispute appeared to be about aesthetics, the HOA’s defense focused on much more practical and significant concerns: consistency, maintenance, and liability. These arguments reveal the often-unseen function of an HOA, which is to manage shared risk for the entire community.

The HOA presented several key points:

• Consistency: Out of 3,800 homes in the master community and 656 in the sub-community, not a single one had a glass fence. Approving this one would set a precedent that could undermine the community’s uniform design.

• Maintenance: The community’s CC&Rs (Article 12.3) explicitly stated the Association was responsible for maintaining “the side of the Boundary Wall which faces the Area of Association Responsibility.” This meant the HOA would be financially and logistically on the hook for repairing and maintaining an unfamiliar and potentially costly material.

• Safety & Liability: The HOA raised a critical safety issue. If the glass fence were to break, “large amount of glass shards would fall onto an area of Respondent’s responsibility, causing additional liability for Respondent.”

Sensing the maintenance issue was a key obstacle, Mr. Schreiber made a reasonable offer: he was willing to waive the HOA’s responsibility to maintain the glass fence. However, this proactive solution came too late. Because he had already violated the approval process, his concession was not enough to overcome the HOA’s other concerns about precedent and liability, which remained firmly grounded in the community’s governing documents.

4. In a dispute, you are the one who has to prove the HOA is wrong.

When a homeowner takes their HOA to court, the legal scales are not perfectly balanced from the start. The legal decision in this case clearly states the principle: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Article 12.3 of its CC&Rs.”

In simple terms, “burden of proof” meant it was Mr. Schreiber’s job to convince the judge with a “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning it was more likely true than not—that the HOA had broken its own rules when it denied his request. It was not the HOA’s job to prove it was right; it was his job to prove they were wrong.

The judge ultimately found that the homeowner “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he rightfully sought approval.” The conclusion was that the “Respondent was reasonable in its denial.” It is not enough to feel you have been wronged; in a legal setting, you must be able to demonstrate with convincing evidence that the organization violated its own governing documents.

Conclusion: The Unwritten Lessons of Community Living

HOA rules can be a source of frustration, but this case demonstrates that they form a complex web of process, liability, and shared responsibility that exists for reasons beyond simple aesthetics. The homeowner’s dream of a glass fence was shattered not by a neighbor’s complaint, but by a series of procedural missteps and a misunderstanding of the contract he was bound by.

This case wasn’t just about a fence; it was about the power of a contract you agree to when you buy a home. How well do you really know your own community’s rulebook?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Will Schreiber (petitioner)
Complainant
Aaron M. Green (petitioner attorney)
Law Office of Aaron Green, P.C.

Respondent Side

Nick Nogami (respondent attorney)
Represented Respondent at hearing
Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Whitney Bostic (witness)
Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

c. serrano (clerk)
Transmitting agent for Order
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission

Jennie Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Posted on February 26, 2020 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019002-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-02-26
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	The ALJ ordered the Petition dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited CC&R sections, as the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jennie Bennett	Counsel	Maxwell Riddiough
Respondent	Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered the Petition dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited CC&R sections, as the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on the Petitioner's private property and was her responsibility.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the backflow flap was a common element maintenance responsibility under CC&Rs Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of community documents regarding maintenance responsibility for sewage backflow flap.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by refusing to pay for repairs related to a malfunctioning backflow flap that caused a sewage overflow, arguing the item was a common element maintenance responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 12(c)
CC&Rs Section 12(h)(1)
CC&Rs Section 15

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Maintenance Responsibility, Plumbing, Sewage Overflow, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019002-REL-RHG Decision – 771959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:01 (103.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Jennie Bennett vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings, arguments, and conclusions from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG, concerning a dispute between homeowner Jennie Bennett (Petitioner) and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association (Respondent).

The core of the dispute was the financial responsibility for repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow valve that caused an overflow at the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner argued that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs), specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1), by refusing to cover the repair costs. The petitioner’s claim was complicated by the fact that the HOA had, just two weeks prior to the incident, rescinded a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” that had previously addressed such issues. The petitioner stated she was not notified of this rescission.

The respondent contended that the backflow valve was located on the petitioner’s private property, not in a common area, making its maintenance the petitioner’s responsibility under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. The HOA asserted that the 2017 policy was rescinded precisely because legal guidance confirmed this distinction. The HOA also maintained that notice of the rescission was sent to all homeowners.

The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petitioner’s petition. The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof—a preponderance of the evidence—to establish that the backflow valve was a common element covered by the cited CC&R sections. The evidence, including a plat map and photos, demonstrated the valve was on the petitioner’s private property. While the timing of the policy rescission was deemed “extremely unfortunate,” the ALJ found that once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share repair costs.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Jennie Bennett, Petitioner, vs. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Antara Nath Rivera

• Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

• Decision Date: February 26, 2020

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated community documents, specifically Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.

II. Central Dispute and Timeline of Events

The central issue was whether the HOA was responsible for the cost of repairing a malfunctioning sewage backflow flap on the petitioner’s property.

• March 2017: The HOA adopts a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” to outline processes for sewage maintenance.

• February 13, 2019: The HOA Board rescinds the Sewer Maintenance Policy.

• March 3, 2019: Petitioner Jennie Bennett experiences a sewage overflow at her residence due to a malfunctioning backflow valve.

• March – May 2019: The petitioner brings her concerns to the HOA board at multiple meetings but receives no response.

• May 22, 2019: The HOA responds to the petitioner after receiving a letter from her attorney.

• July 10, 2019: The petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

III. Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Jennie Bennett)

The petitioner, a resident for 20 years, argued that the HOA was liable for the repair costs based on the following points:

• CC&R Violation: The refusal to pay for the repair constituted a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs, which pertain to the HOA’s duty to maintain sewer lines and common elements.

• Lack of Notice: The petitioner testified she was not notified of the policy rescission on February 13, 2019. The sewage overflow occurred just two weeks later, and upon reporting it, she was informed by a neighbor that the HOA had historically covered such issues.

• Procedural Failure: The HOA failed to address her concerns at the March, April, or May board meetings, only engaging after her attorney intervened.

• Community Support: The petitioner collected 97 signatures on a grassroots petition asking the HOA to cover the repair due to the short time frame between the policy rescission and the incident, and the lack of notice. The petition stated: “I am asking to be covered because of the 2 week time frame and no notice. I agree with being covered by the HOA for the flap.”

IV. Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Catalina Del Rey HOA)

The HOA, represented by community manager Vanessa Lubinsky of Cadden Community Management, presented a defense centered on the distinction between private and common property.

• Private Property Responsibility: The HOA’s primary argument was that the backflow flap was located on the petitioner’s private property and was therefore her responsibility to maintain under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, which governs utilities like plumbing within a homeowner’s lot.

• Evidence of Location: The respondent submitted a plat map and photographs as evidence. The photos illustrated that the backflow flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” well within her property lines and not on common elements.

• Plumbing vs. Sewer Issue: Ms. Lubinsky characterized the problem as a “plumbing issue, not a sewer issue,” because of its location on private property.

• Rationale for Policy Change: The 2017 Sewer Maintenance Policy was rescinded after the HOA received “additional legal guidance” confirming that backflow flaps were within homeowners’ units and thus their responsibility under Section 15.

• Notice and Procedure: Ms. Lubinsky testified that notice of the rescission was issued to homeowners via both email and postal mail (postcards). She clarified that the rescission was a board decision that did not require a homeowner vote, as it was not an amendment to the CC&Rs.

V. Relevant Sections of the CC&Rs

The dispute hinged on the interpretation of the following sections of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Quoted Text from the Decision

Section 12(c)

“The Association shall maintain and landscape all front and side years open to the street, and shall maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets and common recreation areas. …The words “repair or maintain” shall not be construed that the Association shall repair or maintain any individual lot owner’s roof or similar structure.”

Section 12(h)(1)

“Each such lot will be subject to assessments and the owner thereof shall pay to the Associations assessments as follows: Such lots pro rata share of the actual cost to the Association of all repair, maintenance, safety and control of common elements, including but not limited to maintenance of walkways, sidewalks, streets and sewers, care of lawns and landscaping in common areas and front and side yards of residences… .”

Section 15

(Described, not quoted) This section provides that the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of utilities such as electricity and plumbing on their private property, similar to a single-family residence.

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The ALJ’s decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the required burden of proof.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner was required to establish the HOA’s violation by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning proof that convinces the trier of fact the contention is more probably true than not.

• Factual Determination: The judge found that the evidence, specifically the photos and plat map, demonstrated conclusively that the backflow flap was on the petitioner’s private property near her front door.

• Conclusion on CC&Rs: Because the flap was determined not to be located within a common area, the petitioner failed to establish that it fell under the purview of Sections 12(c) or 12(h)(1). Therefore, she failed to prove the HOA had a responsibility to repair it under those sections.

• Effect of Policy Rescission: The judge acknowledged, “It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.” However, the ruling stated that once the policy was rescinded, the HOA “was not obligated to share the cost of repairs.”

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed.” The order is binding on the parties, with any appeal required to be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of service.

Study Guide: Bennett v. Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case text.

1. Who were the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what was the legal case number?

2. What specific sections of the community documents did Petitioner Jennie Bennett allege the Respondent had violated?

3. Describe the incident that prompted the dispute and the date on which it occurred.

4. What was the “Sewer Maintenance Policy,” when was it adopted, and when was it rescinded?

5. According to the Respondent’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, why was the repair Jennie Bennett’s financial responsibility?

6. What evidence did the Respondent present to prove the location of the malfunctioning backflow flap?

7. What steps did Jennie Bennett take to rally support from her neighbors after the Respondent did not address her concerns?

8. What is the legal standard for the burden of proof in this case, and which party does it fall on?

9. According to Section 12(c) of the CC&Rs, what specific areas is the Homeowners Association responsible for maintaining?

10. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Jennie Bennett, represented by attorney Maxwell Riddiough. The Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, represented by attorney Nathan Tennyson. The case number was 20F-H2019002-REL-RHG.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). This was noted as a single-issue petition.

3. On or about March 3, 2019, the Petitioner experienced a sewage overflow into her house. The overflow was caused by malfunctioning backflow valves.

4. The Sewer Maintenance Policy was a policy adopted in March 2017 to outline the process for sewage maintenance issues. It was rescinded by the HOA Board on February 13, 2019, shortly before the Petitioner’s incident.

5. Vanessa Lubinsky testified that the issue was the Petitioner’s responsibility because the malfunctioning backflow flap was located on her private property. Under Section 15 of the CC&Rs, homeowners are responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities.

6. The Respondent presented a plat map, which specified all property lines, and photos. This evidence illustrated that the backflow flap was located inside the lines of the Petitioner’s private property, next to the walk-up to her front door, and not on common elements.

7. The Petitioner obtained 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition.” The petition explained her situation and argued that she should be covered by the HOA for the repair due to the short time between the policy rescission and her incident, and because she had not received written notice.

8. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not. The burden of proof fell on the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, to establish that the Respondent committed the alleged violations.

9. Section 12(c) states the Association is responsible for maintaining and landscaping front and side yards open to the street. It also specifies the Association’s duty to maintain sewer lines, sidewalks, walkways, brick trim, streets, and common recreation areas.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Petitioner Jennie Bennett’s Petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and arguments from the provided text to support your conclusions.

1. Analyze and contrast the core arguments presented by the Petitioner, Jennie Bennett, and the Respondent, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. How did each party use the CC&Rs and the Sewer Maintenance Policy to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the Sewer Maintenance Policy’s rescission. Evaluate the timing of the rescission relative to the Petitioner’s incident and the arguments made regarding notification to homeowners.

3. Explain the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case document. How did Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera apply this standard to the evidence presented by both parties to reach a final decision?

4. Evaluate the role of physical evidence, specifically the plat map and photographs, in the outcome of this hearing. Why was determining the precise location of the backflow flap the central issue of the case?

