The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020059-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-02-12
Administrative Law Judge
Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842
Outcome Summary
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Identify the Petitioner and Respondent in this case and describe the core issue of their dispute.
2. What specific provision of the governing documents did the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, claim the Respondent violated?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what unique features did his property’s landscaping include, and what services did he believe the HOA was responsible for?
4. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
5. What was the testimony of Diana Crites, the property manager, regarding the scope of standard landscaping services provided by the HOA?
6. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s initial petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
7. For what primary reasons did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner a rehearing?
8. In the rehearing, what external sources did the Administrative Law Judge consult to determine the definition of “landscaping”?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and who bears the responsibility for meeting it?
10. What was the final order issued after the rehearing on February 12, 2021, and what reasonable suggestion did the judge offer for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core dispute concerned the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain the landscaping on the Petitioner’s property as required by the community’s CC&Rs, specifically whether this obligation included maintaining the Petitioner’s private pool.
2. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated Section 5.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section outlines the Association’s duties, including the maintenance of landscaping on individual lots outside of structures. The Petitioner also initially alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842.
3. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He contended that the HOA should be responsible for maintaining these features, including replenishing the rock in his front yard when it wore thin.
4. The landscaping contractor was unable to perform maintenance because the gate to the backyard was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the pool, and evidence showed that in March 2020, a woman at the residence explicitly told the landscapers she did not want anyone in the backyard.
5. Diana Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services, not “concierge” services. This includes front yard maintenance and mowing and blowing of backyards, but not maintaining potted plants, driveways, property-dividing walls, or individual homeowners’ pools.
6. The judge denied the petition because the evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admission, established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted the Respondent had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard.
7. The rehearing was granted for reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s rehearing request. These included claims of irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was not supported by evidence or was contrary to law. The Petitioner also cited ADA and privacy issues.
8. The Administrative Law Judge consulted various online dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Law Insider). She also analyzed the license classifications from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, specifically the R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license and the R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license.
9. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince 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 violated the governing documents.
10. The final order dismissed the Petitioner’s petition again, finding he failed to prove the HOA was obligated to maintain his pool. However, the judge suggested that it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times of its landscaping services going forward so the Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden, what they were required to prove, and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that they failed to meet this burden in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the role of access in the dispute between Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro HOA. How did the issue of the locked gate impact the initial ruling, and how did the Petitioner attempt to reframe this issue in the rehearing?
3. The interpretation of the word “landscaping” was central to the rehearing. Detail the Petitioner’s interpretation versus the conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge. What evidence and legal reasoning did the Judge use to support her conclusion that pool maintenance is not included in landscaping?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing on April 21, 2020, to the final order after the rehearing. Identify the key events, the specific reasons cited for the rehearing, and the legal basis for the final dismissal.
5. Based on the testimony of Diana Crites and Rian Baas, describe the standard landscaping services provided by the Rancho Del Oro HOA and its contractor. How does this standard practice contrast with the specific and unique services the Petitioner demanded for his property?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), the state agency with jurisdiction over HOA dispute resolution petitions.
Homeowners’ Association. An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro HOA.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Petition
A formal written request filed with a court or administrative body to initiate a legal proceeding. Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the fact-finder that their claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Registrar of Contractors
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating contractors. The ALJ referenced its license classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pools (R-6) to help define the scope of services.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney)
Diana Crites(property manager/witness) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent's property management company; licensed broker
Rian Baas(witness/contractor owner) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the key details and resolution of case number 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Marc Archer and Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. On March 16, 2021, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued an order vacating a scheduled rehearing. The core issue was procedural: the Petitioner’s request for rehearing was based on actions the Respondent took after the initial hearing’s decision, which falls outside the permissible scope of a rehearing. Upon being informed of this limitation, the Petitioner withdrew his request. He indicated his intent to file a new, separate petition to address the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build a house addition. The judge’s order is binding, with any appeal required to be filed in superior court within 35 days.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
I. Case Identification
Detail
Information
Case Name
Marc Archer, Petitioner, vs PMPE Community Association, Inc., Respondent
The scheduled hearing was a rehearing requested by the Petitioner, Marc Archer. The basis for his request centered on events that transpired after the conclusion of the initial hearing.
• Petitioner’s Grounds for Rehearing: The request was explicitly based on “actions taken by Respondent after the decision in the initial hearing had been issued.”
