The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The ALJ found the Respondent violated Bylaw section 7.1 by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2021 and 2022. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500 filing fee and ensure future compliance with Bylaw section 7.1. No civil penalty was imposed.
Why this result: The violation (failure to hold an annual member meeting) was undisputed by the Respondent, and Respondent's counsel conceded there were no legal defenses to this fact.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold an annual members meeting in two years and ignoring members written petitions and requests for a meeting
It was undisputed that the Respondent HOA failed to hold an annual meeting of the members from March 2020 to the time of the hearing. The ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated section 7.1 of its Bylaws.
Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days and is directed to comply with section 7.1 of its Bylaws going forward. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1318
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.1
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 7.2
Respondent’s Bylaws sections 12.1 – 12.3
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Annual Meeting, Bylaws Violation, Filing Fee Refund, Administrative Hearing, Planned Community
Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?
Short Answer
No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
annual meetings
HOA defenses
bankruptcy
Question
If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?
Short Answer
No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.
Alj Quote
The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure
Question
Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.
Alj Quote
The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
corporate actions
validity
bylaws
Question
What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standard
evidence
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.
Detailed Answer
After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
reimbursement
filing fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?
Short Answer
No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Case
Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an HOA skip annual member meetings due to ongoing litigation or bankruptcy proceedings?
Short Answer
No. Legal defenses based on external issues like litigation or bankruptcy may not validate the failure to hold meetings required by bylaws.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA attempted to argue that bankruptcy and litigation prevented them from holding meetings. However, the ALJ noted that the Respondent's own counsel eventually admitted there were no legal defenses for failing to hold the meeting, and the failure was ruled a violation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s counsel stated that there were no legal defenses to Respondent’s failure to hold a board meeting.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
annual meetings
HOA defenses
bankruptcy
Question
If I include multiple complaints in my petition but only pay the fee for one, will the judge hear all of them?
Short Answer
No. The Administrative Law Judge will likely only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner included allegations regarding failure to respond to requests for special meetings and removal of directors, but because she only paid the $500 fee for one issue (failure to hold annual meetings), the other allegations were not addressed in the decision.
Alj Quote
The petition included other allegations including, but not limited to, the Board failure to respond to requests for a special meeting of members and/or a meeting to remove directors from the Board. However, Petitioner has paid for only one issue.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rule
Topic Tags
filing fees
petition scope
administrative procedure
Question
Does the failure to hold an annual meeting automatically invalidate the HOA's corporate actions?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws often contain specific provisions stating that the failure to hold a meeting does not affect the validity of corporate actions.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites a specific section of the HOA's bylaws which explicitly states that missing the fixed time for an annual meeting does not invalidate corporate actions.
Alj Quote
The failure to hold an annual or regular meeting at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the Bylaws does not affect the validity of any corporate action.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 7.1
Topic Tags
corporate actions
validity
bylaws
Question
What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The burden is on the petitioner to show that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It is not based on the number of witnesses but on the convincing force of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standard
evidence
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to pay the filing fee back to the prevailing homeowner.
Detailed Answer
After ruling in favor of the petitioner regarding the failure to hold meetings, the judge ordered the HOA to pay the petitioner the $500 filing fee within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association must pay to Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of receipt of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
reimbursement
filing fees
penalties
Question
Will the HOA always be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?
Short Answer
No. The judge may decide that a civil penalty is not appropriate even if a violation is found.
Detailed Answer
Although the HOA was found to have violated the bylaws by not holding meetings for two years, the judge explicitly declined to assess a civil penalty in this specific matter.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
enforcement
Case
Docket No
23F-H035-REL
Case Title
Barbara J. Ryan vs Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Barbara J. Ryan(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of herself
Bill Nethery(witness) Meadows Property Association member Listed as a witness on Petitioner's petition
Damon Rosen(applicant for board vacancy) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member Individual who submitted a resume to serve on the board
Respondent Side
Jody A. Corrales(HOA attorney) DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy Represented the Respondent, Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association
Dorothy Marine(board member/witness) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director and President of the board; testified at hearing
Cindy Celeste(board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director
Jim Kasa(board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH Also introduced herself as Sales Thompson
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Gail Olia(former board member) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association Director who resigned; also referred to as Jill Olia
Sorl Tate(homeowner) Dragoon Mountain Ranch Phase I Meadows Property Owners Association member Individual whose prior contentious state court proceeding against the HOA contributed to the bankruptcy
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.
The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.
Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel Mayer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Mr. D'Angelo(witness) Petitioner's husband
Respondent Side
Sandy Chambers(board president) Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Miranda(OAH staff) OAH Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
James Knupp(commissioner) ADRE Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
Other Participants
jzipprich(property manager) Desert Management Email contact for Respondent HOA
Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote
Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Articles of Incorporation (1972)
Articles of Amendment (1994)
Articles of Amendment (1999)
CLRs Unit One (1972)
Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Pamela McKinney(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Alan A. Meda(HOA attorney) Burch & Cracchiolo Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Sharon Grossi(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
Rebecca Bankov(property manager) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Also referred to as Rebecca fan
Amy Wood(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Secretary on the board
Thomas Noble(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
Stan Andrews(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
Ray Rose(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Recently resigned from the board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Jean Newman(CPA) Independent auditor who prepared financial report
Other Participants
Dennis Hope(Fire Chief) Northern Arizona Fire District External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) had ceased holding regularly scheduled meetings since March 2022, thereby negating the statutory requirement that such committee meetings must be open to members.
Why this result: The ARC successfully argued that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) only mandates open access for 'any regularly scheduled committee meetings.' Since they transitioned to using an online portal on an irregular schedule, they were no longer holding 'regularly scheduled meetings,' meaning the statute did not require them to be open.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to hold open meetings where members can comment prior to a vote.
Petitioner alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 (open meetings statute) by failing to hold open meetings, particularly after the ARC began processing requests using an online portal which allows for discussion and voting among members outside of noticed meetings. Historically, the ARC held regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month until March 2022. The ALJ ultimately ruled that since March 2022, the ARC was not holding 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' as defined by the statute.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Article 6.2 of the Bylaws
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Regularly Scheduled Meetings, Online Portal, Statutory Interpretation
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H008-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H008-REL”, “case_title”: “Amy Hilburn v. Stetson Valley Owners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-11-17”, “alj_name”: “Sondra J. Vanella”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does my HOA’s architectural committee have to hold open meetings for every decision?”, “short_answer”: “No, only “regularly scheduled” committee meetings are required to be open to members.”, “detailed_answer”: “The law specifically mandates that meetings of the members, the board of directors, and ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings be open. If a committee does not maintain a regular schedule, the open meeting requirement may not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Committees”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA committee conduct business through an online portal instead of meeting in person?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, utilizing an online portal to process requests is permitted and may result in the activity not being classified as a “regularly scheduled meeting.””, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that moving committee business to an online portal where members review and vote on their own time effectively meant they were not holding ‘regularly scheduled meetings,’ thus bypassing the open meeting requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Miglio testified that since August 2022, the ARC has not held regularly scheduled meetings because the ARC conducts its business through an online portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Digital Tools”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA committee required by law to hold regularly scheduled meetings?”, “short_answer”: “No, there is generally no statutory requirement that committees must hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision explicitly states that nothing in the cited statutes or bylaws required the Architectural Review Committee to adhere to a regular meeting schedule.”, “alj_quote”: “…nothing in the provisions cited by Petitioner require the ARC to hold regularly scheduled meetings.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA Obligations”, “Committees”, “Scheduling” ] }, { “question”: “Do committee members have to discuss and vote on requests at the same time?”, “short_answer”: “No, committee members can review requests and vote asynchronously on their own time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ accepted testimony that committee members could view requests and vote individually whenever they chose, rather than convening at a specific time.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Wilsey testified that there is no regularly scheduled time to look at the requests, comment, and/or vote.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(h)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Voting”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard means the homeowner must convince the judge that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It refers to the convincing force of the evidence rather than the amount.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence… A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 2-3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Burden of Proof”, “Dispute Process” ] }, { “question”: “Can committee members comment to each other online without it being an open meeting?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ability to comment via a portal does not necessarily create a “meeting” if done asynchronously.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision noted that members could comment to each other through the portal, but because there was no regularly scheduled time for this interaction, it did not trigger the open meeting statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Members of the ARC have the ability to comment to each other through the portal and vote on the requests through the portal.”, “legal_basis”: “Fact Finding 3(g)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Communication”, “Committees”, “Open Meetings” ] }, { “question”: “If an HOA committee previously held regular meetings, are they forced to continue doing so?”, “short_answer”: “No, past practices do not mandate future behavior if the committee changes its process.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the committee had a history of regular monthly meetings from 2011 to 2022, the ALJ ruled based on their current practice of using a portal, finding no violation because they were not currently meeting regularly.”, “alj_quote”: “The credible and probative evidence of record established that… prior to the ARC utilizing the online portal system, the ARC was holding regularly scheduled meetings. However, since March 2022, the ARC has not been holding regularly scheduled meetings…”, “legal_basis”: “Conclusion of Law 6”, “topic_tags”: [ “Precedent”, “Procedure”, “Committees” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Amy Hilburn(petitioner) Stetson Valley Owners Association member Appeared pro se; former Board President
Respondent Side
Melissa Doolan(HOA attorney) Travis Law Firm
Danielle Miglio(community manager, witness) Oasis Community Management
Ann Renee Wilsey(ARC member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Nichollet Widner(board member, witness) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board President
Tom Young(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Pam Weller(ARC member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC
Omar Chavez(board member, observer) Stetson Valley Owners Association Board
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Travis Law Firm Transmitting staff
Elizabeth Franco(community manager staff) Oasis Community Management Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
Benjamin Butler(ARC chairperson) Stetson Valley Owners Association ARC Referenced in Petitioner's Exhibit 6 testimony
High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Counsel
Jason Smith, Esq.