5. From an ethical and community governance perspective, discuss the actions of the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association. Consider their decision to rescind the policy, the method of notification, and their initial responses (or lack thereof) to Ms. Bennett’s requests at the board meetings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Antara Nath Rivera, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes legal decisions and orders.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Common Elements

Areas within the HOA community that are not part of an individual homeowner’s private property and are maintained by the Association. Examples from the text include walkways, sidewalks, streets, sewers, and recreation areas.

Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that outline the rules, obligations, and restrictions for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of these documents.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

The community organization, Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association, responsible for managing and maintaining the common elements of a planned community as defined by the CC&Rs.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Jennie Bennett.

Plat Map

A map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land. In this case, it was used as evidence to specify all property lines, including the Petitioner’s.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Rescission

The act of canceling or revoking a policy or decision. The HOA Board rescinded its Sewer Maintenance Policy on February 13, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association.

A Homeowner’s Sewage Nightmare: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Losing Battle with an HOA

Introduction: The Dreaded HOA Letter

For many homeowners, the greatest fear isn’t a storm or a failing appliance; it’s a sudden, catastrophic repair bill. This anxiety is often magnified for those living in a planned community, where another layer of complexity—the Homeowners Association (HOA)—governs every aspect of property maintenance. A dispute with the HOA can turn a straightforward repair into a frustrating and expensive legal battle.

The case of Jennie Bennett, a resident in her home for 20 years, and the Catalina Del Rey Homeowners Association is a stark cautionary tale. After a sewage overflow caused by a malfunctioning backflow valve, Ms. Bennett found herself in a dispute with her HOA over who should pay for the repair, claiming the association had violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of its governing documents. The resulting legal decision reveals critical, and often surprising, insights into how HOA rules are interpreted and enforced. This article breaks down the five most impactful lessons from her losing battle.

1. Location is Everything: The Critical Line Between Private and Common Property

The single most important factor in the judge’s decision was the physical location of the broken part. The entire case hinged on a simple question: was the malfunctioning backflow flap on Jennie Bennett’s private property or in an HOA-maintained common area?

The HOA argued that the plat map and photos proved the flap was located “next to Petitioner’s walk up to her front door,” placing it squarely inside her private property line. While the homeowner claimed the HOA was responsible for “sewer lines” under Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), this argument failed. The HOA’s manager, Vanessa Lubinsky, perfectly synthesized the association’s legal position when she “opined that the backflow flap was a plumbing issue, not a sewer issue, because it was located on Petitioner’s private property.”

Because the backflow flap was deemed to be on private property, it fell under Section 15 of the CC&Rs. This clause stipulated that the homeowner was responsible for the maintenance of their own plumbing, electricity, and other utilities—much like the owner of a single-family residence. The specific location of the failure, not the general nature of the system it belonged to, determined financial responsibility.

2. An HOA ‘Policy’ Can Vanish Overnight

For nearly two years, from March 2017 to February 2019, the Catalina Del Rey HOA had a “Sewer Maintenance Policy” in place. This policy, which had been in effect for nearly two years, outlined a process for handling sewage maintenance; however, once rescinded, the HOA was no longer obligated to share in repair costs. The Board of Directors rescinded this policy on February 13, 2019. The petitioner’s sewage overflow occurred on March 3, 2019—less than three weeks later.

Crucially, the HOA’s action was not arbitrary. According to case testimony, the board rescinded the policy because, “After Respondent received additional legal guidance, it was determined that the backflow flaps were located within the homeowners’ units and on private property.” This reveals a critical insight: the HOA made a calculated, legally-informed decision to shift liability back to homeowners to align with the CC&Rs.

This also highlights the significant difference between a formal, recorded CC&R and a simple board policy. As the HOA manager clarified, rescinding the policy did not require a homeowner vote because it was not an amendment to the core CC&Rs. A board can unilaterally change a policy, altering the financial obligations of every resident without a community-wide vote.

3. The High Cost of “Extremely Unfortunate” Timing

The timing of the sewage backup, occurring just after the policy change, was a devastating coincidence for the homeowner. The administrative law judge acknowledged this directly in the final decision, stating:

It was extremely unfortunate that Petitioner experienced such a sewage overflow just after Respondent rescinded the Policy.

Compounding the issue was a dispute over communication. The petitioner claimed she “was not notified of the rescission.” In her efforts to be covered, she even gathered 97 signatures on a “Grassroots petition” from her neighbors. The petitioner claimed she received no substantive response from the board regarding her repair claim until her attorney sent a formal letter on May 22, 2019. The HOA countered this, stating that notice of the policy change had been sent to homeowners via both email and postcards.

This takeaway is impactful because it demonstrates how quickly a homeowner’s rights and financial obligations can change. A simple board decision, potentially missed in a stack of mail or an overlooked email, can result in thousands of dollars in unexpected costs.

4. The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner, Not the HOA

In any legal dispute, one side has the “burden of proof”—the responsibility to convince the judge that their claim is true. In this HOA case, that burden fell entirely on the petitioner, Jennie Bennett.

The legal standard required her to prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient to persuade a judge that a claim is more likely true than not. The legal decision provides a clear definition:

“[t]he greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner did not meet this standard. The final order states, “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Sections 12(c) and 12(h)(1) of the CC&Rs.” This underscores a critical point: when a homeowner challenges an HOA, it is their responsibility to build the winning case with convincing evidence.

Conclusion: Know Your Documents, Know Your Property Lines

The overarching lesson from Jennie Bennett’s experience is that in an HOA, the fine print matters immensely. The precise wording of the governing documents and, as this case proves, the exact location of property lines are paramount. A board policy you rely on today could be gone tomorrow, and a repair you assume is a community responsibility could be deemed yours based on a measurement of inches.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all homeowners to be proactive. Read your CC&Rs, pay attention to all communications from your board, and understand the difference between binding covenants and changeable policies. It all comes down to one final, critical question: Do you know exactly where your maintenance responsibilities end and your HOA’s begin?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jennie Bennett (petitioner)
Testified at hearing
Maxwell Riddiough (petitioner attorney)

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
Brown|Olcott, PLLC
Vanessa Lubinsky (property manager)
Cadden Community Management
Testified on behalf of Respondent
Daniel (staff)
Cadden
Informed Petitioner about policy rescission

Neutral Parties

Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

JC Niles (witness)
Mentioned in Petitioner's Grassroots petition

Rick & Lisa Holly v. La Barranca II Homeowners Association

Posted on February 14, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Intentional delay of construction

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

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Conflict of interest

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

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 4.7

Retaliatory fines

Petitioners alleged fear of prospective retaliatory imposition of fines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019020-REL Decision – 769746.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Background

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

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioners presented three specific claims:

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

Outcome and Final Decision

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

Fees
Architectural Review
CC&Rs

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

Conflict of Interest
Board of Directors
Neighbors

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11

Topic Tags

Architectural Review
Design Guidelines
HOA Obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

Fines
Retaliation
Dispute Resolution

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Hearings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)

Topic Tags

Architectural Review
Construction Delays
Vendor Issues

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

Timelines
Construction
Expectations

Question

Can the HOA charge a fee for reviewing architectural plans?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs allow for it.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article 11.3

Topic Tags

Fees
Architectural Review
CC&Rs

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Paul L Moffett v. Vistoso Community Association

Posted on January 28, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2019014-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-27
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Vistoso Community Association committed a violation of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 by allowing certain owners to vote. The ALJ reasoned that the specific restriction on voting for those paying reduced assessments was inapplicable in this case.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Paul L Moffett	Counsel	Richard M. Rollman
Respondent	Vistoso Community Association	Counsel	Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII Membership and Voting section 7.3.1 Voting Classes

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Vistoso Community Association committed a violation of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 by allowing certain owners to vote. The ALJ reasoned that the specific restriction on voting for those paying reduced assessments was inapplicable in this case.

Why this result: The restriction on voting found in Section 7.3.1 applies only when the owner is paying a reduced assessment 'pursuant to Section 8.3.' Since the reduced assessment period permitted under Section 8.3 had expired for the developer owners, they were not paying reduced assessments 'pursuant to Section 8.3,' and were therefore entitled to vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of community document regarding the voting rights of Developer Owners paying reduced assessments.

Petitioner filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition alleging the Respondent HOA violated the community documents (CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1) by allowing Developer Owners (Vistoso Highlands and Pulte) to vote in an election while they were paying reduced assessments, which Petitioner argued was prohibited.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Voting Rights, Reduced Assessment, Community Document Violation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.3.1
CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 8.3
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766242.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:23:35 (48.3 KB)

20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:23:39 (109.1 KB)

20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766242.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:28 (48.3 KB)

20F-H2019014-REL Decision – 766243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:31 (109.1 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)

Executive Summary

On January 27, 2020, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed a petition filed by Paul L. Moffett against the Vistoso Community Association. The core of the dispute was the validity of 207 votes cast by two developer-owners, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, in a Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019.

The petitioner argued that because these entities were paying reduced assessments on their lots, they were prohibited from voting under the community’s governing documents (CC&Rs). The respondent association contended that the voting prohibition was narrowly tied to a specific provision allowing reduced assessments for a limited time, a period which had long expired for both entities.

The judge ruled in favor of the Vistoso Community Association, concluding that the votes were valid. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. Although the developers were factually paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so pursuant to the specific section that triggers the voting prohibition. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments was a separate “financial concern for the association,” but it did not invalidate the votes cast in the election. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the community documents.

Case Overview

This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between petitioner Paul L. Moffett and respondent Vistoso Community Association concerning an alleged violation of community CC&Rs.

Detail

Information

Case Name

Paul L Moffett vs. Vistoso Community Association

Case Number

20F-H2019014-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Petition Filed

On or about September 25, 2019

Hearing Date

December 16, 2019

Decision & Order Date

January 27, 2020

Petitioner

Paul L. Moffett

Petitioner’s Counsel

Richard M. Rollman, Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.

Respondent

Vistoso Community Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Jason E. Smith, CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC

The Core Dispute: Voter Eligibility and Reduced Assessments

Petitioner’s Allegation

On September 25, 2019, Paul L. Moffett filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the Vistoso Community Association violated its own governing documents. The specific violation cited was of Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Classes) of the community’s Declaration.

The dispute centered on the Board of Directors election held on March 29, 2019. In the days leading up to the election, property management solicited votes from two developer-owners:

• Vistoso Highlands: Owner of 39 lots.

• Pulte: Owner of 168 lots.

Both entities cast their total available votes—207 votes—for three candidates: Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley. Mr. Moffett’s petition argued that these 207 votes were invalid because, at the time of the election, both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments on their lots, which he contended made them ineligible to vote under the CC&Rs.

Analysis of Arguments and Key Provisions

The decision in this case rested entirely on the interpretation of two interlinked sections within the Vistoso Community Association’s Declaration.

Key Governing Document Provisions

• Article VII, Section 7.3.1 (Voting Prohibition): This section states, in pertinent part, that “a Class A Member shall not be entitled to vote with respect to any Lots, Parcels or Apartment Units in regard to which the Owner is paying only a reduced Assessment pursuant to Section 8.3.”

• Article VIII, Section 8.3 (Reduced Assessment Eligibility): This section permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment on lots for a maximum of two years after the initial Developer Owner obtains ownership from the Declarant.

Petitioner’s Position (Paul L. Moffett)

The petitioner’s argument was straightforward:

• Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments.

• Section 7.3.1 prohibits voting for members who pay reduced assessments.

• Therefore, their votes should not have been counted.

Respondent’s Position (Vistoso Community Association)

The respondent’s argument focused on the precise qualifying language in the CC&Rs:

• The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 is conditional and applies only when members are paying reduced assessments specifically “pursuant to Section 8.3.”

• The eligibility window for paying reduced assessments under Section 8.3 had expired years prior for both entities.

• Therefore, although they were factually paying reduced assessments, this was not being done under the authority or conditions of Section 8.3.

• Consequently, the voting prohibition of Section 7.3.1 was not applicable to them.