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The Petitioner was informed at the hearing that the scope of a rehearing is limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed. The document states: “When Petitioner was informed that the only issues that could be addressed in a rehearing on his petition were those matters that occurred prior to his petition being filed…”
• Subject of New Dispute: The specific post-decision action Archer sought to challenge was the “Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
B. Resolution and Outcome
Faced with the procedural limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner altered his legal strategy, leading to the cancellation of the proceeding.
• Withdrawal of Request: The Petitioner “concluded that he wished to withdraw his request for a rehearing at that time.”
• Stated Intention: Archer “indicated that he would file a new petition to challenge Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.”
• Final Order: The judge issued a formal order vacating the hearing.
Legal Standing and Appeal Process
The order issued on March 16, 2021, carries legal weight and outlines specific requirements for any subsequent appeal.
• Binding Nature of the Order: The order is binding on the parties involved, as stipulated by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B).
• Appeal Requirements: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review.
◦ Venue: The appeal must be filed with the superior court.
◦ Deadline: The filing must occur within thirty-five (35) days from the date the order was served upon the parties.
• Governing Statutes: The appeal process is prescribed by the following state statutes:
◦ A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
◦ A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
◦ Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
Document Distribution
Copies of the “Order Vacating Hearing” were officially distributed via mail, email, or fax on March 16, 2021, to the following parties:
◦ Nicholas Nogami, Esq. (Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP)
Study Guide – 20F-H2020063-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the provided legal document.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in case No. 20F-H2020063-REL-RHG and state their respective roles.
2. What was the specific legal action taken by the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 16, 2021, and who was the presiding judge?
3. What was the original reason Marc Archer requested a rehearing?
4. Why was the Petitioner informed that his reason for a rehearing was invalid for the current proceedings?
5. What was the Petitioner’s final decision regarding his request for a rehearing, and what was the outcome for the scheduled hearing?
6. What future action did Marc Archer state he intended to take after withdrawing his request?
7. According to the document’s notice, what is the legal standing of the “Order Vacating Hearing” on the parties involved?
8. Describe the process and timeline an involved party must follow to appeal this order.
9. Who legally represented the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., in this matter?
10. To what primary state agency and specific official was a copy of this order distributed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Marc Archer, who served as the Petitioner, and the PMPE Community Association, Inc., which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the petition, and the Respondent is the party against whom the petition was filed.
2. On March 16, 2021, an “Order Vacating Hearing” was issued, removing the matter from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The presiding judge who signed the order was Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
3. Marc Archer’s basis for requesting a rehearing was to address actions that the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., had taken after the decision in the initial hearing had already been issued.
4. The Petitioner was informed that his basis was invalid because a rehearing can only address matters that occurred prior to the filing of his original petition. The new actions he wished to contest would require a new, separate petition.
5. After being informed about the limitations of a rehearing, the Petitioner concluded that he wished to withdraw his request. As a result, the judge ordered that the hearing be vacated from the Office of Administrative Hearings’ calendar.
6. After withdrawing his request, Marc Archer indicated that he would file a new petition. This new petition would specifically challenge the Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
7. The order is legally binding on the parties, as stated in the notice section referencing Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 32-2199.02(B). This means both the Petitioner and the Respondent must legally comply with the order.
8. To appeal the order, a party must seek judicial review in the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H), title 12, chapter 7, article 6, and A.R.S. § 12-904(A).
9. The Respondent was represented by Nicholas Nogami, Esq. of the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP.
10. A copy of the order was mailed or e-mailed to Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Copies were also sent to several other email addresses associated with that department.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Develop a detailed essay answer for each of the following prompts, using only information found within the source document to support your analysis.
1. Analyze the procedural error made by the Petitioner that led to the hearing being vacated. Explain the critical distinction between the scope of a “rehearing” and a “new petition” as implied by the events in the order.
2. Based on the provided document, reconstruct the timeline of events. Begin with the implied initial hearing, describe the basis for the requested rehearing, detail the procedural clarification provided to the Petitioner, and outline the subsequent actions taken by both the Petitioner and the Administrative Law Judge.
3. Discuss the legal framework governing appeals for this type of administrative order. Cite the specific Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) mentioned in the document and explain the jurisdiction, requirements, and timeline for seeking judicial review.
4. Evaluate the communication process documented in the order. Identify all named recipients of the order, their titles or affiliations, and hypothesize why each party or entity would need to be formally notified of this decision.
5. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge and the Office of Administrative Hearings in this specific dispute. How does the order demonstrate the limits of their jurisdiction and the procedural rules they enforce?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and has the authority to issue legally binding orders.