Alleged Violations
HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election
Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.
Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballots
couriers
voting rights
Question
What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?
Short Answer
Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.
Alj Quote
Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.
Legal Basis
Association Election Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
ballot validity
rules
Question
Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?
Short Answer
Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.
Alj Quote
Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.
Legal Basis
Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures
Topic Tags
elections
fairness
HOA obligations
Question
If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?
Short Answer
No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).
Alj Quote
Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.
Legal Basis
Voting Rights / Election Procedures
Topic Tags
in-person voting
ballot rejection
elections
Question
Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?
Short Answer
No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.
Detailed Answer
The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.
Alj Quote
Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.
Legal Basis
Fair Election Practices
Topic Tags
discrimination
deadlines
fairness
Question
What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?
Short Answer
The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
penalties
fines
reimbursement
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
hearing process
Case
Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Eileen Ahearn(petitioner)
Robert Barfield(petitioner)
Randy Kling(witness / former board member) Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
Claire Peachey(witness / election committee member) Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
Joyce Green(witness) Testified for Petitioners.
Jeffrey Knox(witness) Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.
Respondent Side
Jason Smith(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley PLLC
Nancy Sakarelli(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Board President; appeared virtually.
Corinthia Pangalinan(former board president / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
Becky Hilgart(Election Committee Chair / board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
Tommy Smith(Election Committee Volunteer / property owner) Involved in denying votes.
Wally Oliday(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Amanda Miller(board member) High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Subject of recall petition.
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH staff transmitting documents.
c. serrano(Administrative Staff) Staff transmitting documents.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Edna Barton(observer) On the line during the hearing.
Jill Burns(observer) Present in the hearing room.
John Kron(observer) Present in the hearing room.
Stacy(board director) Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
Deborah Bonesac(property owner) Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
Billy McFarland(board member) Subject of previous recall election.
Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Outcome Summary
The petition filed by the homeowner against the HOA was dismissed because the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) regarding financial reporting.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish that the Association violated the applicable statute by a preponderance of the evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of HOA statutory duty to provide annual financial reports (audit, review, or compilation)
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to share an annual audit/compilation for 2017-2021. The ALJ found the HOA provided financial compilations for 2017-2020 after the petition was filed. The claim regarding 2021 was found to be premature because the financial compilation was not yet due when the petition was filed on May 29, 2022.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
A.R.S. § 33-1810
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Condominium Act, Financial Records, Compilation, Statutory Compliance, HOA Management
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 32-2199(1)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 1003891.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:33 (95.1 KB)
22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 988206.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:37 (57.1 KB)
22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 989133.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:39 (50.1 KB)
22F-H2222057-REL Decision – 994978.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:42 (50.8 KB)
Questions
Question
Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.
Alj Quote
Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Financial Reports
Audits
HOA Obligations
Question
What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?
Short Answer
The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.
Detailed Answer
The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.
Alj Quote
The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Deadlines
Financial Reports
Procedural Requirements
Question
Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?
Short Answer
The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.
Detailed Answer
After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.
Alj Quote
and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Transparency
Financial Reports
Question
Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?
Short Answer
No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.
Legal Basis
Ripeness Doctrine
Topic Tags
Legal Procedures
Filing Disputes
Deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearing Procedures
Question
What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?
Short Answer
No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.