Established Findings of Fact

The evidence presented at the hearing established a clear timeline regarding the ownership of the lots and the expiration of the reduced assessment periods.

• March 20, 2007: Vistoso Highlands obtained ownership of 39 lots from the Declarant.

• March 20, 2009: The two-year maximum period for Vistoso Highlands to pay reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.

• August 21 & October 14, 2014: Pulte’s predecessor obtained ownership of 168 lots from the Declarant.

• October 14, 2016: The two-year maximum period for these 168 lots to have reduced assessments under Section 8.3 officially terminated.

• January 2, 2019: Pulte obtained ownership of the 168 lots from its predecessor.

• March 29, 2019: The Board of Directors election was held.

• Key Fact: The judge found that “For whatever reason, neither Vistoso Highlands nor Pulte had been paying the full assessment as required by the Declaration as of the date of the election.”

The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided with the respondent’s interpretation of the governing documents, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Legal Interpretation

The ALJ concluded that the two articles could not be read in isolation. The critical legal finding was that the voting prohibition was explicitly and inextricably linked to the conditions set forth in Section 8.3.

The decision states:

“Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.”

The judge reasoned that since the eligibility period under Section 8.3 had expired in 2009 and 2016, respectively, the developers were no longer paying reduced fees “pursuant to” that section at the time of the 2019 election.

Acknowledgment of Financial Discrepancy

The ALJ acknowledged the underlying issue that the developers were not paying the full assessments they owed. However, this was deemed a separate matter from voter eligibility. The judge noted that the failure to be invoiced for and to pay the full amount “is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole,” but “that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.”

Final Order

Based on this legal interpretation, the ALJ found that the petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, failed to sustain his burden of proof to establish a violation of the community documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Official Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is dismissed.”

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

Study Guide: Moffett v. Vistoso Community Association (Case No. 20F-H2019014-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between Petitioner Paul L. Moffett and Respondent Vistoso Community Association, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on January 27, 2020. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling of the case.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

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

2. What specific article and section of the community documents did the Petitioner allege was violated?

3. When was the Board of Directors election held, and what was the total number of votes cast by Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?

4. According to the community’s Declaration, under what specific condition is a Class A Member not entitled to vote?

5. What did Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allow for, and what was the maximum time limit for this provision?

6. Based on the timeline provided, when should the reduced assessment period have ended for Vistoso Highlands and for Pulte?

7. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why Pulte and Vistoso Highlands should not have been allowed to vote?

8. How did the Respondent counter the Petitioner’s argument regarding the voting rights of Pulte and Vistoso Highlands?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the voting eligibility of Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, and what was the reasoning?

10. What was the final order in this case, and what recourse was available to the parties after the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Paul L. Moffett, who served as the Petitioner, and the Vistoso Community Association, which was the Respondent. Moffett initiated the dispute by filing a petition against the association.

2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes” of the community documents (CC&Rs). This was the single issue presented for the hearing.

3. The Board of Directors election was held on or about March 29, 2019. In that election, Pulte and Vistoso Highlands collectively cast 207 votes for candidates Sarah Nelson, Patrick Straney, and Dennis Ottley.

4. According to Article VII, Section 7.3.1 of the Declaration, a Class A Member is not entitled to vote with respect to any lots for which the owner is paying only a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”

5. Article VIII, Section 8.3 of the Declaration allowed Developer Owners to pay a reduced assessment on lots purchased from the Declarant. This provision was permitted for a maximum period of two years (24 months) after the initial Developer Owner obtained ownership.

6. The reduced assessment period for Vistoso Highlands should have terminated on March 20, 2009. For the lots owned by Pulte, the reduced assessments should have terminated on October 14, 2016.

7. The Petitioner argued that because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were, in fact, paying reduced assessments at the time of the election, they were not entitled to vote. The argument was based on the fact that they were paying reduced fees, regardless of whether they were supposed to be.

8. The Respondent argued that the voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 was not applicable. Their reasoning was that while Pulte and Vistoso Highlands were paying reduced assessments, they were not doing so “pursuant to Section 8.3” because the time limit for that provision had long expired.

9. The Judge concluded that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were entitled to vote in the election. The reasoning was that the prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to reduced assessments paid as authorized by Section 8.3; since the authorization period had passed, the prohibition no longer applied, even if they were improperly paying a lower rate.

10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. After the order was served, the parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the source material to construct a thorough and well-supported argument.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3” from Article VII, Section 7.3.1. Explain how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome and discuss the distinction made between paying a reduced assessment and paying a reduced assessment under the authority of Section 8.3.

2. Describe the timeline of property ownership and assessment obligations for both Vistoso Highlands and Pulte. Explain how the failure to adhere to the timeline for ending reduced assessments created the central conflict in this dispute.

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Who held the burden, what was the standard required (preponderance of the evidence), and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden?

4. The judge noted that the failure to collect full assessments from Vistoso Highlands and Pulte was a “financial concern for the association as a whole.” Elaborate on the potential implications of this financial issue for the Vistoso Community Association, even though it did not affect the outcome of the election dispute.

5. Outline the procedural history of the case, starting from the filing of the petition. Include key dates, the entities involved (Petitioner, Respondent, Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings), the legal representatives, and the final step available to the parties after the judge’s order.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on disputes.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which the Petitioner filed the initial Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition.

Article VII, Section 7.3.1

The section of the Vistoso Community Association Declaration that prohibits a Class A Member from voting on lots for which they are paying a reduced assessment “pursuant to Section 8.3.”

Article VIII, Section 8.3

The section of the Declaration that permits a Developer Owner to pay a reduced assessment for a maximum of two years after purchasing a parcel from the Declarant.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Declarant

The original entity that owned the land before selling lots to Developer Owners like Vistoso Highlands and Pulte’s predecessor.

Developer Owner

An owner, such as Vistoso Highlands or Pulte, who obtained lots from the Declarant and was eligible for reduced assessments for a limited time under Section 8.3.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by Paul L. Moffett with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on September 25, 2019, to initiate the legal dispute.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state office where the formal hearing for this case was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Paul L. Moffett.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side over the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Vistoso Community Association.

The Legal Loophole That Flipped an HOA Election on Its Head

For anyone living in a planned community, the thick binder of Homeowners Association (HOA) rules is a familiar reality. These documents govern everything from mailbox colors to lawn maintenance, and their dense language can be a source of constant confusion. But beyond the day-to-day frustrations lies a deeper legal truth: the precise wording of these documents is absolute. This principle, known in contract law as strict constructionism, holds that a text’s literal meaning must be followed, even if it leads to an outcome that seems unfair.

This is the story of a homeowner who believed he had uncovered a clear-cut violation during a critical HOA election. Developers who were underpaying their dues had cast hundreds of votes, seemingly in direct contravention of the community’s own governing documents. But when the case was adjudicated, the outcome hinged on a single phrase, providing a textbook example of how strict constructionism can create a mind-bending loophole and turn a seemingly open-and-shut case completely upside down.

The Rule Seemed Simple: Pay a Discount, You Don’t Get a Vote

The petitioner, Paul L. Moffett, filed a formal complaint against the Vistoso Community Association, alleging a violation of a specific clause in the governing documents: “Article VII Membership and Voting, Section 7.3.1 Voting Classes.” His case was built on what appeared to be a straightforward set of rules designed to ensure fairness.

The community’s governing documents contained two key sections:

• Article VIII, Section 8.3: This rule allowed “Developer Owners” who purchased property from the original Declarant to pay a reduced assessment. However, this discount was explicitly limited to a maximum of two years.

• Article VII, Section 7.3.1: This rule stated that any member paying a reduced assessment pursuant to Section 8.3 was not entitled to vote with respect to those properties.

On the surface, the logic was simple and equitable: if you aren’t paying your full share as authorized by the rules, you don’t get a say in the community’s governance.

The Smoking Gun: Developers Were Underpaying for Years

The petitioner presented evidence that seemed to prove his case conclusively. Two developers, Vistoso Highlands and Pulte, owned a combined 207 lots. According to the two-year limit, their eligibility for reduced assessments should have ended long ago.

• Vistoso Highlands’ reduced assessment period should have terminated on March 20, 2009.

• Pulte’s predecessor’s reduced assessment period should have terminated on October 14, 2016.

However, at the time of the Board of Directors election on March 29, 2019, both developers were still paying the discounted rate—years after their eligibility had expired. Making matters worse, the evidence showed that in the days preceding the election, the property management staff had actively reached out to both developers to obtain their votes. They cast all 207 of them, which appeared to be a direct violation of the rule prohibiting voting by members paying reduced fees.

The Twist: A Single Phrase Created a Mind-Bending Loophole

This is where the case took a sharp, unexpected turn. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the case did not focus on the fact that the developers were underpaying, but on the precise legal language connecting the two rules. The dispositive element of the case was the phrase “pursuant to Section 8.3.”

The ALJ noted that, “for whatever reason,” the developers had been underpaying for years. However, she reasoned that because the two-year time limit for reduced payments under Section 8.3 had long since expired, the developers were no longer paying their reduced fees “pursuant to Section 8.3.” They were, in fact, simply underpaying their dues improperly and in violation of the documents.

In essence, the developers’ long-term violation of the payment rule served as their shield against the voting penalty. By breaking the rule governing their assessment amount, they had inadvertently immunized themselves from the rule governing voting rights. The voting prohibition in Section 7.3.1 only applied to members who were correctly paying a reduced assessment as authorized by Section 8.3. Since their discount was no longer authorized, the voting ban no longer applied.

The ALJ summarized this stunning conclusion in the final decision:

Because Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were paying reduced assessments but not pursuant to Section 8.3, the prohibition on them voting found in Section 7.3.1. was not applicable to them.

The Verdict: A Financial Problem Doesn’t Invalidate a Vote

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and all 207 votes cast by the developers were deemed valid. The ALJ acknowledged that the developers’ failure to pay their full assessments was a serious financial issue for the association but clarified that it was a separate matter from their right to vote.

The ALJ effectively severed the financial issue from the question of voting eligibility. This separation of issues is a fundamental tenet of legal analysis, preventing one breach of contract (underpaying dues) from automatically triggering penalties associated with a completely different clause (voting rights).

While the failure to be invoiced and to pay a full assessment on the 207 parcels at issue is certainly a financial concern for the association as a whole, that does not necessitate a finding that Vistoso Highlands and Pulte were not entitled to cast votes in the election.

This highlights a critical aspect of legal interpretation: issues that seem causally linked in a common-sense way can be treated as entirely distinct under a strict reading of the law.

Conclusion: The Devil is Always in the Details

This case serves as a powerful reminder that in the world of legal documents, every single word matters. It is a perfect demonstration of strict constructionism, where an outcome that seems to defy logic and fairness can be perfectly valid based on the literal, unambiguous phrasing of a rule. What appeared to be a clear prohibition on voting was undone by a loophole created by the developers’ own long-term failure to comply with assessment rules.

The outcome forces us to confront a difficult question at the heart of our legal system: When the literal interpretation of a contract conflicts with our sense of fairness, which should prevail? This case provides a clear, if unsettling, answer.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Paul L Moffett (petitioner)
Appeared at hearing and testified on his own behalf
Richard M. Rollman (petitioner attorney)
Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Alyssa Leverette (legal staff)
Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, P.C.
Listed below Petitioner's attorney on service list

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
Kimberly Rubly (witness)
Vice President of Southern Region (testified for Respondent)
Sean K. Moynihan (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
Recipient of Order

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of Order

Other Participants

Sarah Nelson (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election
Patrick Straney (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election
Dennis Ottley (board member (elected))
Vistoso Community Association
Recipient of votes in disputed election

Joan A. Tober, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

Posted on January 16, 2020 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-15
Administrative Law Judge	Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joan A. Tober	Counsel	—
Respondent	Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association	Counsel	Diana J. Elston

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded, both in the original decision and the rehearing, that the HOA was the prevailing party. The final decision affirmed that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B), specifically ruling that privileged documents are exempt from disclosure timelines and that the Petitioner's request for 'all background information' was unreasonably broad and unclarified.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because she failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The primary record sought was protected by attorney-client privilege, and her vague request for 'any and all documentation' made it impossible for the HOA to reasonably comply within the 10-day period.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA violation of requirement to provide association records within ten business days.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested documents, including a privileged attorney letter and 'all background information', within the required 10-business day period. The rehearing focused specifically on the timeliness aspect.

Orders: The HOA was deemed the prevailing party in the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The ALJ concluded the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and (B).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2102
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, Attorney-Client Privilege, A.R.S. 33-1805, Planned Community, Rehearing, Unreasonably Broad Request, Timeliness of Disclosure

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2102
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
A.R.S. § 32-2199(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(D)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – 764197.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:27 (187.4 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/714863.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:32 (51.7 KB)

19F-H1918042-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918042-REL/725808.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:37 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Tober v. Civano 1 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Joan A. Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1918042-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Joan A. Tober’s demand for records from her Homeowners Association (HOA), specifically a legal opinion letter concerning the “North Ridge wall.”

The Petitioner argued that the HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide this letter and other “background information.” She contended the HOA waived attorney-client privilege by discussing the letter in an open board meeting and, in a subsequent rehearing, failed to provide records within the statutorily required 10-day timeframe.

The HOA maintained that the letter was a privileged communication with its attorney and therefore exempt from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B). The HOA also argued that the Petitioner’s broader request for “any and all documentation” was overly vague and that she failed to clarify the request when asked.

Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision affirmed that the legal letter was privileged and could be withheld. Crucially, the judge concluded the HOA did not violate the 10-day provision because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification, thereby preventing the HOA from being able to “reasonably make records available.” The HOA was declared the prevailing party in both instances.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This matter involves a formal dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Name

Joan A. Tober, Petitioner, vs. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

19F-H1918042-REL

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Kay A. Abramsohn

Core Issue

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs member access to association records.

Initial Hearing Date

June 5, 2019

Initial Decision Date

July 29, 2019

Rehearing Date

December 11, 2019

Final Decision Date

January 15, 2020

——————————————————————————–

Key Parties and Individuals

• Petitioner: Joan A. Tober

◦ A homeowner in the Civano 1 Neighborhood since 2001.

◦ Previously worked for the company that developed the land/homes in the association area.

◦ Has served as a past Board member for the HOA.

◦ Served as an alternate member on the Finance Committee in 2018.

◦ Exhibits a high level of engagement with HOA affairs, having taped and often transcribed every meeting since 2008.

• Respondent: Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association (HOA)

◦ The governing body for the planned community.

◦ Represented by Diana J. Elston, Esq., of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.

• Adjudicator: Kay Abramsohn

◦ The Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of the Dispute

Nov 20, 2018

At an HOA Board meeting, the Board President mentions receiving a letter (“the Letter”) from its attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, states it concerns the HOA’s legal responsibility, and suggests it can be sent out to residents.

Nov 26, 2018

Petitioner sends her first email request for a copy of the Letter.

Nov 27, 2018

Petitioner sends a second request. The HOA replies that it is waiting for clarification from its attorney.

Nov 29, 2018

At 4:58 a.m., Petitioner sends a third, formal request citing A.R.S. § 33-1805, demanding “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

Nov 29, 2018

At 9:44 a.m., the HOA responds, stating the President misspoke and the Letter is a privileged legal opinion. The HOA asks if Petitioner needs a copy of “the original engineer report.” The judge later finds no evidence that Petitioner responded to this clarification query.

Dec 13, 2018

Petitioner writes to the Board, stating she will use “all means… to obtain the requested materials, to include a formal complaint.”

Dec 26, 2018

Petitioner files her single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Jan 15-16, 2019

The HOA forwards to Petitioner the “Civano historical erosion reports” (2013 and 2014) and an invoice related to the 2014 study.

June 5, 2019

The initial administrative hearing is held.

July 29, 2019

Initial Decision Issued: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds the Letter is privileged and the HOA is the prevailing party.

Aug 5, 2019

Petitioner files a request for rehearing, arguing the initial decision “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.”

Aug 23, 2019

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

Dec 11, 2019

The rehearing is conducted.

Jan 15, 2020

Final Decision Issued: The ALJ again finds for the HOA, concluding it did not violate the statute because Petitioner’s request was overly broad and she failed to clarify it. The appeal is dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Core Dispute and Arguments

Petitioner’s Position (Joan A. Tober)

1. Waiver of Privilege: The Petitioner’s central argument was that the HOA intentionally waived attorney-client privilege regarding the Letter when the Board President mentioned it in an open meeting and offered to distribute it, with the other Board members not objecting, thereby showing “unanimous consent to waive confidentiality.”

2. Right to “Background Information”: Petitioner argued that because the North Ridge wall issue had been ongoing since 2013, her request for “any and all documents” and “background information” was justified, and that more than just two prior engineering reports must exist.

3. Untimely Response (Rehearing Argument): In her request for rehearing, Petitioner’s primary argument shifted to timeliness, asserting that even if the HOA “eventually” provided some records, it failed to do so within the 10-business-day period mandated by A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Respondent’s Position (Civano 1 HOA)

1. Attorney-Client Privilege: The HOA’s primary defense was that the Letter constituted “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association,” which may be withheld from members under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

2. No Waiver: The HOA contended that the “mere mention” of the Letter by the Board President at a meeting did not constitute a legal waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

3. Vague and Overly Broad Request: The HOA argued that the Petitioner’s request for “any and all” documents was too broad to know what she wanted.

4. Prior Possession of Documents: The HOA indicated that it could be determined from the Petitioner’s own exhibits that she had already received or possessed copies of key requested documents, such as the 2013 and 2014 erosion reports.

——————————————————————————–

Key Findings of Fact and Evidence

The Administrative Law Judge made several critical findings of fact based on the evidence presented across both hearings.

• The Nature of the “Letter”: The document at the center of the dispute was confirmed to be a legal opinion from the HOA’s attorney. It had been discussed by the Board in an executive session prior to the November 20, 2018 meeting. The letter advised that the HOA was responsible for the land below the wall and recommended hiring a “licensed bonded engineer.”

• Petitioner’s Pre-existing Knowledge: The Petitioner was well-informed on the North Ridge wall issue. She acknowledged at the rehearing that at the time of her November 29, 2018 request, she already possessed copies of the 2013 and 2014 engineering reports, which she had obtained from the city in 2014.

• Petitioner’s Request and Failure to Clarify:

◦ The Petitioner’s initial requests on November 26 and 27 were solely for the attorney’s Letter.

◦ Her formal request on November 29 expanded to “any and all documentation… and all background information.”

◦ On the same day, the HOA asked for clarification, specifically inquiring if she “still need[ed] a copy of the original engineer report.”

◦ The ALJ found “no document supporting” the Petitioner’s claim that she responded to this email. During the rehearing, the Petitioner was unable to produce such a response. This failure to clarify was a key factor in the final ruling.

• Lack of Other Documents: The hearing record contained no evidence of any other erosion reports besides the 2013 and 2014 reports. The HOA President, Mr. Mastrosimone, testified that “there were no documents other than the Letter that would have been responsive” to the request.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Rulings and Conclusions of Law

Initial Decision (July 29, 2019)

• Jurisdiction: The OAH confirmed its authority to hear the dispute under Arizona statutes.

• Privilege: The ALJ concluded that under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” may be withheld. Therefore, the HOA was “not statutorily required to provide access or a copy of the Letter to Petitioner.”

• Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA provided records in compliance with the statute and was deemed the prevailing party.

Final Decision on Rehearing (January 15, 2020)

• Issue for Rehearing: The sole issue on rehearing was whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide access to records within 10 business days.

• Privileged Communication: The ALJ reaffirmed that the Letter was privileged communication and the HOA was not required to provide it “within any time period.”

• Unreasonably Broad Request: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s formal request was “unreasonably broad and remained unclarified.”

• Failure to Clarify: The ruling explicitly states: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available. An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.”

• No Violation of Timeliness: Because the request was unclarified, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the 10-day rule in A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The decision notes that the initial ruling “inartfully stated” that the HOA had provided records in compliance, and that it “should have simply stated that the HOA acted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1805.”

• Final Outcome: The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted in compliance with both subsections (A) and (B) of the statute. The HOA was again declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The decision was declared binding on the parties, subject to judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Tober v. Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 19F-H1918042-REL, involving Petitioner Joan A. Tober and Respondent Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

1. What specific event prompted Joan Tober to first request documents from the HOA in November 2018?

2. What was the HOA’s primary legal justification for refusing to provide a copy of “the Letter” to the Petitioner?

3. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), what is the required timeframe for an HOA to make records available to a member after a written request?

4. What was the Petitioner’s core argument for why the HOA had forfeited its right to keep “the Letter” confidential?

5. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision on July 29, 2019?

6. How did the Petitioner’s document request evolve between her first communication on November 26, 2018, and her third request on November 29, 2018?

7. What crucial step did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner failed to take after the HOA’s email on November 29, 2018?

8. Besides “the Letter,” what other key documents related to the North Ridge wall did the Petitioner already possess when she filed her formal request?

9. Describe the Petitioner’s long-standing involvement and activities within the Civano 1 HOA community.

10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision on Rehearing, issued January 15, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The request was prompted by the HOA Board meeting on November 20, 2018. At this meeting, the Board President mentioned receiving a letter from the HOA’s attorney regarding the North Ridge wall, stated its legal conclusion, and indicated, “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

2. The HOA’s primary justification was that the document was a privileged attorney-client communication. The HOA argued that the letter contained legal analysis and advice to the Board and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(B).

3. A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) states that a homeowners association has “ten business days” to fulfill a written request for examination of its financial and other records.

4. The Petitioner argued that the HOA had intentionally waived confidentiality. She contended that because the Board President mentioned the letter in an open meeting and the other Board members did not object, they showed unanimous consent to waive the attorney-client privilege.

5. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial Administrative Law Judge ruling “did not address the timeliness aspect of the law.” She argued that while the HOA eventually provided access to some records, it had not done so within the required 10-business day period.

6. The Petitioner’s request evolved from a specific ask for a copy of “the Letter” on November 26 and 27 to a much broader request on November 29. Her third request asked for “any and all documentation to include the letter… regarding the structural integrity and the Association members’ responsibility for same and all background information.”

7. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA’s request for clarification in its November 29 email. The HOA had asked if she needed a copy of the “original engineer report,” and the Judge found no evidence in the hearing records that the Petitioner ever answered this question, thus preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.

8. The Petitioner already possessed the 2013 Engineering report and the 2014 report concerning erosion issues with the North Ridge wall. She acknowledged at the rehearing that she had obtained these from the city in 2014.

9. The Petitioner worked for the company that developed the land, purchased her home in 2001, and has been a past Board member. At the time of the dispute, she was an alternate member of the Finance Committee and had been taping and often transcribing every HOA meeting since 2008.

10. The final ruling was that the HOA was the prevailing party and had not violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Judge concluded the HOA was not required to provide the privileged letter and that its failure to provide other documents within 10 days was excused because the Petitioner’s request was “unreasonably broad” and she failed to clarify it. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-format response. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “waiver” of attorney-client privilege as it was argued in this case. Discuss the Petitioner’s claim that the President’s public comments constituted a waiver and contrast this with the Administrative Law Judge’s implicit and explicit findings on the matter.

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, beginning with the initial petition filing on December 26, 2018, and concluding with the final notice of appeal rights in the January 15, 2020 order. Identify the key legal proceedings, decisions, and dates that marked the progression of the dispute.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the court documents. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the evidence presented by the Petitioner and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet her burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

4. Examine the role and interpretation of Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1805 in this dispute. How did the two key subsections, (A) and (B), create the central legal conflict between the Petitioner’s right to access records and the HOA’s right to withhold privileged information?

5. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s reasoning that the Petitioner’s November 29, 2018 request was “unreasonably broad.” How did this determination, combined with the Petitioner’s alleged failure to clarify her request, become the deciding factor in the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Kay Abramsohn, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues legal decisions and orders.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute governing access to homeowners’ association records. Subsection (A) requires records be made “reasonably available” within ten business days, while subsection (B) allows for withholding of privileged attorney-client communications.

Attorney-Client Privilege

A legal concept that allows for certain communications between an attorney and their client (in this case, the HOA) to be kept confidential. The HOA cited this privilege as the reason for withholding “the Letter.”

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or community documents.

Executive Session

A private meeting of a board of directors. “The Letter” had been discussed by the HOA Board in an executive session prior to the public meeting where it was mentioned.

An acronym for Homeowners Association. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The office with the legal authority to hear and decide contested cases involving disputes between homeowners and planned community associations in Arizona.

Petition

The formal, single-issue complaint filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate on December 26, 2018, which initiated the legal proceedings.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Joan A. Tober.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and “the greater weight of the evidence.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine a legal case after an initial decision has been made. A rehearing was granted in this case to address the Petitioner’s claim that the initial ruling did not consider the “timeliness aspect of the law.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is the Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association.

The Letter

The specific document at the heart of the dispute: a privileged legal opinion letter from the HOA’s attorneys to the Board regarding the North Ridge wall, which was “disclosed and discussed” at the November 20, 2018, Board meeting.

She Recorded Every HOA Meeting for a Decade and Still Lost. Here’s What Every Homeowner Can Learn.

Introduction: The Fight for Information

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of seeking information from their Homeowners Association (HOA), only to feel that the board is being less than transparent. It’s a common story that often ends in resignation. But for one Arizona homeowner, it ended in a formal administrative hearing.

This is the story of Joan A. Tober, a remarkably dedicated resident who filed a petition against her HOA with the Arizona Department of Real Estate over access to documents related to a retaining wall. She was a former board member, sat on the finance committee, and, most astoundingly, had personally recorded and often transcribed every single HOA meeting for over a decade. Yet, despite her exhaustive personal record-keeping, her petition was denied. The surprising and counter-intuitive lessons from her story offer a masterclass for any homeowner navigating a dispute with their association.

1. Takeaway #1: The “Attorney-Client Privilege” Shield is Stronger Than You Think.

The central conflict revolved around a single document: a letter from the HOA’s attorney. During an open board meeting, the Board President mentioned the letter, which concerned the association’s responsibility for a retaining wall, and created an expectation of transparency, stating: “I believe we can … send it out … so people can have it.”

Ms. Tober argued that by openly discussing the letter and offering to distribute it, the board had waived its confidentiality, and she was therefore entitled to a copy. It seems like a logical assumption. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disagreed, pointing directly to the law. Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)), “privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association” can be legally withheld from members.

The tribunal found that the mere mention of the letter in a public meeting—even with the president’s comment—did not break that legal privilege. This is a critical point for homeowners to understand. The law protects the board’s ability to seek and receive candid legal advice to govern the association effectively. While it may feel like a lack of transparency, this shield is a fundamental and legally protected aspect of HOA operations.

2. Takeaway #2: Asking for “Everything” Can Get You Nothing.

Beyond the privileged letter, the evolution and wording of Ms. Tober’s request became a major factor in the denial of her petition. The timeline shows how a homeowner’s frustration can lead to a fatal strategic error. On November 26 and 27, 2018, she made two specific requests for the attorney’s letter. The HOA responded that it was seeking clarification from its attorney.

After this delay, Ms. Tober’s third request, dated November 29, escalated significantly. She now asked for: “any and all documentation to include the letter that was disclosed and discussed… and all background information.”

In response, the HOA asked for clarification, but according to the hearing record, Ms. Tober could not provide evidence that she ever replied to narrow her request. This failure proved fatal. The Administrative Law Judge found the request to be “unreasonably broad.” The judge’s decision on the matter was blunt and serves as a powerful warning:

An association is not required to guess what records are being requested.

The ultimate reason for the denial synthesized both issues: “Petitioner failed to respond to the HOA request for clarification of her unreasonably broad request, preventing the HOA from being able to reasonably make records available.” This demonstrates that the legal burden falls squarely on the homeowner to articulate a request the association can reasonably fulfill. As the ALJ noted, an association is not required to be a mind reader.

3. Takeaway #3: Diligence Alone Doesn’t Guarantee a Win.

What makes this story so compelling is the extraordinary diligence of the petitioner. Joan Tober was not a casual observer. The hearing records establish her deep involvement in the community: she was a former Board member, a member of the Finance Committee, and had even worked for the company that originally developed the community.

But one fact, noted in the ALJ’s decision, highlights her stunning level of dedication:

Since 2008, Petitioner has taped every meeting and she often creates a transcript of the meetings.

Despite this decade of meticulous personal record-keeping and her clear passion for the issue, her petition was denied—not just once, but twice, on the initial hearing and again on the rehearing. This presents a sobering reality for all homeowners. While passion, engagement, and even a mountain of personal documentation are valuable, they cannot overcome fundamental legal principles. The outcome of a formal hearing is determined by the strength of the legal argument, not the volume of personal effort expended.

Conclusion: Strategy Over Sheer Effort

The petition of Joan A. Tober is a powerful reminder that when dealing with an HOA, effectiveness is not always measured by effort. Her story provides three critical takeaways for every homeowner: attorney-client privilege provides HOAs with a strong legal shield, record requests must be specific and targeted to be enforceable, and meticulous personal diligence must be paired with a sound legal strategy to succeed in a formal dispute.

This case leaves every homeowner with a critical question: when you have a dispute, are you channeling your energy into the most effective strategy, or simply into the most effort?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joan A. Tober (petitioner)
Former Board member; current Finance Committee member

Respondent Side

Diana J. Elston (HOA attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Mr. Mastrosimone (Board President)
Civano 1 Neighborhood 1 Homeowners Association
Testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano (Clerk)
Felicia Del Sol (Clerk)
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmittal

Joyce H Monsanto vs. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on November 18, 2019 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919053-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-11-18
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joyce H Monsanto	Counsel	—
Respondent	Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association	Counsel	Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808; CC&R § 7.9

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the HOA's architectural guideline limiting homeowners to one flagpole per lot, while permitting the display of both the U.S. flag and a military flag (Marine Corps flag) on that single pole, constitutes a reasonable rule under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B). The ALJ also found the Board complied with the 45-day requirement for a written appeal decision under CC&R § 7.9 by memorializing the denial in the draft meeting minutes posted by December 4, 2018,,.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both statutory and CC&R violations,.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's denial of application to install two flagpoles for US and military flags, and alleged failure to follow CC&R appeal process.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of her request to install two flagpoles, arguing the restriction violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 (flag statute) and that the Board failed to provide a written decision on her appeal within 45 days as required by CC&R § 7.9, which she argued meant the request was deemed approved. The ALJ found the single flagpole restriction reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) since both flags could be flown from one pole, and determined the Board satisfied the CC&R § 7.9 requirement by posting the decision in the meeting minutes within 45 days,.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish that the Respondent's Board should not have denied her application under A.R.S. § 33-1808 or CC&R § 7. The Board can properly find Petitioner in violation of Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
CC&R § 7.9
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag display, Architectural Guidelines, CC&Rs, Statutory compliance, Planned Communities Act, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
CC&R § 7.9
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
CC&R § 7

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 749213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:16 (163.6 KB)

19F-H1919053-REL-RHG Decision – 753595.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:19 (163.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal reasoning from the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Joyce H. Monsanto versus the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The central conflict revolves around the HOA’s denial of Ms. Monsanto’s request to install two separate flagpoles on her home to display the United States flag and the United States Marine Corps flag. The petitioner alleged this denial violated Arizona state law and the HOA’s own governing documents.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision established two critical points: first, that the HOA’s rule limiting homeowners to a single flagpole is a “reasonable” regulation on the “placement and manner of display” explicitly permitted under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1808(B), and does not constitute a prohibition of flag display. Second, the HOA was found to have complied with its own appeal process as outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ concluded that an oral denial at a board meeting, later documented in publicly posted meeting minutes, satisfied the CC&R’s requirement to “render its written decision” within a 45-day timeframe. The ruling affirms an HOA’s authority to enforce uniform aesthetic standards, provided they are reasonable and applied according to the association’s governing documents.

Case Background and Procedural History

The case was brought before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) following a petition filed by homeowner Joyce H. Monsanto (“Petitioner”) against her HOA, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (“Respondent”).

• Initial Petition: On March 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated state law (A.R.S. § 33-1803) and its CC&Rs (§ 7.9) by refusing to approve her request for two flagpoles.

• First Hearing: An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019, after which the ALJ found that the Petitioner had not proven any violation by the HOA.

• Rehearing: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing on August 22, 2019. This rehearing took place on October 21, 2019.

• Amended Decision: On November 18, 2019, ALJ Diane Mihalsky issued an Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision, again denying the Petitioner’s petition and affirming the previous findings. The amendment was issued to correct a typographical error and clarify the parties’ appeal rights.

The Core Dispute: A Request for Two Flagpoles

The petitioner, whose husband and two sons have long careers in the U.S. Marines and Coast Guard, sought to display both the U.S. flag and the U.S. Marine Corps flag on her home.

• The Application: On August 31, 2018, she submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house, flanking her front door.

• The Rationale: The Petitioner stated her desire for two separate poles was for aesthetic reasons, believing the display would look better. She also expressed concern that a single, larger flagpole installed in her front yard would obstruct the view from her front window.

• The Denial: On September 22, 2018, the HOA’s Architectural Committee issued a written Notice of Disapproval, citing the Architectural Guidelines which permit only one flagpole per lot.

• The Appeal: On October 1, 2018, the Petitioner submitted a written appeal to the HOA Board, arguing the denial was unreasonable, that the guidelines were not uniformly enforced, and that the board could grant a waiver under CC&R § 7.6.

Governing Rules and Statutes

The case decision rested on the interpretation of Arizona state law and the HOA’s specific governing documents.

Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1808

This statute governs the right of homeowners to display certain flags.

• Protection of Display: Subsection A states that an association “shall not prohibit the outdoor… display” of the American flag or a military flag, among others.

• Right to Regulate: Subsection B grants associations the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display.” It explicitly allows rules that “regulate the location and size of flagpoles,” “limit the member to displaying no more than two flags at once,” and limit flagpole height, while not prohibiting their installation.

HOA Architectural Guidelines

The community’s rules regarding flagpoles evolved but consistently maintained a key restriction.

• Original Guideline (May 24, 2016): “Poles must not exceed 12’ in height, and only one flagpole is permitted per Lot.”

• Amended Guideline (November 8, 2018): The board increased the maximum pole height to 20′ and added rules for nighttime illumination and inclement weather, but explicitly “did not change the limit of one flagpole per lot.”

HOA CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The procedural requirements for architectural review and appeals were central to the Petitioner’s claim.

• Section 7.8 (Board Approval): Pertaining to initial applications, this section requires the Board to provide the owner with a “written response within sixty (60) days,” otherwise the request is deemed approved.

• Section 7.9 (Appeal): Pertaining to appeals, this section requires the Board to consult with the Architectural Committee and “render its written decision” within 45 days. A failure by the Board to render a decision in this period “shall be deemed approval.” This section does not contain the same explicit language as § 7.8 requiring the response be provided to the owner.

Analysis of the Appeal Process and Conflicting Testimonies

A significant portion of the dispute centered on the events of the November 8, 2018, HOA Board meeting, where the Petitioner’s appeal was to be considered. The accounts of what transpired at this meeting were contradictory.

Petitioner’s Testimony (Joyce H. Monsanto)

Respondent’s Testimony (Anthony Nunziato, Board President)

Consultation

The board did not consult the Architectural Committee.

The board consulted with the Architectural Committee before the meeting.

Decision

The board did not consider or make any decision on her appeal.

The board considered the appeal and made a decision.

Notification

She was never told her appeal was denied at the meeting.

He was certain the board verbally informed the Petitioner that her appeal was denied at the meeting.

On December 4, 2018, draft minutes from the November 8 meeting were posted on the HOA’s website. The Petitioner acknowledged seeing them. These minutes included the following entry:

“[Petitioner’s] last request was for a waiver that would allow her to have two flagpoles on her property (one to fly the American flag and the other to fly the Marine flag). The Board rejected this request since our CC&Rs allow for the flying of both flags on a single flagpole.”

The Petitioner argued that these publicly posted draft minutes, which were not sent directly to her, did not constitute a valid written denial of her appeal under the CC&Rs.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s claims, relying on witness credibility, statutory interpretation, and contract construction principles.

Credibility Assessment

The ALJ made a clear determination on the conflicting testimonies regarding the November 8 meeting.

• Mr. Nunziato’s testimony that the board made a decision and informed the Petitioner was found to be “credible and supported by the minutes of the meeting.”

• The Petitioner’s testimony that the board made no decision on her appeal was deemed “incredible.”

Ruling on A.R.S. § 33-1808 (State Flag Law)

The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s one-flagpole rule did not violate state law.

• The rule was found to be a “reasonable rule or regulation under A.R.S. § 33-1808(B).”

• Because the Architectural Guidelines allow for flying two flags from a single flagpole up to 20′ long, the HOA was not prohibiting the display of flags, merely regulating the manner.

• The ALJ characterized the core issue as the “Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.”

Ruling on CC&R § 7.9 (Appeal Process)

The ALJ found that the HOA had followed the procedure required by its own CC&Rs.

• Consultation: Based on Mr. Nunziato’s credible testimony, the board fulfilled its duty to consult with the Architectural Committee.

• “Render a Decision”: The board “rendered a decision on her appeal at the November 8, 2018 board meeting” when it orally reached a decision.

• “Written Decision”: The board created a “writing memorializing its decision” by documenting it in the meeting minutes. Because the Petitioner saw these minutes on December 4, 2018, this action occurred within the 45-day window following her October 1, 2018 appeal.

• No Delivery Requirement: The ALJ applied the “negative implication cannon of contract construction.” By comparing CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) with § 7.8 (initial applications), the judge noted that § 7.9 lacks the explicit requirement to provide the written decision to the owner. Therefore, posting the minutes was sufficient, and the Petitioner’s request was not “deemed approved.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued a final, binding order.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that the Respondent’s Board should not have denied her application to install two flagpoles on her property.

The decision concludes with a notice informing the parties that the order is binding and that any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date of service.

Study Guide: Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This study guide provides a detailed review of the legal case Joyce H. Monsanto v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919053-REL-RHG, as detailed in the Amended Administrative Law Judge Decision dated November 18, 2019. The guide includes a short-answer quiz, a corresponding answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action did the Petitioner request from the Respondent that initiated this dispute?

3. On what grounds did the Respondent’s Architectural Committee initially deny the Petitioner’s request on September 22, 2018?

4. Identify the key Arizona statute cited in the case and explain its two main provisions regarding flag displays.

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the Respondent’s handling of her appeal under CC&R § 7.9?

6. According to the testimony of Board President Tony Nunziato, how did the Board address the Petitioner’s appeal at the November 8, 2018 meeting?

7. What documentary evidence did the Respondent use to support the claim that a decision on the appeal was made and written down within the required timeframe?

8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) find the Respondent’s one-flagpole rule to be legally permissible?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required for the Petitioner in this case, and did she meet it according to the ALJ?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case and its practical consequence for the Petitioner?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Joyce H. Monsanto, a homeowner. The Respondent is the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). Ms. Monsanto is a member of the Respondent HOA because she owns a house within its development in Sun City, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner submitted a Design Review Application to install two 6-foot-long flagpoles on the exterior wall of her house. She intended to fly the United States flag from one pole and the United States Marine Corps flag from the other.

3. The Architectural Committee denied the request because the community’s Architectural Guidelines only permitted one flagpole per lot. The written Notice of Disapproval explicitly stated this rule as the reason for the denial.

4. The key statute is A.R.S. § 33-1808. Its first provision, § 33-1808(A), prohibits an HOA from banning the display of the American flag and various military flags. The second provision, § 33-1808(B), allows an HOA to adopt reasonable rules regulating the placement, size, and number of flagpoles, explicitly permitting a limit of one flagpole per property.

5. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated CC&R § 7.9 because it failed to provide her with a formal written decision denying her appeal within the 45-day period. She contended that because she never received a dedicated letter, the request should have been “deemed approved” as stipulated in the CC&R for failure to render a timely decision.

6. Tony Nunziato testified that the Board did consult with the Architectural Committee regarding the appeal before the meeting. He stated with certainty that at the November 8, 2018 meeting, the Board considered the appeal and verbally informed Ms. Monsanto that her request for a waiver was denied.

7. The Respondent presented the draft minutes from the November 8, 2018 Board meeting, which were posted on the HOA’s website on December 4, 2018. These minutes explicitly stated that the Board rejected the Petitioner’s request for a waiver to have two flagpoles, fulfilling the requirement to have a written record of the decision within 45 days of her October 1 appeal.

8. The ALJ found the rule permissible because A.R.S. § 33-1808(B) explicitly grants HOAs the authority to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations” which may “regulate the location and size of flagpoles” and “shall not prohibit the installation of a flagpole.” Since the HOA’s guidelines allowed for one flagpole up to 20 feet long, capable of flying two flags, the judge concluded the rule was reasonable under the statute.

9. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the Petitioner had to convince the judge that her contention was more probably true than not. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated any statute or its own CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition. The practical consequence is that the HOA’s denial of her application for two flagpoles was upheld, and the Board could therefore properly find her in violation of the Architectural Guidelines and order her to remove one of her two flagpoles.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues legal decisions. In this case, Diane Mihalsky served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. § 33-1808

An Arizona Revised Statute that governs the display of flags in planned communities. It forbids HOAs from prohibiting certain flags (like the U.S. and military flags) but permits them to establish reasonable rules regarding the number, size, and location of flagpoles.

Architectural Committee

A committee established by the HOA’s CC&Rs responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving homeowners’ applications for external modifications to their property, such as installing flagpoles.

Architectural Guidelines

The specific rules adopted by the HOA that set forth requirements for property modifications. In this case, the guidelines limited each lot to one flagpole, with a maximum height of 20 feet.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The Petitioner, Joyce Monsanto, bore the burden of proof to show the HOA had violated the law or its own rules.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that create the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated CC&R § 7.9, which outlines the appeal process for disapproved architectural applications.

Declarant

The original developer of a planned community who establishes the initial CC&Rs. In this case, K. Hovnanian was the Declarant for Four Seasons at the Manor.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization in a planned community responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and managing common areas. The Respondent, Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, is an HOA.

Negative Implication

A principle of legal interpretation which holds that the explicit inclusion of one thing implies the intentional exclusion of another. The ALJ used this to argue that because CC&R § 7.9 (appeals) does not specify that a written decision must be sent to the owner, unlike CC&R § 7.8 (initial applications), that requirement should not be read into the appeal rule.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum to resolve disputes.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Joyce H. Monsanto is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required in this civil case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact (the judge) that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Restrictive Covenant

A legally enforceable rule within the CC&Rs that limits what a homeowner can do with their property. The rule limiting homes to one flagpole is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Waiver

The act of intentionally relinquishing a known right or claim. The Petitioner argued that the HOA board could, and should, have waived the one-flagpole rule for her under CC&R § 7.6.

HOA vs. Military Family: 4 Lessons from a Legal Battle Over a Flagpole

For Joyce Monsanto, a member of a dedicated military family, displaying her patriotism was a matter of pride. Her husband served 25 years in the Marines, and her two sons have spent decades in the Marines and the Coast Guard. Naturally, she wanted to fly both the flag of the United States and the flag of the U.S. Marine Corps at her Arizona home. But when she submitted her plan to her Homeowners Association (HOA), she was met with a firm “no.”

The conflict wasn’t about the flags themselves. The Four Seasons at the Manor HOA had no issue with her displaying both. The dispute centered on how she wanted to display them. It was a disagreement over her vision for a symmetrical, two-pole display versus the HOA’s “one flagpole per lot” rule. This architectural dispute escalated from a simple request into a formal administrative hearing.

Ms. Monsanto’s fight reveals several surprising truths about the power of HOA rules and the specific language written into state law. Her case ultimately failed on two fronts—a substantive challenge to the rule itself, and a procedural challenge to how the HOA handled her appeal. Here’s what every homeowner can learn from each.

1. Your Right to Fly the Flag Has Limits—And They’re Written into Law.

Many homeowners believe the right to fly the American flag is unconditional. However, the legal reality is more nuanced. While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1808) prevents an HOA from outright prohibiting the display of U.S. or military flags, it explicitly allows the association to create “reasonable rules and regulations” for their placement and manner of display.

The statute is specific about what these rules can cover. An HOA can legally regulate the size and location of flagpoles and can limit a homeowner to displaying no more than two flags at once. In this case, the HOA’s architectural guidelines permitted two flags, but only on a single flagpole. The Administrative Law Judge found this “one flagpole per lot” rule was a “reasonable” regulation and therefore perfectly legal. To underscore that the HOA’s stance was not about a lack of patriotism, the judge noted testimony that the HOA president himself “placed 140 small flags on his property” for Memorial Day. The issue was about the uniform enforcement of an architectural rule, not the patriotic display itself.

2. Your Personal Taste Is No Match for the Community Rulebook.

During the hearing, Ms. Monsanto acknowledged that she could fly both of her flags from a single pole as the HOA rules allowed. Her reason for wanting two poles was a matter of personal preference. She testified that she “wanted to install two flagpoles for aesthetic reasons” and also felt that a single pole placed in the middle of her lot would block the view from her front window.

The judge was unmoved by this line of reasoning. In the final decision, the response was direct and unambiguous:

Petitioner’s petition is about her choice not to install a single flagpole for her own aesthetic reasons, not Respondent’s unreasonableness or lack of patriotism.

This is a foundational principle of community association law: homeowners trade a degree of personal autonomy for the perceived benefits of uniform standards and predictable property values. The judge’s decision simply reaffirms that bargain. In the world of planned communities, the established rulebook will almost always outweigh an individual’s personal taste.

3. In HOA Law, the Appeal Isn’t a Re-do—It’s a Different Process.

One of Ms. Monsanto’s key arguments was procedural. She believed her appeal should have been automatically approved because the HOA failed to provide a written decision within the 45-day deadline stipulated in its own rules (CC&R § 7.9). This is where the judge identified a subtle but crucial legal distinction buried in the HOA’s governing documents.

The HOA’s CC&Rs had two different sections for architectural requests:

• CC&R § 7.8 (Initial Requests): This section explicitly required the Board to “inform the submitting party of the final decision” with a “written response.”

• CC&R § 7.9 (Appeals): This section, however, only required the Board to “render its written decision” within 45 days.

That small difference in wording—”written response” versus “written decision”—was the linchpin of her procedural case. The judge ruled that for an appeal, the HOA was not required to send a personal letter or direct notice to Ms. Monsanto. It only had to create a written record of its decision within the timeframe.

4. A Post on an HOA Website Can Count as an Official “Written Decision.”

The final surprise came down to what constitutes a “written decision” and how the deadline was met. Ms. Monsanto was waiting for a formal letter informing her that her appeal had been denied. She never received one. Her appeal was filed on October 1, 2018, starting a 45-day clock.

The judge found the HOA satisfied its obligation in a two-step process:

1. The Decision: The Board verbally denied her appeal during its public meeting on November 8, 2018. This action, which occurred 38 days after her appeal, fulfilled the requirement to “render its decision” within the 45-day period.

2. The Writing: That decision was then recorded in the draft meeting minutes, which were posted on the Board’s website on December 4, 2018. Ms. Monsanto acknowledged seeing the posted minutes.

The judge ruled that these online minutes satisfied the separate legal requirement for a “writing memorializing its decision.” Even though they weren’t sent directly to her, the publicly posted minutes served as the official record of the timely denial of her appeal, closing the final door on her argument for automatic approval.

Conclusion: Before You Plant Your Flag, Read the Fine Print

Joyce Monsanto’s case is a cautionary tale on two levels. First, it shows that even cherished rights like displaying the flag are subject to reasonable, neutrally-applied community rules. Second, and more critically, it demonstrates that procedural arguments live and die by the most precise definitions in the governing documents. A single word can be the difference between winning an appeal and being ordered to take your flagpole down.

This case came down to the difference between a “written response” and a “written decision”—do you know what the fine print says about your rights in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joyce H Monsanto (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Anthony Nunziato (board member)
Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association
President of the Board of Directors; also referred to as 'Tony'
Annette McCraw (property manager)
Community Manager/Trestle Management (implied)
Sent Notice of Disapproval on behalf of Respondent
Marc Vasquez (HOA representative)
Addressed Petitioner's claim regarding violation letters at the Board meeting

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jason West vs. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Posted on October 1, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919065-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-10-01
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Petitioner's request for a hearing was denied and the petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove the Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or its Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the meeting agenda or ballot.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jason West	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association	Counsel	Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's request for a hearing was denied and the petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove the Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or its Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the meeting agenda or ballot.

Why this result: The relevant statute and HOA bylaws do not mandate that the Board add a member-proposed amendment to the agenda; the member has the independent recourse of gathering member support (25% or 1/4 of votes) to call a special meeting, a route the Petitioner was aware of but did not pursue.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to place a proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda of the annual meeting

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to place his proposed bylaw amendment (Bylaw 3.13, concerning banning directors whose actions resulted in a paid claim) on the agenda or ballot for the annual meeting.

Orders: Petition denied because Petitioner did not establish that Respondent violated the cited statute or bylaw by declining to add the proposed amendment to the agenda or ballot.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
Bylaw 1.5
Bylaw 2.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaw Amendment, Meeting Agenda, Director liability, Statute interpretation

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Respondent’s Bylaw 1.5
Respondent’s Bylaw 2.2

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919065-REL Decision – 742075.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:02 (159.4 KB)

19F-H1919065-REL Decision – 742075.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:36 (159.4 KB)

Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919065-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the matter of Jason West (Petitioner) versus the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Respondent), Case No. 19F-H1919065-REL. The petition, filed on May 20, 2019, was ultimately denied in a decision issued on October 1, 2019.

The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and its own Bylaw 1.5 by refusing to add his proposed bylaw amendment to the agenda for the annual members’ meeting. The proposed amendment sought to ban directors from serving for five years if their actions resulted in a paid claim against the Association.

The ALJ’s ruling was decisive: the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision rested on a strict interpretation of the relevant statute and bylaws. The ALJ concluded that neither A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) nor the Association’s bylaws compel the Board to place a member-initiated proposal on the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting. Critically, the bylaws provide a distinct and available remedy for members: Bylaw 2.2 allows members to force a special meeting for any purpose, including bylaw amendments, by gathering the support of 25% of the voting membership. The record showed the Petitioner was aware of this option but did not attempt to use it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was also denied, as the presiding body (the Office of Administrative Hearings) lacks the statutory authority to award them in such proceedings.

1. Case Overview

Case Name

Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Case Number

19F-H1919065-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

Hearing Date

September 26, 2019

Decision Date

October 1, 2019

Petitioner

Jason West, appearing on his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, represented by Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board violated state law and its governing documents by refusing to include his proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda and ballot for the annual meeting held in June 2019.

2. The Proposed Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw 3.13)

The Petitioner submitted a proposal to add a new Bylaw 3.13 to the Association’s governing documents. The full text of the proposed amendment is as follows:

Directors whose actions result in a paid claim

In an effort to reduce liability to the Association, any current or former director whose actions have resulted in a paid claim by the Association or its insurance carrier, is banned from serving as a director for a period of five years from the date of the final payment. This five year directorship ban also applies to any other individual co-owning an Association lot with the director. This Amendment is retroactive.

The stated purpose of the amendment was to reduce the Association’s liability. The decision notes that some of the current Board members may have been serving when the Association’s insurance carrier paid legal fees and other costs associated with a previous petition filed by the Petitioner.

3. Chronology of the Dispute

• December 23, 2018: The Petitioner first sent his proposed Bylaw 3.13 amendment to Joanelize Morales, the Association’s property manager.

• January 3 & 4, 2019: The Petitioner emailed Mickey Latz, owner of the management company, demanding the proposal be added to the next meeting’s agenda and ballot. In this correspondence, the Petitioner explicitly stated his awareness of the alternative process, writing, “I can also force the Board to call a Special Meeting of the Members at any time with 10 signatures from members of our Association. This is Article 2.2 of our Bylaws.”

• January – June 2019: Mr. Latz repeatedly informed the Petitioner that the Board, based on legal advice, had decided not to add the proposal to the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting.

• April 17, 2019: Notice was sent to members for the annual meeting scheduled for June 4, 2019. The agenda was limited to (1) Election of Directors and (2) Approval of 2018 Annual Meeting Minutes. On the same day, the Petitioner re-sent his proposed amendment.

• May 14, 2019: The Petitioner attended a Board meeting and threatened to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate if his amendment was not placed on the agenda.

• May 20, 2019: The Petitioner filed the formal petition that led to this hearing.

• June 3, 2019: A notice was sent rescheduling the meeting to June 20, 2019, with the agenda unchanged.

• June 20, 2019: At the annual meeting, the Petitioner, whose name was on the ballot, was not elected to the Board of Directors.

4. Governing Authorities and Bylaws

The ALJ’s decision centered on the interpretation of one state statute and two specific Association bylaws.

• A.R.S. § 33-1804(B): This Arizona statute governs homeowners’ association meetings. It requires annual meetings and specifies notice requirements. It explicitly provides a mechanism for members to call special meetings: “Special meetings of the members’ association may be called by the president, by a majority of the board of directors or by members having at least twenty-five percent, or any lower percentage specified in the bylaws, of the votes in the association.”

• Bylaw 1.5 (Amendment Process): This bylaw states that amendments can be made “at a regular or special meeting of the Members, by a vote of the Members having a majority (more than 50%) of the votes.” The ALJ found that this bylaw is permissive, allowing for votes on amendments, but does not obligate the Board to place any specific proposal on an agenda.

• Bylaw 2.2 (Special Meetings): This bylaw mirrors the state statute, allowing members to compel a meeting. It states: “Special meetings of the Members may be called at any time … upon written request signed by Members having at least one-fourth (1/4) of the authorized votes… which request shall be delivered to the President or Secretary.”

5. Summary of Key Testimony

The hearing included testimony from the Petitioner and six witnesses he subpoenaed, including property managers and the three current Board members.

• Board Members (Bryan Selna, David Epstein, Linda Seidler): All testified that they consulted with the Association’s attorneys and property management company. Based on the advice received, they collectively decided not to add the Petitioner’s proposal to the agenda.

• Mickey Latz (Property Management Co. Owner): Testified that the Board as a whole, not the secretary, determines the meeting agenda. He affirmed that counsel had advised the Board it was not obligated to add member-requested items. Mr. Latz testified that he explicitly pointed the Petitioner to the process outlined in Bylaw 2.2, which allows members to call their own meetings directly.

• Joanelize Morales (Property Manager): Confirmed that she prepares meeting agendas based on the Board’s instructions. She also testified that the Petitioner never attempted to use the Bylaw 2.2 process to gather the support of his neighbors to schedule a meeting to consider his proposed amendment.

6. Historical Context and Prior Litigation

The decision provides context regarding the Petitioner’s previous interactions with the Association.

• Prior Petition (OAH Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL): In April 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition concerning the Board’s failure to fill vacant positions. On June 28, 2017, an ALJ dismissed that petition, concluding that the Board had done all it could and that vacancies were due in part to the Petitioner’s “obstructionist tactics.”

• Successful Amendment (Bylaw 3.12): In April 2017, the Petitioner proposed a different amendment regarding director resignations. The Board at that time agreed to submit it to a vote, and it was passed by the membership in May 2017.

7. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s conclusions of law methodically dismantled the Petitioner’s claims, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated the statute and bylaw.

• Statutory and Bylaw Interpretation: The ALJ applied a plain-language reading to the governing authorities.

◦ The court found that nothing in the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires an HOA board to add an item to an agenda at a member’s request. Instead, it provides the remedy for members to call a meeting themselves.

◦ Similarly, the court concluded that Bylaw 1.5 allows for bylaw amendments to be considered at meetings but does not compel the Board to include such proposals on the agenda of a meeting it has noticed.

◦ The ALJ found that Bylaw 2.2 provides the explicit and proper procedure for a member to bring an issue to a vote when the Board declines to do so: gather support from 25% of the members to call a special meeting.

• Final Ruling: Because the Petitioner failed to establish a violation of any cited statute or bylaw, the petition was ordered to be denied.

• Attorney’s Fees: The Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. The decision cited legal precedent establishing that administrative bodies like the Department of Real Estate and the OAH are not empowered by the legislature to award attorney’s fees in these types of disputes.

Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the provided administrative law judge decision.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What specific action did the Petitioner, Jason West, allege the Respondent took that violated Arizona statute and the association’s bylaws?

3. Describe the substance of the proposed Bylaw 3.13 that the Petitioner wanted to add to the agenda.

4. What was the Respondent’s primary defense for not adding the proposed bylaw amendment to the annual meeting’s agenda or ballot?

5. According to Bylaw 2.2, what procedural option did the Petitioner have to bring his proposed amendment to a vote without the Board’s approval?

6. What was the outcome of the Petitioner’s previous case against the Respondent in 2017 (OAH Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)?

7. What two specific authorities did the Petitioner claim the Respondent’s Board violated?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation, does A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) require an HOA board to add an item to an agenda at a single member’s request?

9. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge in this case (No. 19F-H1919065-REL)?

10. What was the judge’s ruling regarding the Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees, and what was the reason for this ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Jason West, who owns a house in the Desert Sage Two development. The Respondent is the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, of which the Petitioner is a member.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and its own Bylaw 1.5. The specific violation was the Board’s failure to place a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner on the agenda of the association’s annual meeting.

3. The proposed Bylaw 3.13 sought to ban any current or former director from serving on the board for five years if their actions resulted in a paid claim by the association or its insurance carrier. This ban would be retroactive and also apply to any individual co-owning a lot with the director.

4. The Respondent’s Board, after consulting with its attorneys and property management company, argued that neither state law nor its bylaws obliged them to add items to an agenda at a single member’s request. They contended that the Petitioner had the option to call a special meeting himself by gathering support from other members.

5. Bylaw 2.2 allows for a special meeting of the members to be called upon a written request signed by members who hold at least one-fourth (25%) of the authorized votes. The Petitioner was aware of this option but had not attempted to use it.

6. In the previous case, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Board had done all it could to fill vacant positions and that the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics” were part of the reason no eligible members were willing to serve.

7. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent’s Board violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(B) and the association’s Bylaw 1.5.

8. No, the judge concluded that nothing in the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) requires a homeowners’ association board to add an item to an agenda or ballot at the request of a single member. The statute only provides that members with at least 25% of the votes can independently call a meeting.

9. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The judge found that the Petitioner had not established that the Respondent’s Board violated either A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) or Bylaw 1.5.

10. The judge ruled that attorney’s fees could not be awarded to the Respondent. The reason given is that the legislature has not empowered the Department of Real Estate or the Office of Administrative Hearings to award attorney’s fees in this type of administrative proceeding.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct a detailed essay response for each of the following prompts, using only evidence and reasoning found within the case document.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s method of statutory construction and interpretation of restrictive covenants. How did the judge apply these principles to A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Bylaw 1.5 to reach a conclusion?

2. Discuss the balance of power between an individual HOA member and the Board of Directors as illustrated in this case. What rights and recourses are available to a member who disagrees with a Board decision, according to the Respondent’s Bylaws?

3. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Who held the burden of proof, what was the standard required, and why was the Petitioner unable to meet this standard?

4. Examine the history between the Petitioner and the Respondent as detailed in the “Findings of Fact.” How might this prior history, including the 2017 legal case and a previously successful bylaw amendment, have influenced the actions of both parties in the current dispute?

5. Based on the testimony of Michael David (“Mickey”) Latz and the text of the bylaws, contrast the process for placing an item on the agenda of a Board-scheduled meeting versus the process for calling a member-initiated special meeting. What are the key differences in initiative, requirements, and control?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent official (Diane Mihalsky) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over evidentiary hearings and issues decisions on petitions filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

An Arizona statute cited by the Petitioner. It stipulates that an HOA members’ meeting must be held at least annually and that special meetings can be called by the president, a board majority, or members with at least 25% of the votes.

Bylaw 1.5

A bylaw of the Desert Sage Two HOA that states the Bylaws may be amended at a regular or special meeting by a majority vote of members present in person or by proxy.

Bylaw 2.2

A bylaw of the Desert Sage Two HOA that allows for special meetings of the members to be called by the president, the Board, or upon written request from members holding at least one-fourth (25%) of the votes.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state body authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association

An organization whose members own property and/or residences in a specific development (in this case, Desert Sage Two in Scottsdale, Arizona).

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

Jason West, the member of the homeowners’ association who filed the petition alleging a violation by the association’s Board.

Petition

A formal complaint filed with the Department of Real Estate by an HOA member or the HOA itself concerning alleged violations.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof standard required in the hearing. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, the entity against which the petition was filed.

Restrictive Covenant

A rule or provision within community documents, like bylaws, that is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties if it is unambiguous.

Select all sources

742075.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1919065-REL

1 source

This text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning a dispute between a homeowner, Jason West (Petitioner), and his association, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)) and an association bylaw by refusing to place his proposed bylaw amendment on the agenda of the annual meeting. The proposed amendment sought to ban directors whose actions resulted in a paid insurance claim from serving for five years, but the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that neither the statute nor the association’s bylaws required the Board to add a member-proposed item to a scheduled agenda or ballot. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation and denied the petition.

What was the specific legal and procedural context of this homeowners association dispute?

How did the Petitioner’s proposed bylaw amendment attempt to alter Board member liability?

What statutory and bylaw provisions guided the final Administrative Law Judge decision?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jason West (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
Jardine, Baker, Hickman, & Houston, PLLC
Represented Respondent
Edward A. Padilla (property manager)
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
Property manager in May 2017; testified for Petitioner; also referred to as 'Eddie'
Joanelize Morales (property manager)
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
Property manager since August 2018; testified for Petitioner
Bryan Robert Selna (board member)
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
Current Vice President of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
David Epstein (board member)
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
Current President of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
Linda Maria Seidler (board member)
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
Current Secretary of Respondent's Board; testified for Petitioner
Michael David Latz (property manager)
Golden Valley Property Management
Owner of Golden Valley Property Management; testified for Petitioner; also referred to as 'Mickey'

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Dennis J Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on September 24, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919069-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-24
Administrative Law Judge	Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome	The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dennis J Gregory	Counsel	—
Respondent	Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association	Counsel	Marc Vasquez

Alleged Violations

8.1.7 of CC&Rs; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Title 33, Chapter 16.1
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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:33 (85.6 KB)

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:41 (85.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.

The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.

Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.

Case Overview

The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919069-REL

Petitioner

Dennis J Gregory

Respondent

Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Presiding Judge

Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 4, 2019

Decision Date

September 24, 2019

Chronology of Events

• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.

• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.

• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.

• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.

• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:

• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”

• Allegations of Deception:

◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.

◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.

◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.

◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.

• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.

• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.

• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.

Respondent’s Position and Actions

The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.

• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.

• Corrective Measures:

◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.

◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.

◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.

• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.

• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:

◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.

◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.

◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.

◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.

3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.

Study Guide: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning Dennis J Gregory and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the case decision.

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

2. What was the initial action by the Homeowners Association that triggered the dispute with the Petitioner?

3. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Dennis Gregory, allege in his Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?

4. How did the Respondent discover its error regarding the Petitioner’s palm trees?

5. What two specific actions did the Respondent take to rectify its error before the hearing took place?

6. Why did the Petitioner proceed with the hearing even after the Respondent retracted the violation notice and apologized?

7. Who was Annette McCraw, and what specific actions did the Petitioner accuse her of taking?

8. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and what was its significance in the judge’s decision?

9. According to the judge’s findings, why was the central issue of the dispute considered moot?

10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Dennis J Gregory, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. Marc Vasquez, vice president of Trestle Management Group, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

2. The dispute was triggered when the Respondent, on July 13, 2018, sent the Petitioner a courtesy notice requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard. The notice claimed the trees were a violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated section 8.1.7 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803.

4. After the Petitioner disputed the violation, the Respondent conducted a further review. Through this review, the Respondent discovered that the palm trees on the Petitioner’s property were actually listed on the “Recommended Plant List” and were therefore acceptable.

5. First, the Respondent issued a courtesy letter to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, apologizing for the misunderstanding. Second, the Respondent deemed the original violation notice invalid and had it “removed and expunged” from both its own and the Petitioner’s records to preserve his good standing.

6. The Petitioner proceeded with the hearing because he was upset and believed the Respondent had acted fraudulently. He alleged the Respondent lied about discussing the issue with board members, deceptively changed the CC&Rs, and failed to disclose who made the initial complaint.

7. Annette McCraw was an employee of Trestle Management Group, the Respondent’s management company. The Petitioner accused her of lying about speaking with board members regarding the palm tree issue and threatening him with a lawyer.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof required, defined as evidence convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. Its significance is that the Petitioner bore this burden of proof and ultimately failed to meet it, leading to the denial of his petition.

9. The issue was considered moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology letter and rescinded the violation notice before the hearing occurred. Since the Petitioner was never fined, the palm trees were deemed acceptable, and the notice was expunged, there was no longer an active controversy for the court to resolve.

10. The final Order, issued on September 24, 2019, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Order was binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, drawing evidence and arguments exclusively from the provided legal decision.

1. Analyze the concept of a “moot” issue as it applies to this case. How did the Respondent’s actions before the hearing render the Petitioner’s primary complaint moot in the eyes of the law, despite the Petitioner’s ongoing grievances?

2. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in the document and detail the specific reasons why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dennis Gregory failed to meet this burden.

3. Examine the roles and conduct of the management company, Trestle Management Group, and its employee, Annette McCraw. Based on the testimony presented, what specific actions escalated the conflict even after the initial landscaping error was identified and corrected?

4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial “courtesy notice” of July 13, 2018, to the final Order of September 24, 2019. Identify the key turning points and decisions made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent that influenced the outcome of the case.

5. Although the Petitioner lost the case, he raised several allegations beyond the palm trees, including fraud, deception, and threats. Using only the evidence presented in the decision, construct the argument that Dennis Gregory was attempting to make regarding why these subsequent actions constituted a violation of the planned community statute, even if the original tree issue was resolved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Antara Nath Rivera.

Answer

The Respondent’s formal written response to the Petition, filed in this case on June 28, 2019.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The decision cites A.R.S. § 33-1803, which authorizes HOAs to enforce CC&Rs, and statutes governing the hearing and rehearing process.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party to establish its claims by a required degree of evidence. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents that establish the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of section 8.1.7 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petition was filed and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (Petition)

The formal document filed by a homeowner to initiate a hearing with the Department concerning alleged violations by their homeowners association.

A legal term for a situation where the underlying issue has been resolved, making any ruling on the matter unnecessary. The judge found the case moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology and rescinded the violation notice.

The final and binding decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or hearing. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Dennis J Gregory.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond. In this case, the Respondent was the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association.

Trestle Management Group, LLC

The management company employed by the Respondent HOA to handle its operations.

An HOA Admitted It Was Wrong. The Homeowner Sued Anyway—And Lost. Here Are the Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Familiar Dread of an HOA Letter

For many homeowners, few things cause a spike of anxiety quite like a formal notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). That crisp envelope often contains a violation notice, sparking a frustrating process of proving compliance or making unwanted changes. But what happens when you prove the HOA was completely wrong, they admit their mistake, and issue a full apology? For most, that’s the end of the story—a clear victory.

This, however, is the story of a homeowner who achieved that victory and then decided to take the HOA to a formal hearing anyway. He had been proven right, the violation was erased, and no fines were ever issued. Yet, he pursued the case and ultimately lost.

How could someone who was proven right end up losing their case? The answer reveals a critical distinction between winning an argument and winning in a court of law.

1. You Can Win the Argument, But Still Lose the Case

The initial dispute was straightforward. The homeowner, Dennis Gregory, received a courtesy notice from his HOA requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard, which were alleged to be in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Mr. Gregory disputed the violation. In response, the HOA conducted a further review and made a critical discovery: the palm trees on the property were, in fact, listed on the HOA’s own “Recommended Plant List” and were perfectly acceptable. The HOA had made a mistake. Here, however, the story takes a surprising turn. Mr. Gregory filed his formal petition for a hearing after the HOA had already admitted its error, apologized, and confirmed the issue was resolved.

This sequence of events is the crucial detail of the case. The legal dispute wasn’t about the palm trees—that argument was already won. The case was about the actions taken after the HOA’s error was acknowledged and corrected.

2. A Proactive Apology Can Be a Powerful Legal Shield

Once the HOA realized its mistake, it took several decisive steps to remedy the situation. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the HOA and its management company:

• Sent a formal apology letter to the homeowner.

• Confirmed the original courtesy notice was “deemed invalid.”

• “Removed and expunged” the violation from the homeowner’s records to preserve his good standing.

• Never issued any fines or financial penalties.

• Took action regarding personnel, as the employee who the homeowner accused of making threats was no longer with the management company by the time of the hearing.

These corrective actions had a profound legal impact. The judge found that because the HOA had already reversed its initial notice, apologized, cleared the homeowner’s record, and addressed the personnel issue, there was no longer an active dispute to rule on. The issue was considered “moot.”

This conclusion was emphasized in the judge’s final decision:

Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.

3. The Law Requires Proof, Not Just Principle

The homeowner’s petition wasn’t just about the palm trees. He testified that he proceeded with the case because he felt he had been wronged by an HOA management employee during the dispute. His petition alleged the HOA had “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter,” lied about discussing the issue with board members, and even “threatened him with a lawyer.” He wasn’t just seeking to correct the record on his landscaping; he was fighting on a matter of principle.

To win his case, however, the homeowner had to meet a specific legal standard: proving his claims by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In simple terms, this means showing that his version of events was more likely to be true than not.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner “failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated the CC&Rs.” This outcome highlights a crucial legal reality: tangible, documented evidence—such as a formal apology letter and an expunged record—often carries more evidentiary weight than a homeowner’s testimony about verbal statements, which can be viewed as a ‘he said, she said’ dispute without additional proof. While the homeowner may have genuinely felt wronged, his feelings could not overcome the HOA’s documented resolution.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Homeowners and HOAs

The outcome of this dispute offers a powerful lesson for both homeowners and association boards. It demonstrates three core takeaways: a dispute isn’t over until it’s legally resolved, a swift and comprehensive apology can be an effective legal defense, and a deeply felt principle must still be backed by sufficient evidence to prevail in a formal hearing.

This case serves as a fascinating reminder of the complexities of community disputes, leaving us with a final question: At what point does the fight for principle risk overshadowing a practical victory?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dennis J Gregory (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on own behalf

Respondent Side

Marc Vasquez (attorney)
Trestle Management Group
Appeared for Respondent; testified as vice president of Trestle
Annette McCraw (property manager)
Trestle Management Group, LLC
Issued letter on behalf of Respondent; no longer with Trestle
James A. Baska (management representative)
Trestle Management Group
Recipient of decision transmission

Neutral Parties

Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed in transmission of decision