Appeal
The process by which a party requests that a higher court (in this case, the superior court) review the decision of a lower body (the Office of Administrative Hearings).
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. The document references A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B), § 41-1092.08(H), and § 12-904(A) to establish the legal basis for the order’s finality and the appeal process.
Judicial Review
A type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for disputes. In this case, it presided over the matter between Marc Archer and the PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Order Vacating Hearing
A formal directive from a judge that cancels a previously scheduled hearing and removes it from the court’s or agency’s calendar.
Petition
A formal written request submitted to a court or administrative body, initiating a legal case or making a specific application.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition with a court or administrative body. In this case, Marc Archer.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to consider issues that were part of the original petition. As clarified in the order, it cannot be used to address new matters that arose after the initial decision.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to it. In this case, PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Superior Court
A state-level trial court of general jurisdiction. The document specifies that any appeal of the administrative order must be filed with the superior court.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020063-REL
Select all sources
864308.pdf
864361.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020063-REL
2 sources
The provided sources are two copies of an Order Vacating Hearing issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings in the matter of Marc Archer vs PMPE Community Association, Inc. The order, signed by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on March 16, 2021, indicates that Petitioner Marc Archer requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision was issued. Because the rehearing was limited to matters that occurred before the original petition was filed, Mr. Archer chose to withdraw his request for a rehearing and announced his intention to file a new petition to challenge the community association’s denial of his proposal to build a house addition. Consequently, the hearing was vacated from the administrative calendar, and the order includes a notice regarding the process for judicial review if a party wished to appeal.
Why did Marc Archer withdraw his request for a rehearing on case 20F-H2020063-REL?
What were the specific procedural limitations governing the scope of the administrative rehearing?
How does this order relate to the Petitioner’s future challenge regarding his house addition?
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Marc Archer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; Homeowner and member of PMPE
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Represented Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Keith Kauffman(board member) PMPE Community Association, Inc. President, Treasurer, and AC member; testified at hearing
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presided over the main hearing and issued the order vacating rehearing
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Ruled in a prior related evidentiary hearing
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Addressee for transmission of orders
DGardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
f. del sol(Staff) Signed transmittal of ALJ decision
c. serrano(Staff) Signed transmittal of Order Vacating Hearing
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
ncano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order via email
Other Participants
Carlotta L Turman(unknown) Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen Listed in transmission details associated with PMPE counsel
The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.
Key Issues & Findings
Request for Rehearing Withdrawal
Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.
Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:23 (124.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.
The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Personnel
Name/Entity
Affiliation / Title
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Respondent Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Legal Representative
Respondent Witness
Diana Crites
Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)
The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:
◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.
◦ Staining of walking paths.
◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.
• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.
• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.
• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.
• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.
• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:
◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.
◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”
◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.
• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).
• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.
Judicial Findings and Rulings
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.
• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.
• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.
Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.
• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:
◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.
◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”
• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Diana Crites(property manager) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
Rian Baas(witness) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Listed as recipient of the decision
Luis(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
Jill(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Duties, Landscaping, Pool Maintenance, CC&Rs, Access Refusal, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs § 5.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 10-3842
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-1122(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020059-REL Decision – 815480.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:21 (124.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020059-REL
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the scope of landscaping maintenance obligations as defined by the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Petitioner alleged the HOA failed its duties under CC&Rs § 5.1 by not maintaining his property’s unique landscaping, which he argued included replenishing rock, staining paths, and servicing his swimming pool and associated hardscape. He further claimed the HOA was acting in bad faith and failing to comply with a previous court ruling.
The Respondent countered that it had consistently performed standard landscaping on the Petitioner’s front yard since January 2020. However, it was repeatedly denied access to the backyard, a fact the Petitioner admitted, citing liability concerns due to his pool. The HOA provided evidence of multiple attempts to access the yard and testimony that its maintenance duties are uniform across the community and do not include “concierge” services or pool maintenance.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed the petition in both the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The final decision rested on two key points: 1) The Petitioner failed to provide access to the area in question, preventing the HOA from performing its duties. 2) The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the term “landscaping” under the CC&Rs could be reasonably interpreted to include swimming pool maintenance. This conclusion was strongly supported by the separate licensing classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pool service (R-6) issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, which establishes them as distinct services under state regulation.