Detailed Answer
While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Statutes
Condominiums
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is my condo HOA legally required to perform a full financial audit every year?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; a review or compilation is often sufficient unless the governing documents specifically require an audit.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law for condominiums, an association is not required to perform a full audit unless the specific condominium documents demand it. The law allows for an audit, a review, or a compilation.
Alj Quote
Unless any provision in the condominium documents requires an annual audit by a certified public accountant, the board of directors shall provide for an annual financial audit, review or compilation of the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Financial Reports
Audits
HOA Obligations
Question
What is the deadline for the HOA to complete the annual financial report?
Short Answer
The report must be completed no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.
Detailed Answer
The association has a statutory window of 180 days following the close of the fiscal year to complete the required financial audit, review, or compilation.
Alj Quote
The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Deadlines
Financial Reports
Procedural Requirements
Question
Once the financial report is finished, how soon must the HOA provide it to me?
Short Answer
The HOA must make it available within 30 days of its completion upon request.
Detailed Answer
After the financial document (audit, review, or compilation) is completed, the association is legally obligated to make it available to unit owners who request it within a 30-day window.
Alj Quote
and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Transparency
Financial Reports
Question
Can I file a complaint against my HOA for failing to provide a financial report before the 180-day deadline has passed?
Short Answer
No, a complaint filed before the deadline is considered premature (not ripe).
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner files a petition regarding a missing financial report before the statutory 180-day period has elapsed, the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication because the obligation is not yet due.
Alj Quote
Moreover, the issue of whether the Association complied with A.R.S. section 33-1243 for year 2021 was not yet ripe at the time that Ms. Mesear filed her May 29, 2022 petition, because a financial compilation was not yet due.
Legal Basis
Ripeness Doctrine
Topic Tags
Legal Procedures
Filing Disputes
Deadlines
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearing Procedures
Question
What standard of proof is used in these administrative hearings?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
This standard requires evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
If I live in a condominium, can I cite the Planned Communities statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1810) in my complaint?
Short Answer
No, condominiums are governed by the Condominium Act, specifically A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for financials.
Detailed Answer
While the requirements may be similar, the specific statute for planned communities does not apply to condominiums. Condominium owners must cite the applicable Condominium Act statutes.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. section 33-1810 applies to planned communities and does not apply to the Association. However, A.R.S. section 33-1243(J) applies to condominiums
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Statutes
Condominiums
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222057-REL
Case Title
Deborah Mesear vs Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-10-05
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deborah Mesear(petitioner, witness) Also appears as Deborah Masear and Deborah Mesier in the sources.
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Law Group Also appears as Ashley Moscarello, Esq. and Ashley Carillo.
Carl Westlund(property manager, witness) The Management Trust Community manager for Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association.
Mark A. Holmgren(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Law Group
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed as administrative contact (Attn:).
Other Participants
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Signed transmission notice.
c. serrano(legal secretary) Signed transmission notice.
The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.
Key Issues & Findings
Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
A.R.S. 41-1092.07
A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
A.A.C. R2-19-116
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:
CC&R Section 2.16
Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (46.0 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:08 (48.1 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:12 (40.9 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:15 (52.0 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:20 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:23 (6.1 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:26 (50.1 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:31 (44.1 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:34 (42.3 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:38 (50.4 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:42 (55.2 KB)
22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:44 (55.5 KB)
Questions
Question
Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?
Short Answer
No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.
Alj Quote
This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.
Legal Basis
CC&R Interpretation
Topic Tags
CC&R Violations
HOA Obligations
Legal Standards
Question
Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?
Short Answer
No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.
Alj Quote
Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116
Topic Tags
Hearing Procedures
Homeowner Rights
Closing Arguments
Question
Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?
Short Answer
The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Amending Claims
Fairness
Question
Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?
Short Answer
No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113
Topic Tags
Evidence
Subpoenas
Procedural Requirements
Question
Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?
Short Answer
No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.
Detailed Answer
If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.
Alj Quote
With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.
Legal Basis
Filing Fees
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Petition Process
Costs
Question
Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet
Legal Basis
Hearing Procedures
Topic Tags
Virtual Hearing
Accessibility
Procedure
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?
Short Answer
No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.
Alj Quote
This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.
Legal Basis
CC&R Interpretation
Topic Tags
CC&R Violations
HOA Obligations
Legal Standards
Question
Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?
Short Answer
No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.
Detailed Answer
Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.
Alj Quote
Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116
Topic Tags
Hearing Procedures
Homeowner Rights
Closing Arguments
Question
Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?
Short Answer
The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.