Case Overview
Parties and Key Personnel
Name/Entity
Affiliation / Title
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Homeowner, 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
Respondent Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Legal Representative
Respondent Witness
Diana Crites
Owner, Crites and Associates (Property Management Co.)
The central conflict involved the interpretation of the HOA’s maintenance obligations under its governing documents. The Petitioner argued for an expansive definition of “landscaping” that encompassed his entire property exterior, including a swimming pool. The HOA maintained that its duties were limited to standard, uniform landscaping services and that pool maintenance was explicitly excluded. The dispute was compounded by the Petitioner’s refusal to grant the HOA’s landscaper access to his backyard.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Stoltenberg’s petition, filed on or about April 21, 2020, and subsequent arguments in two hearings, were based on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The HOA violated § 5.1 of its CC&Rs by failing “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.”
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: As the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the Petitioner contended it should include all types of features outside of structures. His specific demands included:
◦ Maintenance of unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Replenishment of thin or worn-out rock ground cover.
◦ Staining of walking paths.
◦ Full maintenance of his “water feature,” identified as a swimming pool. This included the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and all related hardscape.
• Refusal to Grant Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked.” He stated this was for liability reasons due to the pool and refused access to the HOA’s landscapers. At the rehearing, he argued the HOA failed to communicate its schedule to allow him to provide temporary access.
• Budgetary Failure: He asserted that the HOA did not properly budget for the costs associated with maintaining his unique landscaping.
• Grounds for Rehearing: After the initial denial, the Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including irregularity in proceedings, errors in evidence admission, and claims of “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues” related to hearing loss.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence
The Rancho Del Oro HOA presented a defense centered on its consistent attempts to fulfill its obligations and the Petitioner’s own actions preventing them from doing so.
• Consistent Front Yard Maintenance: Both the HOA property manager and its landscaping contractor testified that the Petitioner’s front yard had been continuously maintained since landscaping services began in January 2020.
• Denial of Backyard Access: The HOA’s primary defense was that it was physically prevented from servicing the backyard. Evidence presented to support this included:
◦ Testimony from Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): His crews were at the property weekly. Between January and March 2020, he or his crew knocked and left notes or business cards four to five times with no response.
◦ Witness Testimony: In March 2020, a woman at the residence (presumably the Petitioner’s wife) explicitly instructed a landscaper that “she does not want anyone in the back yard because she had a pool and that is the reason for the lock on gate.”
◦ Documentary Evidence: A text message dated March 24, 2020, from Mr. Baas to property manager Diana Crites memorialized this interaction. A photograph of the locked gate was also submitted.
• Scope of Services: Ms. Crites testified that HOA landscape services are uniform throughout the community and include front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing in backyards (if access is granted), and sprinkler system upkeep. They do not provide “concierge” services such as maintaining potted plants, driveways, or pools (except for the community pool, which is serviced by a separate contractor).
• Access as a Prerequisite: Ms. Crites explained that backyard maintenance is contingent on homeowners leaving their gates unlocked, and some owners choose not to grant access due to pets or other reasons.
Judicial Findings and Rulings
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s initial petition based on a clear set of facts.
• Findings of Fact: The judge found the evidence presented by the Respondent to be credible. The Petitioner’s own admission that he refused to allow access to his backyard since January 2020 was a critical factor. The evidence established that the HOA had consistently maintained the front yard and made multiple, documented attempts to access the backyard.
• Conclusions of Law: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.” Because the Petitioner denied access, he could not establish that the Respondent had violated any CC&R.
Rehearing and Final Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner for the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, the judge again reviewed the case and ultimately dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
• Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool and hardscape. The Petitioner failed to offer any definition or legal authority to support his expansive interpretation.
• Analysis of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the common definitions of “landscaping” from various dictionary and legal sources “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
• Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) Licensing: The judge’s conclusion was decisively reinforced by the State of Arizona’s contractor licensing classifications:
◦ The R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license (formerly Landscaping) is for installing garden walls, irrigation, and other landscape features. It specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
◦ The R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license is a separate classification required to service residential pools.
◦ The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services.”
• Final Order: The petition was dismissed. The judge noted that because the Petitioner denied access, the Respondent was not in violation. However, the judge provided a forward-looking recommendation: “it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020059-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association. It covers the key arguments, evidence presented, and legal conclusions from two separate hearings. Use the following sections to test and deepen your understanding of the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the core allegation made by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the initial petition filed on April 21, 2020?
3. According to Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs, what is the Association’s primary maintenance obligation regarding individual lots?
4. What specific and unique types of landscaping did the Petitioner claim required maintenance by the HOA?
5. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
6. What evidence did Diana Crites, the property manager, present to demonstrate the landscaper’s attempts to gain access to the backyard?
7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge initially deny the Petitioner’s petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
8. What reasons did the Petitioner give for his request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
9. In the rehearing, how did the Administrative Law Judge legally define “landscaping” to determine the scope of the HOA’s duties?
10. What was the final order in the decision dated February 12, 2021, and what recommendation did the judge make for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J. Stoltenberg, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner brought the complaint alleging the HOA was not fulfilling its duties, while the Respondent defended its actions. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842. Specifically, he claimed the HOA failed “to do their job in 2020 with maintaining landscaping, and are acting in bad faith.” He also referenced a refusal to follow a previous court ruling.
3. Section 5.1 of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This clause formed the basis of the Petitioner’s argument that the HOA was responsible for all landscaping on his property.
4. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (which was a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He also contended that when the rock in his front yard wore thin, the Respondent should be responsible for replenishing it.
5. The landscaping contractor could not access the Petitioner’s backyard because the gate was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the presence of his pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.”
6. Diana Crites presented a text message from the landscaper, Rian Baas, dated March 24, 2020, detailing how a woman at the residence stated she did not want anyone in the backyard because of the pool. Ms. Crites also presented a photograph of the locked gate and read a letter from Mr. Baas explaining his crew had knocked and left business cards weekly for two months without response.
7. The judge denied the petition because the Petitioner’s own admission established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted that the HOA had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard landscaping.
8. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on multiple grounds, including alleged irregularity in the proceedings by the judge, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the decision was not supported by evidence. He also asserted that there were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues related to his hearing loss and privacy issues.
9. The judge referenced multiple online dictionaries (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, etc.) and, most significantly, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ license classifications. She noted that landscaping (R-21 license) and swimming pool service (R-6 license) are two separate and distinct services, supporting the conclusion that pool maintenance is not included under the term “landscaping.”
10. The final order was that the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed. However, the judge recommended that, going forward, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times for landscaping so the Petitioner could provide access to his backyard while maintaining his safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer as a short essay.
1. Analyze the role of “burden of proof” in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means according to the source text and discuss how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this burden led to the dismissal of his petition in both hearings.
2. Discuss the conflict between the Petitioner’s right to secure his property (the locked gate) and the Respondent’s obligation to perform maintenance. How did the judge’s final recommendation attempt to resolve this practical conflict, even while legally siding with the Respondent?
3. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning in the rehearing for defining “landscaping.” Why was the reference to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing scheme a particularly persuasive piece of evidence compared to dictionary definitions alone?
4. Trace the evolution of the Petitioner’s arguments from the initial hearing to the rehearing. How did his claims regarding the scope of “landscaping” and his introduction of issues like ADA accommodation and the HOA’s legitimacy reflect a shift in legal strategy?
5. Based on the evidence presented by the Respondent’s witnesses (Diana Crites and Rian Baas), assess the HOA’s efforts to fulfill its maintenance obligations. Were the HOA’s actions reasonable under the circumstances described in the proceedings?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)
The codified laws of the state of Arizona. The Petitioner cited A.R.S. § 10-3842 (Code of Conduct for Board Members) and the proceedings operated under the authority of A.R.S. § 32-2199(B) and other related statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community. The central issue of this case was the interpretation of Section 5.1(a) of the Rancho Del Oro HOA’s CC&Rs regarding maintenance duties.
Concierge Landscape Services
A term used by witness Diana Crites to describe specialized, non-uniform services the HOA does not provide. Examples given included maintaining potted plants, driveways, or walls dividing properties, in contrast to the uniform mowing and blowing provided to all homeowners.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This office heard the dispute after it was referred by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win his case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Xeriscape
A style of landscaping utilizing drought-tolerant plants and rock to minimize water use. The Petitioner mentioned his unique xeriscape with geometric patterns as part of the landscaping he expected the HOA to maintain.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J. Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Diana Crites(property manager) Crites and Associates Owner of Respondent’s property management company; appeared as witness
Rian Baas(witness) Mowtown Landscape Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Listed as recipient of the decision
Luis(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Crew member mentioned in text message regarding attempted access to petitioner's yard
Jill(employee) Mowtown Landscape (Implied) Printed papers for Luis regarding access to petitioner's yard
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