Detailed Answer
In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Amending Claims
Fairness
Question
Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?
Short Answer
No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113
Topic Tags
Evidence
Subpoenas
Procedural Requirements
Question
Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?
Short Answer
No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.
Detailed Answer
If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.
Alj Quote
With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.
Legal Basis
Filing Fees
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Petition Process
Costs
Question
Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.
Alj Quote
IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet
Legal Basis
Hearing Procedures
Topic Tags
Virtual Hearing
Accessibility
Procedure
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David G. Iadevavia(petitioner)
Jill H. Perrella(attorney) Snell & Wilmer LLP
Respondent Side
Carolyn B. Goldschmidt(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC
Bill Borg(witness/board member)
Jason Bader(witness/board member)
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(OAH staff)
M Alvarez(OAH staff)
A. Hansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
V. Nunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D. Jones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L. Abril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors
Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222049-REL
Select all sources
986676.aac
988629.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222049-REL
2 sources
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Zumph(petitioner) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Board Secretary; witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary)
Other Participants
Thomas Campanella(property manager) Sanalina Homeowners Association Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez(management representative) Sanalina Homeowners Association Handled minutes for March meeting
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition filed by Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh against the Cimmarron Superstition HOA be dismissed, as the Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing set on their behalf and thus failed to meet the required burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing on June 24, 2022, and consequently did not present evidence to satisfy the burden of proof required under A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Key Issues & Findings
Petition Dismissal for Failure to Appear
Petition was dismissed because Petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and therefore presented no evidence to meet their burden of proof.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: dismissal, failure to appear, burden of proof
Additional Citations:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 968715.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:27 (33.0 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 969556.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:30 (48.5 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 979812.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:33 (72.2 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 989050.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:36 (39.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Stephen Tosh(petitioner)
Elizabeth Tosh(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Christopher Hanlon(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
c. serrano(staff) Transmitted documents
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Transmitted Decision
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.
Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.
Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.
Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:27 (95.0 KB)
Questions
Question
Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?
Short Answer
No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.
Detailed Answer
Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
Remedies
Fines
Authority
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
Fees
Reimbursement
Prevailing Party
Question
Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?
Short Answer
Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.
Alj Quote
Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).
Legal Basis
CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)
Topic Tags
Enforcement
Architectural Review
Lighting
Question
What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?
Short Answer
The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.
Detailed Answer
The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.
Alj Quote
At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
Evidence
CC&Rs
Documentation
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Legal Definitions
Standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an Administrative Law Judge order my HOA to fine a neighbor for a violation?
Short Answer
No, the ALJ does not have the statutory authority to order fines against neighbors.
Detailed Answer
Even if a violation is found, the ALJ explicitly stated that the statute does not grant them the power to order the HOA to fine a neighbor or to force a neighbor to remove non-compliant items.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the applicable statute to order that RDLCA fine or order the neighbor remove the lights.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
Remedies
Fines
Authority
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the community documents?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the dispute must prove the HOA's violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not the HOA's job to disprove it initially.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Procedure
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, because the homeowner was the prevailing party, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the homeowner within 30 days.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
Fees
Reimbursement
Prevailing Party
Question
Can I challenge my HOA for failing to enforce architectural rules on a neighbor?
Short Answer
Yes, if the HOA allows modifications without the required approval.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs because the neighbor installed lights without the required Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval, and the HOA failed to address this specific lack of approval.
Alj Quote
Because this never occurred, Respondent is in violation of CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3).
Legal Basis
CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3)
Topic Tags
Enforcement
Architectural Review
Lighting
Question
What happens if we don't provide the full text of the CC&Rs during the hearing?
Short Answer
The judge cannot rule on parts of the rules that are not provided.
Detailed Answer
The HOA tried to argue a rule applied only to the front yard, but because neither party submitted the full section of the CC&Rs, the judge could not verify that claim and had to rule based only on the evidence available.
Alj Quote
At the outset, neither party submitted the full Section 3.1 of the CC&R’s and the ALJ therefore cannot determine if the section in question applies to the front yard only.
Legal Basis
Evidentiary Standard
Topic Tags
Evidence
CC&Rs
Documentation
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The decision defines this legal standard as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is 'more probably true than not,' even if there is still some doubt.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Legal Definitions
Standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221019-REL
Case Title
Brenda C Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2022-01-18
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Brenda C Norman(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Mackenzie Hill(HOA attorney) The Brown Law Group, PLLC Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney) Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Spencer Brod(community manager) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission
