Tag Archives: A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Brent J Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brent J. Mathews Counsel —
Respondent American Ranch Community Association Counsel Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik

Alleged Violations

American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent Board violated the Bylaws. The Board was found to have the necessary authority under Bylaws Section 3.11 to enter into the Well Agreement 2 as a variance, and this action did not constitute an improper amendment of the CC&Rs.

Why this result: The Board was authorized to grant a variance to the CC&Rs regarding the well on Lot 2, a power delegated to the Association, meaning the Board did not exceed its authority under the Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11, when the Board entered into the 'Well Agreement' (Well Agreement 2).

Petitioner asserted that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into Well Agreement 2, claiming the Board lacked the authority to grant exceptions or variances to the CC&Rs regarding the use of a private water well on Lot 2. The Board agreed the well existed in violation of CC&Rs Section 3.26, but argued Well Agreement 2 constituted a variance, not an amendment.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, Bylaws 3.11, CC&Rs, Variance, Amendment, Well Agreement, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:13:46 (112.4 KB)

18F-H1818050-REL Decision – 664186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:24:56 (112.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the findings and decision in case number 18F-H1818050-REL, a dispute between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and the American Ranch Community Association (HOA). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that Mr. Mathews failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The central issue was whether the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Article 3.11 of its Bylaws by entering into a “Well Agreement” with the owners of Lot 2 on August 9, 2016. The Petitioner argued that this agreement constituted an unauthorized amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) because the Board does not have the power to grant exceptions.

The judge found this argument “faulty,” determining that the agreement was not an amendment but a variance. The CC&Rs explicitly grant the authority to issue variances to the Architectural Review Committee. Per the Bylaws, the Board is empowered to exercise any authority delegated to the Association that is not specifically reserved for the general membership. Therefore, the judge concluded that the Board acted within its authority when it executed the agreement. The decision was based on the Board’s need to resolve a problematic prior agreement under time-sensitive circumstances related to a property sale.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

18F-H1818050-REL

Petitioner

Brent J. Mathews

Respondent

American Ranch Community Association

Hearing Date

September 21, 2018

Decision Date

October 11, 2018

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

The dispute originated from a petition filed by Brent J. Mathews on May 16, 2018, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The core of the complaint was an alleged Open Meeting Violation concerning an “Action Outside of Meeting” that resulted in a “Well Agreement” between the Association and homeowners Mark and Diane Kaplan.

2. Petitioner’s Core Allegation

After being directed to clarify his petition to a single issue, Mr. Mathews submitted the following statement on August 23, 2018:

“When the Board entered into the ‘Well Agreement’ they may have assumed they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. The American Ranch Community Association Bylaws do not empower the Board to grant exceptions to the CC&R’s. Therefore the single complaint is an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11.”

The Petitioner’s legal argument was that the Board’s action in creating the “Well Agreement 2” was effectively an amendment of the CC&Rs. According to Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, amendments require the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners. Since this did not occur, the Petitioner concluded the Board lacked the authority to enter into the agreement.

3. Factual Background and Chronology of Events

The case revolves around a water well on Lot 2 of the American Ranch community, which was installed in violation of the governing documents.

A water well is installed on Lot 2. This installation violates Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs, which prohibits wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots and, even then, only with prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for specific purposes.

June 2011

The owners of Lot 2 and the HOA Board enter into the first “Well and Easement Agreement” (Well Agreement 1). This agreement permitted the continued use of the well for irrigation but required the owners to install a water meter and pay the HOA for water usage at the same rate as the local water district.

November 23, 2013

Lot 2 is sold to Steven and Frances Galliano.

July 30, 2016

Mark and Diane Kaplan, who are in escrow to purchase Lot 2, email the Community Manager, Tiffany Taylor. They express concern over Well Agreement 1 and state they cannot proceed with the purchase without clarity on the HOA’s position. They also note that the Gallianos told them they had never been charged for water from the well.

August 2016

Facing a time-sensitive situation due to the pending property sale, the HOA Board decides to enter into a new agreement to invalidate Well Agreement 1. The Board’s decision was based in part on the belief that it lacked the authority to enter into the original agreement, specifically because it had no power to bill residents for water usage—a function of the water district.

August 9, 2016

The HOA Board and the Kaplans execute a new “Well Agreement” (Well Agreement 2). This agreement permits the continued use of the well for irrigation purposes but explicitly states the owners will not be billed for the water used.

4. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Judge’s decision rested on a critical distinction between a CC&R amendment and a variance, and a detailed analysis of the powers granted to the Board by the governing documents.

A. Burden of Proof

The Petitioner, Brent J. Mathews, bore the burden of proof to establish that the HOA committed the alleged violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that a contention is more probably true than not.

B. Variance vs. Amendment

The central point of the Judge’s legal conclusion was the rejection of the Petitioner’s argument.

• Petitioner’s Argument: Well Agreement 2 was an amendment to the CC&Rs.

• Judge’s Finding: The argument is “faulty.” The decision states, “A variance granted to an individual owner from a restriction under the CC&Rs does not constitute an amendment of the CC&Rs.”

The Judge found that the CC&Rs themselves, in Section 3.31, provide a specific mechanism for granting variances. The ARC is authorized to grant variances in “extenuating circumstances” if a restriction creates an “unreasonable hardship or burden” and the variance does not have a “substantial adverse effect” on the community.

C. The Board’s Delegated Authority

The Judge established a clear chain of authority that empowered the Board to act as it did:

1. CC&R Section 3.31: Delegates the power to grant variances to the Architectural Review Committee.

2. Bylaw Section 3.11.8: States the Board shall have the power to “Exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to the Association and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of the Project Documents.”

3. Conclusion: Because the power to grant variances was delegated to the ARC (and thus to the Association) and not reserved for the membership, the Board had the authority to grant the variance embodied in Well Agreement 2.

5. Final Order

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:

• Decision: The Petition filed by Brent J. Mathews is dismissed.

• Reasoning: “Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into Well Agreement 2. Thus, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of Section 3.11 of the Bylaws.”

The order was finalized and transmitted to the parties on October 11, 2018.

Study Guide: Mathews v. American Ranch Community Association (Case No. 18F-H1818050-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Brent J. Mathews and Respondent American Ranch Community Association. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, and final ruling presented in the source document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the initial, overarching subject of Brent J. Mathews’s complaint filed on May 16, 2018?

3. After being asked to clarify, what single issue did the Petitioner choose to proceed with for the hearing?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what are the specific rules regarding the use of water wells on lots within American Ranch?

5. What were the key terms of “Well Agreement 1,” established in June 2011 with the original owners of Lot 2?

6. Why did the American Ranch Board of Directors believe they lacked the authority to enforce “Well Agreement 1”?

7. What were the terms of “Well Agreement 2,” which was executed on August 9, 2016, with the new owners of Lot 2, the Kaplans?

8. What was Petitioner Mathews’s primary legal argument against the Board’s authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2”?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge distinguish between a “variance” and an “amendment” to the CC&Rs in the final decision?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2018?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Brent J. Mathews, who filed the complaint, and Respondent American Ranch Community Association (HOA), which was the subject of the complaint. Mathews represented himself, while the Association was represented by Lynn Krupnik and Timothy Krupnik.

2. The initial complaint’s subject was an “Open Meeting Violation regarding an ‘Action Outside of Meeting’” that took place on August 6, 2016. This action concerned the Association entering into a “Well Agreement” with Mark and Diane Kaplan.

3. The Petitioner clarified his single issue was an alleged violation of the American Ranch Bylaws, Article 3.11. He argued that the Board entered into the “Well Agreement” assuming they had the power to grant exceptions to the CC&Rs, a power he claimed the Bylaws did not grant them.

4. Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs prohibits water wells on all lots except Equestrian Lots. On Equestrian Lots, wells are permitted only with prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee and must be used solely to irrigate pasture land and provide drinking water for horses.

5. “Well Agreement 1” acknowledged that the owners of Lot 2 were using their well for irrigation in violation of the CC&Rs. The agreement allowed them to continue this use, provided they installed a water meter and paid the Association the same per-gallon charge as other owners paid to the water district.

6. The Board of Directors believed they did not have the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 1” because they had no ability or authority to bill the lot owners for water used from a private well. They reasoned that billing for water was the responsibility of the water district, not the HOA.

7. “Well Agreement 2” stated that the private water well on Lot 2 would continue to be used for irrigation purposes. Crucially, it specified that the owners (the Kaplans) would not be billed for the water used from this well.

8. Petitioner Mathews argued that “Well Agreement 2” constituted an amendment of the CC&Rs. He contended that under Section 9.3.1 of the CC&Rs, an amendment requires the written approval or affirmative vote of 75 percent of the total owners, and therefore the Board acted outside its authority.

9. The Judge ruled that “Well Agreement 2” was a variance granted to an individual owner, not an amendment to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs specifically provide a method for granting variances via the Architectural Review Committee, and this power is delegated to the Association and thus exercisable by the Board.

10. The final order, issued on October 11, 2018, was that the Petition be dismissed. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors lacked the authority to enter into “Well Agreement 2.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Use the case document to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the evolution of the dispute, from the initial installation of the well on Lot 2 to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision. Discuss the key events and agreements (Well Agreement 1 and Well Agreement 2) and explain how each contributed to the legal conflict.

2. Explain the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the Petitioner’s claim. Detail the specific sections of the Bylaws and CC&Rs cited (3.11, 3.26, 3.31, 9.3.1) and explain the distinction the Judge made between a “variance” and an “amendment.”

3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Who held the burden of proof, what was the required standard (“preponderance of the evidence”), and why did the Petitioner ultimately fail to meet this standard?

4. Evaluate the actions of the American Ranch Community Association Board of Directors regarding Lot 2’s well. Discuss their reasoning for invalidating Well Agreement 1 and creating Well Agreement 2, and analyze whether their actions were consistent with the powers granted to them by the community’s governing documents.

5. Based on the procedural history outlined in the “Findings of Fact,” describe the process of an HOA dispute in this jurisdiction, from the initial filing of a petition to the final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) who presides over administrative hearings and issues a decision on the matter.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The statutory laws of the state of Arizona, sections of which regulate planned communities and the administrative hearing process.

Architectural Review Committee

A body within the Association delegated the authority by the CC&Rs (Section 3.31) to grant variances from certain restrictions in extenuating circumstances.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the American Ranch Community Association, which has the powers and duties necessary for administering the Association’s affairs.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to establish the alleged violations.

Bylaws

The rules governing the internal administration of the Association. Petitioner alleged a violation of Bylaw 3.11, which outlines the powers and duties of the Board.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents that set rules for properties within the community, such as the prohibition of certain water wells (Section 3.26).

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which the initial Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition was filed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for a formal hearing.

Petition

The formal document filed by Brent J. Mathews to initiate the HOA dispute process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who brings the legal action or complaint. In this case, Brent J. Mathews.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the American Ranch Community Association.

Variance

An officially granted exception from a restriction in the CC&Rs for an individual owner. The Judge determined Well Agreement 2 was a variance, not an amendment.

Well Agreement 1

A June 2011 agreement that allowed the owners of Lot 2 to use a non-compliant well for irrigation, provided they paid the Association for the water.

Well Agreement 2

An August 2016 agreement that invalidated Well Agreement 1 and allowed the new owners of Lot 2 (the Kaplans) to continue using the well for irrigation without being billed for the water.

Your HOA Board Might Be More Powerful Than You Think: 3 Lessons from a Legal Showdown

1.0 Introduction: The Predictable Fight with an Unpredictable Outcome

It’s a scenario familiar to many homeowners: you suspect your Homeowners Association (HOA) board is playing favorites, bending the rules for one resident while holding everyone else to the letter of the law. This feeling of frustration often leads to heated disputes, but what happens when a homeowner decides to take that fight to court? You might expect a simple verdict based on the community’s clear, written rules.

That’s exactly what homeowner Brent J. Mathews thought. He discovered his HOA board had made a special agreement with a neighbor, allowing a water well that clearly violated the community’s governing documents. He filed a formal complaint, arguing the board had illegally overstepped its authority.

The case that followed, however, didn’t turn on one obvious rule. Instead, the judge’s decision hinged on how different governing documents—the CC&Rs and the Bylaws—interact. The outcome reveals some surprising and counter-intuitive truths about where power really lies within an HOA, offering critical lessons for every homeowner.

2.0 Takeaway 1: A Special Exception Isn’t the Same as Changing the Rules for Everyone

Mr. Mathews’ central argument was straightforward and, on its face, perfectly logical. He contended that the board’s “Well Agreement 2” with his neighbor was effectively an amendment to the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

According to the community’s CC&Rs (Section 9.3.1), amending the rules is a serious undertaking that requires the written approval of 75 percent of all homeowners. The board clearly did not have this approval, so it seemed to be a clear-cut case of an illegal action. Many homeowners would have made the same reasonable assumption: the board can’t just change the rules on its own.

However, the judge found a critical distinction. The board’s action was not an “amendment”—a permanent change to the rules for the entire community. Instead, it was legally considered a “variance”—a one-time exception granted to a single homeowner. Because the CC&Rs contained a separate, specific process for granting variances (Section 3.31), the board was not illegally rewriting the rulebook; it was simply using a different, pre-existing tool in the governing documents.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Board Can Wield Powers Given to Its Own Committees

This distinction raised another logical objection. The CC&Rs (Section 3.31) explicitly state that the power to grant variances belongs to the “Architectural Review Committee” (ARC), not the Board of Directors. It appeared Mr. Mathews had found his checkmate: even if the action was a variance, the wrong body had granted it.

This is where the case took its most surprising turn. The judge looked beyond the CC&Rs and consulted a different governing document: the Bylaws. This document contained a foundational clause about the board’s authority that proved decisive.

According to Bylaw 3.11.8, the Board of Directors is empowered to exercise any authority of the Association that is not specifically and exclusively reserved for the members themselves. Since the power to grant variances was delegated to a committee (the ARC) and not reserved for a vote by the general membership, the Board had the authority to step in and exercise that power itself. The judge’s decision made this clear.

“As the power to grant variances was delegated to the Architectural Review Committee and was not reserved to the membership, the Board had the authority to grant such a variance.”

This finding reveals a crucial principle of HOA governance: powers delegated to a committee are not the same as powers reserved for the entire membership. Unless a power is explicitly reserved for a member vote, the Bylaws can grant the Board ultimate authority over it.

4.0 Takeaway 3: A Messy History Can Justify an Unusual Solution

While the legal arguments are complex, the context behind the board’s decision is equally important. The board wasn’t making a special deal out of the blue; it was trying to solve a messy problem it had inherited.

The well on Lot 2 was originally installed around 2007 in violation of Section 3.26 of the CC&Rs. The board’s first attempt to fix this, “Well Agreement 1” in or about June 2011, allowed the well’s use but required the owner to pay the association for the water consumed. This arrangement, however, was deeply flawed.

When new buyers (the Kaplans) were in escrow to purchase the property in 2016, the situation came to a head. The Kaplans discovered the unusual agreement and informed the board they would be “unable to proceed with the purchase” unless its status was clarified. With the real estate deal on the line, the board recognized that “time was of the essence.”

The board’s decision to execute “Well Agreement 2” was driven by two realities. First, they believed the original agreement was legally invalid, as the board had no authority to bill a resident for water. Second, the agreement was a failure in practice; the Kaplans had been told by the prior owners that “they had never been charged for the water used from the well.” Facing an unenforceable and un-enforced agreement that was now threatening a home sale, the board acted pragmatically to resolve the decade-old violation once and for all.

5.0 Conclusion: Know the Rules—And Who Has the Power to Bend Them

The core lesson from this case is that HOA governance is a complex web of interlocking documents. The rules you read in the CC&Rs might not tell the whole story. Power and authority can be defined, and even transferred, by provisions buried in the Bylaws or other governing texts. What may seem like an obvious violation can be justified by a clause a homeowner might easily overlook.

This case is a powerful reminder for every homeowner. It’s not enough to know the rules of your community. You also need to understand the system of governance that enforces, interprets, and sometimes, grants exceptions to them. It prompts a critical question: Do you know not just the rules in your community, but who really has the authority to grant exceptions?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brent J. Mathews (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lynn Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Timothy Krupnik (attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Tiffany Taylor (community manager)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Brad Baker (board member)
    American Ranch Community Association
    Respondent Vice President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
    Signed transmission page
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision recipient

Other Participants

  • Mark Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Diane Kaplan (owner)
    Lot 2
    Executed Well Agreement 2
  • Steven Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2
  • Frances Galliano (former owner)
    Lot 2

Travis Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818053-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Travis Prall Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Pierce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs because there was no credible evidence that the disputed landscaping (tree) had been originally installed by the developer.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the landscaping was originally installed by the Declarant, which was a prerequisite for HOA maintenance responsibility under the relevant CC&R section.

Key Issues & Findings

Neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R Section 7.1.4 by failing to maintain a tree in his back yard, arguing the back yard qualified as a 'Public Yard' and the tree was originally installed by the Declarant.

Orders: The Petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance, CC&R interpretation, burden of proof, landscaping
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • 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
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:46:58 (116.2 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:47:00 (107.3 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 686236.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:18 (116.2 KB)

18F-H1818053-REL Decision – 661820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:22 (107.3 KB)

Briefing: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA Dispute

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and legal rationale from a homeowners’ association dispute between Petitioner Travis Prall and Respondent Villas at Tierra Buena HOA. The case centered on whether the HOA was responsible for maintaining a tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by neglecting maintenance in what he defined as a “Public Yard.”

The dispute was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, resulting in two decisions, an initial ruling and a subsequent ruling on rehearing, both of which dismissed the Petitioner’s case. The critical takeaway is that the case was decided not on the ambiguous definition of “Public” versus “Private” yards, but on a crucial qualifying clause in the CC&Rs. Section 7.1.4 obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping only “as originally installed by Declarant.”

The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tree in question was part of the original developer’s landscaping. Conversely, the HOA presented credible testimony from an early homeowner and board member stating that all backyards in the community were sold as “just dirt,” with no developer-installed landscaping or irrigation. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner’s arguments were based on “suppositions and inferences” and did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim.

Case Overview

This dispute was initiated by a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core issue was the interpretation of HOA maintenance responsibilities as defined in the community’s governing documents.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

18F-H1818053-REL

Petitioner

Travis Prall

Respondent

Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Initial Hearing

September 4, 2018

Initial Decision

September 24, 2018 (Petition Dismissed)

Rehearing

January 11, 2019

Final Decision

January 31, 2019 (Petition Dismissed)

Timeline of Key Events

• 2010: Petitioner Travis Prall purchases his home, an “interior” unit, and believes the HOA is responsible for both front and backyard maintenance.

• July 26, 2014: A storm knocks over a large tree in the Petitioner’s backyard. He pays for its removal while asserting it was the HOA’s responsibility.

• Post-2014: The tree regrows from its remaining trunk.

• 2018: The HOA observes that the regrown tree’s roots are causing a “pony wall” to buckle and hires Sun King Fencing & Gates to perform repairs. The repair company recommends removing the tree to prevent recurrence.

• May 3, 2018: The HOA issues a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, requesting he “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

• June 4, 2018: In response, the Petitioner files a Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the legal proceedings.

Central Allegation and Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA violated Section 7.1.4 of its CC&Rs by “neglecting yard maintenance in visible public yards.” His central claim was that his backyard, though enclosed, qualifies as a “Public Yard” under the CC&Rs and that the HOA was therefore responsible for the maintenance and removal of the problematic tree. The HOA’s demand that he handle the tree himself constituted, in his view, a violation of their duties.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

The case presented conflicting interpretations of the CC&Rs and opposing accounts of historical maintenance practices.

Petitioner’s Position (Travis Prall)

The Petitioner’s case was built on his interpretation of the CC&Rs and inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that his backyard is a “Public Yard” because, while enclosed by a four-foot wall (two-foot block plus two-foot aluminum fence), it is “generally visible from Neighboring Property” via a community walkway.

• Claim of Prior Maintenance: Testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA did provide landscaping maintenance for his backyard.

• Inferences about Original Landscaping:

◦ Posited that the large size of the tree in 2010 indicated it must have been planted by the original developer around 2000.

◦ Argued that the similar design of irrigation systems across the community suggested they were all installed during original construction, including those in backyards.

◦ Noted that the sprinkler system in his backyard wrapped around the tree, further suggesting they were installed together by the developer.

Respondent’s Position (Villas at Tierra Buena HOA)

The Respondent’s defense relied on its own interpretation of the CC&Rs, consistent historical practice, and direct testimony regarding the community’s development.

• CC&R Interpretation: Argued that an “enclosed” yard is, by definition, a “Private Yard,” making the homeowner responsible for its maintenance.

• Denial of Prior Maintenance: Stated unequivocally that it had never provided landscaping services for any resident’s backyard. Its responsibility is limited to front yards and common areas.

• Practical and Liability Concerns: Argued that it has no access to control backyard irrigation systems and that its workers entering enclosed yards would create liability issues, such as pets escaping.

• Crucial Rehearing Testimony: Presented testimony from Maureen Karpinski, the HOA Board President.

◦ Ms. Karpinski, a real estate agent, purchased her home from the developer in 2002 and was involved with the community during its construction phase.

◦ She testified with certainty that her backyard was “just dirt” with no landscaping or irrigation when she purchased it.

◦ She stated that, to the best of her knowledge, “none of the homes in Respondent’s community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the back yards and were just dirt.”

Interpretation of Governing CC&R Sections

The dispute revolved around the specific language in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements.

Section

Provision

Significance in the Case

The HOA must “Replace and maintain all landscaping and other Improvements as originally installed by Declarant on the Public Yards of Lots…“

This became the dispositive clause. The Petitioner’s entire claim depended on proving the tree was “originally installed by Declarant.”

“Private Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property. “Public Yard” means that portion of a Yard which is generally visible from Neighboring Property…

This created a central point of interpretive conflict. The Petitioner argued the clause meant “enclosed and not visible,” while the HOA argued it meant “enclosed or shielded.” The Judge ultimately did not rule on this ambiguity.

“Visible from Neighboring Property” means… visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of such neighboring property…

This definition supported the Petitioner’s claim that his backyard was, in fact, “visible” from the common area walkway.

Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the Petitioner’s case in both the initial hearing and the rehearing, focusing on the burden of proof related to a single, critical phrase in the CC&Rs.

Initial Decision (September 24, 2018)

• Avoidance of Ambiguity: The ALJ acknowledged the potential merit of the Petitioner’s interpretation of “Public Yard,” stating “the language of the CC&Rs may lend itself to a reading that Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of the enclosed back yards of the interior homes.” However, the ALJ concluded the tribunal was “not required to reach that issue in this matter.”

• Focus on “Originally Installed by Declarant”: The decision hinged entirely on Section 7.1.4. The ALJ found that the “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the tree at issue was originally installed by the Declarant.”

• Lack of Proof: The ALJ noted that the tree’s rapid regrowth from 2013 to 2018 made it impossible to conclude that the original tree must have been planted by the developer in 2000.

• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof, and the petition was dismissed.

Rehearing Decision (January 31, 2019)

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Inferences: The ALJ characterized the Petitioner’s evidence regarding the tree’s age and the irrigation system as “suppositions and inferences.”

• Credibility of Respondent’s Testimony: In contrast, the ALJ found the testimony of HOA President Maureen Karpinski to be “the only credible evidence offered regarding the landscaping of the homes.”

• Definitive Factual Finding: Based on Ms. Karpinski’s testimony, the ALJ concluded there was “no evidence there was any landscaping or improvements originally installed by Declarant.”

• Final Conclusion: As the precondition of Section 7.1.4 (that landscaping be “originally installed by Declarant”) was not met, the HOA had no maintenance duty for the Petitioner’s backyard. The Petitioner again failed to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the petition was dismissed with finality.

Study Guide: Prall v. Villas at Tierra Buena HOA

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided legal decisions. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

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

2. What specific section of the governing documents did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what was the central claim of his petition?

3. Describe the key physical differences between the “interior homes” and “exterior homes” within the Villas at Tierra Buena community as detailed in the hearing.

4. What incident in 2018 prompted the HOA to issue a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, and what action did the letter request?

5. Explain the two conflicting interpretations of the term “Private Yard” as argued by the Petitioner and the Respondent.

6. What was the Petitioner’s claim regarding the HOA’s past maintenance practices in his backyard, and how did the Respondent counter this assertion?

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is this standard defined in the legal decision?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions, what was the single most critical point the Petitioner failed to prove, which ultimately led to the dismissal of his case?

9. During the rehearing, what crucial testimony was provided by the HOA’s witness, Maureen Karpinski, and why was it deemed the “only credible evidence” on the matter?

10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on September 4, 2018, and the subsequent rehearing on January 11, 2019?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what were their respective roles? The Petitioner was Travis Prall, the homeowner who filed the dispute. The Respondent was the Villas at Tierra Buena Homeowners Association (HOA), which was defending against the Petitioner’s claims. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

2. What specific section of the governing documents did the Petitioner allege was violated, and what was the central claim of his petition? The Petitioner alleged a violation of Section 7.1.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs). His central claim was that the HOA violated this section by neglecting its duty to perform yard maintenance in his backyard, which he argued was a “visible public yard.”

3. Describe the key physical differences between the “interior homes” and “exterior homes” within the Villas at Tierra Buena community as detailed in the hearing. The exterior homes feature six to seven-foot-tall block wall fences enclosing their backyards. In contrast, the interior homes, including the Petitioner’s, have a shorter back wall consisting of a two-foot block wall topped with a two-foot aluminum fence, making the total height approximately four feet and more visible from a common walkway.

4. What incident in 2018 prompted the HOA to issue a “Courtesy Letter” to the Petitioner, and what action did the letter request? In 2018, the HOA had a “pony wall” in the Petitioner’s backyard repaired and was informed by the repair company, Sun King Fencing & Gates, that the wall had buckled due to tree roots. Consequently, the HOA issued a Courtesy Letter on May 3, 2018, requesting that the Petitioner “trim or remove the tree in the back yard causing damage to the pony wall.”

5. Explain the two conflicting interpretations of the term “Private Yard” as argued by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent argued that a yard is considered a “Private Yard” if it is enclosed or shielded from view, meaning any enclosed yard qualified. The Petitioner argued that the definition should be read to mean a yard is private only if it is enclosed so that it is not generally visible from neighboring property, implying visibility was the key factor.

6. What was the Petitioner’s claim regarding the HOA’s past maintenance practices in his backyard, and how did the Respondent counter this assertion? The Petitioner testified that from 2010 to 2013, the HOA had provided landscaping maintenance for his backyard. The Respondent denied this claim, stating that it had never provided any landscaping maintenance to any backyards in the community and raised liability concerns about entering residents’ enclosed yards.

7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is this standard defined in the legal decision? The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of evidence.

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions, what was the single most critical point the Petitioner failed to prove, which ultimately led to the dismissal of his case? The judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to present evidence proving that the tree in his backyard was “originally installed by the Declarant” (the developer). According to Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs, the HOA’s maintenance responsibility only applied to landscaping and improvements installed by the original community developer.

9. During the rehearing, what crucial testimony was provided by the HOA’s witness, Maureen Karpinski, and why was it deemed the “only credible evidence” on the matter? Maureen Karpinski testified that none of the homes in the community were sold with any landscaping or irrigation in the backyards and that they were “just dirt” at the time of purchase. Her testimony was considered credible because she was a real estate agent involved in the initial sales, had walked the community with many buyers during construction, and was herself an original buyer.

10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on September 4, 2018, and the subsequent rehearing on January 11, 2019? In both the initial decision issued on September 24, 2018, and the final decision issued after the rehearing on January 31, 2019, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated the CC&Rs.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style answers. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of “Public Yard” versus “Private Yard” as defined in Section 1.38 of the CC&Rs. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found it unnecessary to rule on this specific issue to reach a decision.

2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. How did the “preponderance of the evidence” standard shape the proceedings, and what specific types of evidence (or lack thereof) were most influential in the judge’s final decision?

3. Trace the timeline of the dispute over the tree in Travis Prall’s backyard, from the 2014 storm to the final legal decision in 2019. How did each key event contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the arguments presented at the hearings?

4. Compare the evidence presented by Travis Prall with the evidence presented by the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA at the rehearing. Why did the judge characterize Prall’s evidence as “suppositions and inferences” while deeming the HOA’s evidence “credible”?

5. Section 7.1.4 of the CC&Rs contains the phrase “as originally installed by Declarant.” Explain the critical importance of this phrase to the outcome of the case and how it became the dispositive legal issue, overshadowing all other arguments.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal decisions, in this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

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

Burden of Proof

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

An acronym for Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community.

Common Area

Areas within the community maintained by the HOA for the benefit of all residents. The HOA provides landscaping for these areas.

Courtesy Letter

A formal notice sent by the HOA to a homeowner regarding a potential violation or required action. In this case, it requested the removal of a tree causing damage.

Declarant

The original developer of the planned community who installed the initial infrastructure and landscaping.

HOA Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate by a homeowner to initiate a legal hearing regarding an alleged violation by their HOA.

Improvements

A term used in the CC&Rs referring to any additions to a lot other than the main residential dwelling, including landscaping.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the homeowner Travis Prall.

Pony Wall

A term used to describe the short, two-foot-tall block wall in the backyards of the interior homes, which was buckling due to tree roots.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other,” making a contention “more probably true than not.”

Private Yard

As defined in the CC&Rs, a portion of a yard “which is enclosed or shielded from view… so that it is not generally Visible from Neighboring Property.” The interpretation of this definition was a point of contention.

Public Yard

As defined in the CC&Rs, the portion of a yard “which is generally visible from Neighboring Property,” regardless of its location on the lot. The HOA is responsible for maintaining landscaping originally installed by the Declarant in Public Yards.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the claims. In this case, the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA.

Visible from Neighboring Property

A term defined in the CC&Rs to mean an object that would be visible to a six-foot-tall person standing on a neighboring property. It includes a specific exception for objects visible only through a wrought iron fence.

As defined in the CC&Rs, “the portion of the Lot devoted to Improvements other than the Residential Dwelling.”

⚖️

18F-H1818053-REL-RHG

2 sources

These documents are two Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between Travis Prall, the Petitioner, and the Villas at Tierra Buena HOA, the Respondent. The first document outlines the initial decision, dated September 24, 2018, which dismissed Mr. Prall’s petition arguing the HOA violated their Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs) by neglecting yard maintenance. The second document is the decision following a rehearing requested by the Petitioner, dated January 31, 2019, which reaffirmed the initial dismissal, concluding that Mr. Prall failed to prove that the landscaping in question was originally installed by the Declarant, a prerequisite for the HOA’s maintenance responsibility under the CC&Rs. Both decisions rely heavily on interpreting sections of the CC&Rs, particularly the definitions of “Public Yard” versus “Private Yard,” to determine the HOA’s obligation. Ultimately, both rulings found that the Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Travis Prall (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Pierce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
  • Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Represented Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
  • Maureen Karpinski (board member)
    Villas at Tierra Buena HOA
    President of the Board; testified
  • Frank Peake (property manager)
    Pride Community Management
    Owner of Pride Community Management; testified
  • Rebecca Stowers (community manager)
    Community Manager; testified at initial hearing

Neutral Parties

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

Annette Cohen vs. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-06-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party because Respondent established a technical violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested documents within the 10-day limit. However, the Administrative Law Judge found a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Annette Cohen Counsel —
Respondent CBS 136 Homeowners Association Counsel Brian E. Ditsch

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party because Respondent established a technical violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested documents within the 10-day limit. However, the Administrative Law Judge found a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested association records within 10 business days

Petitioner requested sign-in sheets for the January 10, 2018, and February 15, 2018, CBS HOA meetings. Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute by failing to provide the requested documents within the required 10-day timeframe, although they were ultimately provided prior to the hearing.

Orders: Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future, and pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, failure to provide documents, condominium owners association, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 642888.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:11:47 (74.5 KB)

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 655537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:11:50 (83.3 KB)

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 642888.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:22 (74.5 KB)

18F-H1818033-REL Decision – 655537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:25 (83.3 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision from the administrative hearing case Annette Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association (No. 18F-H1818033-REL). The core of the dispute was the Homeowners Association’s (HOA) failure to provide requested documents—specifically, meeting sign-in sheets—to a member, Annette Cohen, within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1258.

At the hearing, the Respondent HOA acknowledged this “technical violation,” attributing the delay to operational difficulties arising from a recent change in management companies. The Petitioner, Ms. Cohen, argued the delay was intentional and warranted a civil penalty.

The Administrative Law Judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, found that the HOA did violate the statute. In the final order, the Judge declared Ms. Cohen the prevailing party and mandated future compliance by the HOA. While a civil penalty was deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, the Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Ms. Cohen’s $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Annette Cohen

Respondent

CBS 136 Homeowners Association (CBS)

Respondent’s Counsel

Brian Ditsch, Sacks Tierney P.A.

Respondent’s Mgmt. Co.

Key Witness

Susan Rubin (PRM)

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Case Number

18F-H1818033-REL

Hearing Date

June 6, 2018

Decision Date

June 26, 2018

Chronology of the Dispute

The dispute centered on two separate sets of document requests made by Petitioner Annette Cohen.

• Request 1 (January 10 Meeting):

◦ On or about Jan. 10, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the annual meeting held on this date.

◦ Jan. 2018: The management company PRM took over management of the CBS 136 HOA.

◦ Feb. 15, 2018: After more than a month, and after two scheduled review appointments were cancelled by the management company, the sign-in sheets were finally provided to Ms. Cohen by email.

• Request 2 (February 15 Meeting):

◦ Feb. 19, 2018: Ms. Cohen requested the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 HOA meeting. Receipt of this request was acknowledged by PRM.

◦ Feb. 21, 26, 27 & March 5, 2018: Ms. Cohen made repeated follow-up requests for the same information.

• Formal Proceedings:

◦ March 9, 2018: Ms. Cohen filed a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

◦ April 10, 2018: The Respondent HOA filed an answer denying all allegations.

◦ June 6, 2018: An administrative hearing was held. The documents had been provided to Ms. Cohen at some point prior to this hearing.

◦ June 26, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision.

Core Allegation and Legal Framework

Petitioner’s Allegation

Annette Cohen alleged that the CBS 136 Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258 by failing to provide association records for review and copying within the statutorily required timeframe.

Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

The legal basis for the petition is Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1258(A), which governs a member’s right to access association records. The statute states, in relevant part:

“all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member… The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”

The petitioner bears the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that “shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Arguments and Evidence Presented at Hearing

Once the Respondent acknowledged the delay, the hearing focused solely on determining the appropriate remedy.

Petitioner’s Position (Annette Cohen)

• Intentional Negligence: Ms. Cohen argued that the Respondent “intentionally ignored her request for the documents.”

• Request for Penalty: Based on the belief of intentional neglect, she asserted that a civil penalty was an appropriate remedy.

• Unreasonable Delay: She noted that the documents “could have easily been emailed to her within the 10 day deadline,” but that the HOA’s management company did not present this as an option until after the deadline had already passed.

Respondent’s Position (CBS 136 HOA)

• Acknowledged Violation: At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent “acknowledged that the requested documents were not provided within the 10 day timeframe set forth in statute.”

• Mitigating Circumstances: The defense centered on testimony from Susan Rubin of the management company, PRM. Ms. Rubin testified to the following:

◦ No requests are “ever purposefully ignored.”

◦ PRM had only taken over management of the HOA in January 2018.

◦ At the time of the requests, PRM was “still getting documents from the former management company.”

◦ The delay was not due to ignoring the request, but because it “took a little longer than expected to provide the documents.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

Findings and Conclusions

• Violation Established: The Judge concluded there was “no dispute that Respondent failed to provide the requested documents within 10 days.” Therefore, the Petitioner “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Rejection of Civil Penalty: Despite the Petitioner’s argument, the Administrative Law Judge did “not find such a penalty to be appropriate given the circumstances in this matter.”

Final Order

The Judge issued a three-part order binding on the parties:

1. Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, is “deemed the prevailing party.”

2. Future Compliance: The Respondent, CBS 136 Homeowners Association, is ordered to “comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future.”

3. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The Respondent must pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 directly to her within thirty (30) days of the order.

Study Guide: Cohen v. CBS 136 Homeowners Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Please answer the following ten questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only the information provided in the case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 18F-H1818033-REL, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific documents did the Petitioner, Annette Cohen, request from the Respondent?

3. According to the petition, what was the core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen against the Homeowners Association?

4. What was the timeline for the Respondent’s failure to produce the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 meeting?

5. How did the Respondent initially respond to the petition after it was filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

6. What admission did the Respondent make at the June 6, 2018 hearing?

7. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the delay in providing the requested documents to the Petitioner?

8. What remedy did the Petitioner argue was appropriate for the violation, and on what grounds?

9. What legal standard of proof was the Petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that she met it?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Annette Cohen, who was the Petitioner, and the CBS 136 Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner is the party who filed the complaint, and the Respondent is the party against whom the complaint was filed.

2. The Petitioner requested the sign-in sheets from two separate meetings. She requested the sign-in sheets from the January 10, 2018 annual meeting and the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 2018 CBS HOA meeting.

3. The core legal violation alleged by Ms. Cohen was that the Respondent had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires homeowner associations to provide requested records to members for examination or copying within a ten-business-day timeframe.

4. Ms. Cohen requested the January 10, 2018 sign-in sheets on or about that same date (January 10). She did not receive them via email until February 15, 2018, which is well beyond the ten-business-day limit stipulated by law.

5. On or about April 10, 2018, the Respondent filed an answer to the petition. In this official response, the Respondent denied all of the allegations made by the Petitioner.

6. At the June 6, 2018 hearing, the Respondent acknowledged its failure to comply with the law. The Respondent admitted that the requested documents were not provided within the 10-day timeframe set forth in the statute, constituting a technical violation.

7. The Respondent, through the testimony of Susan Rubin from its management company PRM, explained the delay was not intentional. Ms. Rubin stated that PRM had just taken over management of the HOA in January 2018 and was still in the process of getting documents from the former management company.

8. The Petitioner argued that a civil penalty was the appropriate remedy. She contended that the Respondent intentionally ignored her requests and could have easily emailed the documents within the deadline, but failed to do so until after the deadline had passed.

9. The Petitioner had the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge found that she successfully met this standard because there was no dispute that the Respondent failed to provide the documents within the required 10 days.

10. The three components of the final Order were: 1) The Petitioner, Annette Cohen, was deemed the prevailing party; 2) The Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) in the future; and 3) The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format responses. Use the provided case documents to formulate a comprehensive analysis.

1. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the appropriate remedy for the acknowledged statutory violation. Evaluate the mitigating circumstances offered by the Respondent and discuss why the Administrative Law Judge may have found them persuasive enough to deny a civil penalty while still finding in favor of the Petitioner.

2. Discuss the legal framework governing disputes between property owners and condominium associations in Arizona as outlined in the case documents. Explain the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings, and detail the specific requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).

3. Examine the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the judge’s decision. Explain how the Petitioner successfully met this burden of proof, particularly in light of the Respondent’s initial denial of all allegations versus its later admission at the hearing.

4. Deconstruct the final Order issued by Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer. What were the three distinct parts of the Order, and what legal and practical purpose did each part serve in resolving the dispute, compensating the Petitioner, and ensuring future compliance by the Respondent?

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, creating a timeline of key events from Ms. Cohen’s first document request to the issuance of the final Order. Discuss the significance of each step, including the multiple requests, the petition filing, the Respondent’s answer, the hearing, and the final decision.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge

The official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes cited in the case. It mandates that a homeowners association must make records available for member examination within ten business days and may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal proceeding to prove their assertions. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the statute.

CBS 136 Homeowners Association

The Respondent in the case; an association of condominium owners located in Sun City West, Arizona.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations.

Findings of Fact

The section of the decision that outlines the factual history and evidence presented in the case, as determined by the judge.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The state office where the formal hearing on the petition was conducted.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Annette Cohen.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

The management company that took over management of the CBS 136 Homeowners Association in January 2018.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the CBS 136 Homeowners Association.

Technical Violation

An acknowledged infringement of a rule or statute where the substance of the rule may not have been maliciously violated. The Respondent admitted to a technical violation of the 10-day timeframe for document production.

Select all sources
642888.pdf
655537.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

18F-H1818033-REL

2 sources

Both documents are identical excerpts from an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, concerning a dispute between Annette Cohen (Petitioner) and the CBS 136 Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case, No. 18F-H1818033-REL, addressed the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide requested association meeting sign-in sheets within the mandated ten-day period. Though the Respondent acknowledged a technical violation of the statute, the Administrative Law Judge determined that a civil penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances, such as the change in management. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party, and the Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute in the future and reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

2 sources

Based on 2 sources

00:00
00:00

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Annette Cohen (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Brian Ditsch (respondent attorney)
    Sacks Tierney P.A.
  • Susan Rubin (witness)
    PRM (management company)
    Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision notice

Other Participants

  • Felicia Del Sol (clerical staff)
    Transmitted the decision

Debbie Westerman v. Bridgewood Townhomes

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1818028-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-04-26
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, concluding the Respondent HOA did not unreasonably deny the Petitioner's architectural request. The HOA's standard specification requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks for courtyard walls was found to be reasonable for maintaining architectural continuity consistent with the original Al Beadle design of the community.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Debbie Westerman Counsel —
Respondent Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. aka Bridgewood Townhomes Counsel Mark E. Lines and R. Patrick Whelan

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 5(G)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding the Respondent HOA did not unreasonably deny the Petitioner's architectural request. The HOA's standard specification requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks for courtyard walls was found to be reasonable for maintaining architectural continuity consistent with the original Al Beadle design of the community.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the HOA's denial was unreasonable or that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU block was inferior to the 8” x 8” x 16” CMU block she requested, and compliance with the HOA's reasonable specifications was required.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable denial of architectural request to build a courtyard wall

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks, which did not comply with the HOA's Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions requiring 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

Orders: Petition denied because Petitioner failed to establish that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request which did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • CC&R § 5(G)
  • CC&R § 7(B)
  • CC&R § 5(J)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Wall Construction, CMU block, Architectural Standard
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818028-REL Decision – 631265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-25T09:57:11 (161.6 KB)

18F-H1818028-REL Decision – 631265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:23:15 (161.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Westerman v. Bridgewood Townhomes HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818028-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and decision in the case of Debbie Westerman versus the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict involved the HOA’s denial of Ms. Westerman’s architectural request to construct a courtyard wall using 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks, which deviated from the association’s established standard of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim, ruling in favor of the HOA. The decision rested on the finding that the HOA’s architectural standards were reasonable and established to maintain the community’s original design integrity. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the HOA’s denial was unreasonable or that the specified building materials were in any significant way inferior. The HOA successfully argued that its “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” in place since 2005, were created to preserve the architectural continuity of the original “Al Beadle design” and have been consistently applied to numerous other homeowner projects.

1. Case Overview and Core Dispute

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Debbie Westerman, owner of condominium unit 31 in Bridgewood Townhomes.

◦ Respondent: Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (also known as Bridgewood Townhomes).

• Jurisdiction: The case was heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on January 23, 2018.

• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request to build a courtyard wall with 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks. The HOA’s established specification required the use of 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks.

2. Chronology of the Dispute

The key events leading to the administrative hearing occurred between October 2017 and January 2018.

Oct 25, 2017

Michael Brubaker, the HOA Board President, emailed the petitioner with the association’s “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”

Oct 25, 2017

The petitioner submitted an Architectural Request to build a wall with 8″ x 8″ x 16″ CMU blocks, acknowledging the deviation from specifications.

Oct 25, 2017

Mr. Brubaker sent a follow-up email cautioning the petitioner not to pre-order non-conforming materials as her request was not yet approved.

Nov 29, 2017

Mr. Brubaker emailed the petitioner, acknowledging her request as “extraordinary” and stating the Board would need to meet to consider it.

Dec 28, 2017

The petitioner was formally notified of a Board meeting scheduled for January 2, 2018, to review her request.

Jan 2, 2018

The petitioner attended the Board meeting. The Board unanimously rejected her request because it was contrary to the established specifications and “the historical aspects of our compliance structure.” The Board noted its willingness to approve a compliant wall, but the petitioner “stated that she [was] unwilling to comply.”

Jan 8, 2018

The HOA’s attorney sent a letter to the petitioner summarizing the legal basis for the denial.

Jan 23, 2018

The petitioner filed her formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Petitioner’s Arguments and Evidence (Debbie Westerman)

The petitioner’s case was built on three main arguments: the superiority of her proposed materials, the inconsistency of community standards, and the questionable validity of the HOA’s rules.

• Material Superiority: The petitioner claimed her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” blocks were stronger, less expensive, and visually identical to the required blocks.

◦ Evidence: She testified that three different contractors advised her that the larger blocks would be cheaper due to needing fewer units and less mortar.

◦ Evidence: Her subcontractor, Richard Ross, testified that using twice as many blocks (as required by the 4″ specification) “doubles the chance of the wall failing.”

• Inconsistent Community Standards: The petitioner argued that the HOA did not enforce a uniform aesthetic, negating the need for strict adherence to the block size specification.

◦ Evidence: She submitted photographs (Exhibits A5, A6) of walls at units 34 and 38, owned by Board President Michael Brubaker, which she claimed were built with larger blocks visible through stucco.

◦ Evidence: She submitted a photograph (Exhibit A11) showing courtyard walls of different heights, although wall height was not the subject of her dispute.

• Questionable Rule Authenticity: At the hearing, the petitioner challenged the validity of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” document itself.

◦ Argument: She argued the document was not authentic because the HOA did not produce the official Board meeting minutes from 2005 when the rules were allegedly adopted. This challenge was raised for the first time at the hearing.

4. Respondent’s Arguments and Evidence (Bridgewood HOA)

The HOA’s defense was centered on its legal authority, the reasonableness of its established architectural standards, and the consistent enforcement of its rules.

• Adherence to Established Architectural Standards: The HOA’s primary defense was that its denial was based on a reasonable and long-standing architectural rule.

◦ Authority: The HOA cited CC&R § 5(J), which grants the Board the authority to adopt reasonable rules concerning the use of common elements. Rule 7(a) requires Board approval for any exterior alterations.

◦ Evidence: The HOA submitted the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” (Exhibit 3), which Mr. Brubaker credibly testified was adopted by the Board on March 22, 2005.

◦ Purpose of the Rule: Mr. Brubaker stated the rule’s purpose was to ensure architectural continuity. An email to the petitioner (Exhibit 7) explained:

• Consistent Enforcement: The HOA demonstrated that the rule was not arbitrary but had been consistently applied.

◦ Evidence: Mr. Brubaker testified that since the program’s adoption, “twenty-nine homeowners have had applications approved and constructed courtyard walls to specification.” Four additional compliant applications were approved since the petitioner’s submission. A photograph of a recently completed, compliant wall (Ms. Warren’s) was submitted as Exhibit 16.

• Rebuttal of Petitioner’s Claims: The HOA directly countered the petitioner’s key arguments.

◦ On Inconsistency: Mr. Brubaker testified that the non-conforming walls at units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980 by the original developer, prior to the HOA assuming control of the property (Exhibit 14).

◦ On Structural Integrity: The HOA submitted two technical bulletins from the National Concrete Masonry Association (Exhibits 19 and 20). These documents stated that 4″ high (“half-high”) units can be considered “structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-in. (203-mm) high unit” as long as the cross-section is the same.

◦ On Cost: The HOA submitted a bid from J E Bowen Construction for $6,165.00 to build a compliant wall for the petitioner’s unit (Exhibit 17). It also noted that another homeowner’s recent compliant wall cost only $4,268.23 (Exhibit 15).

5. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found comprehensively in favor of the Respondent (HOA), denying the Petitioner’s petition.

• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that the petitioner bore the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” and failed to do so.

• Reasonableness of HOA Standards: The decision affirmed the HOA’s right to establish and enforce aesthetic standards.

• Validity of Specifications: The petitioner’s challenge to the authenticity of the HOA’s rules was dismissed. The ALJ found that she “did not establish that Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions was fraudulent or improperly adopted.”

• Materiality of Block Type: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her central claim that the larger blocks were superior.

• Aesthetic Impact: The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s proposed wall would violate the community’s aesthetic standards, noting that a wall using the larger blocks “would be noticeably different from walls that were constructed in compliance with the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions and other Al Beadle design elements.”

Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that CC&R § 5(G) required the Respondent to approve her Architectural Request to build a block wall around her patio that did not comply with Respondent’s Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.”

The order, issued on April 26, 2018, is binding unless a rehearing is requested within 30 days of service.

Study Guide: Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 18F-H1818028-REL, concerning a dispute between a homeowner and her homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific action by the Respondent was the Petitioner challenging in her petition?

3. According to the Respondent, what was the primary purpose of the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions”?

4. What were the three main arguments the Petitioner presented in favor of using 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks instead of the specified size?

5. How did the Petitioner attempt to demonstrate that the Respondent’s enforcement of wall specifications was inconsistent?

6. What was the Respondent’s explanation for the non-conforming walls cited by the Petitioner?

7. What evidence did the Respondent present to counter the Petitioner’s claim that the specified 4” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were structurally inferior?

8. Which party bore the “burden of proof” in this case, and what did that require them to establish?

9. On what date did the Respondent’s Board of Directors originally adopt the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions?

10. What was the final ruling in this case, and what was the judge’s primary reason for the decision?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debbie Westerman, the Petitioner, and the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Ms. Westerman owns condominium unit 31 in the Bridgewood Townhomes development and is therefore a member of the Respondent homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner was challenging the Respondent’s denial of her Architectural Request to build a wall around her patio. Specifically, she alleged that the Respondent had unreasonably denied her request to use 8” x 8” x 16” concrete masonry unit (CMU) block, which violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. The “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions” were developed to provide architectural continuity and standards for courtyard walls. They were intended to ensure that any new walls conformed to the original Al Beadle design represented by other structures on the property, such as the perimeter wall and pool enclosure.

4. The Petitioner argued that her proposed 8” x 8” x 16” CMU blocks were stronger, less expensive (requiring fewer blocks and less mortar), and looked the same as the specified blocks. This information was based on advice she received from three different contractors.

5. The Petitioner submitted photographs of courtyard walls at unit nos. 34 and 38, which she testified had larger blocks visible through stucco. She used these examples to argue that walls within the community were not consistent.

6. The Respondent’s Board president, Michael Brubaker, testified that the walls for units 34 and 38 were constructed before 1980. This was before the original developer turned the property over to the Respondent homeowners’ association, and therefore before the current specifications were in place.

7. The Respondent submitted two technical documents (TEK 5-15 and TEK 2-2B) from the National Concrete Masonry Association. These documents stated that 4-inch high (“half-high”) units are structurally equivalent to their corresponding 8-inch high counterparts, provided the face shell and web thicknesses are the same.

8. The Petitioner, Ms. Westerman, bore the burden of proof. This required her to establish by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated CC&R § 5(G) by unreasonably denying her request.

9. Michael Brubaker, the Respondent’s Board president, credibly testified that the Board adopted the Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions on March 22, 2005.

10. The final ruling was that the Petitioner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent’s Board acted unreasonably in denying her request, as the Board’s decision to maintain architectural consistency with the original Al Beadle design was reasonable.

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses to test a deeper understanding of the case’s themes and legal principles. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the legal concept of a “restrictive covenant.” Using the CC&Rs from the Bridgewood Townhomes development as an example, explain how these covenants function to regulate property use and how they are interpreted and enforced in a legal dispute.

2. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the structural integrity and cost of the different CMU block sizes. Discuss the quality of the evidence (e.g., expert testimony, technical documents, contractor bids) and explain which side made a more compelling argument on this point.

3. Discuss the role and authority of a homeowners’ association Board of Directors as demonstrated in this case. How did the Board use its authority under the CC&Rs to create and enforce the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions,” and what does the judge’s decision say about the reasonableness of its actions?

4. The concept of “architectural continuity” and preserving the original “Al Beadle design” was central to the Respondent’s argument. Explain the significance of this argument and analyze why the Administrative Law Judge found it to be a reasonable basis for denying the Petitioner’s request.

5. Trace the procedural history of this dispute, from the Petitioner’s initial Architectural Request in October 2017 through the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. What do the steps taken by both parties reveal about the formal processes for dispute resolution within this planned community?

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition (as used in the source document)

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an agency separate from the Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Request

A formal application submitted by a homeowner to the homeowners’ association for approval of any alterations or additions to the exterior of a unit.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. A set of rules recorded with the county that governs the rights and obligations of property owners within a planned community or condominium development.

Concrete Masonry Unit. A standard-size rectangular block used in construction. In this case, the dispute centered on two sizes: 4” x 8” x 16” and 8” x 8” x 16”.

Common Area

Areas within the development owned by the Homeowners’ Association in trust for the benefit and use of all lot owners.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

Limited Common Elements

Areas, such as the patios or courtyards adjacent to individual units, that are part of the common area but are reserved for the exclusive use of a specific owner.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner, Debbie Westerman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil case. It is defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the homeowners’ association, Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&R that limits the use of the property. The judge notes that if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Subpoena Duces Tecum

A legal order requiring a person to appear and bring specified documents or evidence with them. The decision notes the Petitioner did not request one for the Board meeting minutes.

TEK 2-2B & TEK 5-15

Titles of technical publications from the National Concrete Masonry Association, submitted as evidence by the Respondent to demonstrate the structural equivalence of different-sized CMU blocks.

Why Your HOA Cares About Your Bricks: A Real-Life Legal Battle, Deconstructed

For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners’ Association (HOA) is a source of quiet frustration. It often involves rules that seem arbitrary, overly specific, or just plain unreasonable. You want to make a practical improvement to your property, but the HOA’s governing documents stand in the way, citing regulations you never knew existed. This friction between individual desire and community standards is common, but rarely does it escalate into a formal legal dispute.

When it does, however, the results can be surprisingly illuminating. Such is the case of Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA in Arizona. Their legal battle wasn’t over a major renovation or a loud party; it was about the specific size of concrete blocks for a new patio wall. On the surface, it seems like a minor disagreement. But a closer look at the administrative law judge’s decision reveals powerful, practical lessons for every homeowner about the hidden legal realities of community governance.

By deconstructing the judge’s final decision, we can uncover four critical lessons that reveal how HOAs wield power and how homeowners can protect themselves.

Takeaway 1: Aesthetic Vision Can Legally Outweigh Practicality

At the heart of the dispute was a simple disagreement over materials. The petitioner, Debbie Westerman, wanted to build her patio wall using 8″x8″x16″ concrete blocks. Her reasoning was entirely practical: a licensed contractor advised her that the larger blocks were “stronger, less expensive, and looks the same.” From a homeowner’s perspective, this seems like an open-and-shut case for approval.

The HOA, however, denied the request. Their position was based not on practicality, but on a specific design vision. The association’s rules, established back in 2005, explicitly required the use of 4″x8″x16″ blocks. The reason? To maintain “architectural continuity” with the property’s original “Al Beadle design.” This wasn’t a vague preference; it was a documented standard intended to conform new construction to the existing visual language of the community, as seen in the “property’s perimeter wall, the original block buildings, the pool area enclosure and buildings, the parking structures, and the walls around the parking areas.”

Ultimately, the judge sided with the HOA. The decision found that the association’s requirement was reasonable because it was aimed at keeping new construction consistent with “significant elements of Bridgewood Townhomes.” This is a crucial lesson: a homeowner’s logical arguments about cost, strength, and appearance can be legally superseded by a community’s well-documented commitment to a specific, even if less tangible, design aesthetic.

Takeaway 2: The Power is in the Paper Trail

The HOA’s entire case rested on the strength of a single key document: the “Wall Construction Specifications & Conditions.” This document, which the board officially adopted on March 22, 2005, clearly outlined the requirement for the 4-inch blocks.

Crucially, the petitioner only challenged the authenticity of this document for the first time during the hearing itself, arguing the HOA had not produced the original meeting minutes that adopted it. The judge deemed this last-minute challenge inadmissible. Why? Crucially, the judge noted that the homeowner had failed to use the proper legal procedures to demand the HOA produce those records ahead of time, making her challenge too little, too late. The HOA, meanwhile, demonstrated a long history of consistent enforcement. Before Ms. Westerman’s request, the association had already approved 29 other courtyard walls, all built according to the 2005 specifications.

This highlights a critical lesson: an HOA’s power is codified in its paper trail. The governing documents—from the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) down to specific board-adopted rules—carry immense legal weight.

Pro Tip: Your HOA’s governing documents are more than just the CC&Rs you received at closing. Formally request and review all board-adopted rules, architectural guidelines, and meeting minutes related to your planned project hiring a contractor or submitting an application.

Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Is on the Homeowner

Many people might assume that in a dispute, the powerful organization (the HOA) has the responsibility to prove its rules are fair and justified. The legal reality is often the exact opposite.

The judge’s decision explicitly stated that the “burden of proof” was on Ms. Westerman to establish that the HOA had acted unreasonably. It was not the HOA’s job to prove their rule was perfect; it was the homeowner’s job to prove the denial was improper. To meet this high legal standard, defined as a “preponderance of the evidence,” you need convincing proof.

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

This case provides a masterclass in what constitutes convincing proof. Ms. Westerman’s evidence that the 8-inch blocks were superior came from the testimony of her contractor’s unlicensed subcontractor. In sharp contrast, the HOA submitted two technical documents from the National Concrete Masonry Association—a neutral, expert authority—which demonstrated that the required 4-inch blocks are “structurally equivalent” to their 8-inch counterparts. The homeowner brought an opinion to a legal fight; the HOA brought expert documentation.

Actionable Advice: If you choose to challenge an HOA decision, understand that personal testimony and contractor opinions are often insufficient. To meet the ‘burden of proof,’ you must be prepared to counter the HOA’s documented rules with equally strong evidence, such as independent engineering reports, surveys, or expert testimony.

Takeaway 4: An HOA Rule Can Be a “Win-Win Program”

While it’s easy to view HOA rules as purely restrictive, the association’s board president, Michael Brubaker, offered a completely different perspective. He framed the wall policy not as a limitation, but as a benefit designed to increase the value and security of the entire community.

In an email to the petitioner, he explained the board’s original thinking behind allowing the walls in the first place, calling it a “win win program.”

A courtyard wall allowed homeowners to expand their homes with an exclusive-use courtyard space, enhance privacy, and improve security, which resulted in an increased individual property value that subsequently raised all property values. Additionally, the Association reduced costs by reducing the common area to be maintained. This is a win win program.

This viewpoint is bolstered by another critical fact: the HOA assumes maintenance responsibility for the walls after they are built. This reinforces the logic behind the rule. Uniformity isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about the long-term, collective cost and labor of maintaining these structures, making a consistent standard a practical and financial concern for the entire association.

Conclusion: Beyond the Bricks

The dispute between Debbie Westerman and the Bridgewood Townhomes HOA was, on its face, about the size of concrete blocks. But the legal decision reveals a much deeper story about community living. It’s a story about how a shared aesthetic vision, when properly documented, can become legally enforceable. It’s a confirmation of the immense power of written rules and the critical importance of bringing credible evidence to a dispute. And it’s a reminder that the legal burden often falls on the individual to challenge the collective.

This case demonstrates that behind a seemingly petty disagreement lies a complex reality of legal precedent, established processes, and a community’s right to define and defend its character. The next time you encounter a seemingly arbitrary HOA rule, will you see it as a simple restriction, or will you look for the deeper story of community standards and legal precedent behind it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Debbie Westerman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Kelly Zernich (witness)
    Petitioner's realtor
  • Richard Ross (witness)
    Petitioner's contractor's subcontractor

Respondent Side

  • Mark E. Lines (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
  • R. Patrick Whelan (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
  • Michael Brubaker (board member/witness)
    Respondent's Board president

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barb Warren (homeowner/applicant)
    Application approved by the Board (used for comparison)
  • Felicia Del Sol (unknown)
    Transmitted the decision electronically

Charles Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Brian C. Axt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1. The ALJ determined that the HOA correctly clarified the status of play structures through an amendment to the Architectural Committee's regulations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) regarding allowing play structures (swing sets, treehouses) when another detached structure (garage or shed) is present.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) by permitting members to construct play structures (swingsets, treehouses, etc.) on properties that already contained one detached structure (garage or shed), arguing that the rules allowed only one detached structure of any type.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied because he failed to establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances. All play structures that the Architectural Committee has previously approved are allowed to remain, and the Architectural Committee may consider and grant future Play Structure Approval Requests.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, CC&R interpretation, detached structures, play structures, Architectural Committee regulations, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:07:52 (155.4 KB)

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:47 (155.4 KB)

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 18F-H1817006-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817006-REL, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific violation did the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, allege against the Respondent?

3. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bears the initial burden?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the CC&Rs and amending the “Rules and Regulations”?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary evidence to support his claim that the HOA historically enforced a “one detached structure” rule?

6. How did the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates HOA, legally justify its decision to permit play structures even on lots that already had a detached garage or shed?

7. How did the Respondent explain the document from its website which stated that the Board had voted to “adopt changes to the CCR’s”?

8. What did the law firm Poli & Ball conclude regarding the permissibility of play structures within the community?

9. What did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky determine was the primary intent of Article III of the CC&Rs?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, and the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association. Mr. Mandela is a homeowner within the Blue Ridge Estates development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D). He claimed the HOA wrongly allowed members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on their properties when another detached structure, such as a garage or shed, already existed.

3. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must convince the judge that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Charles Mandela, bears the initial burden of proof to establish that a violation occurred.

4. To amend the CC&Rs (the Declaration), an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots is required. In contrast, the Board of Directors can adopt, amend, or repeal “Rules and Regulations” by a simple majority vote of the Board.

5. The Petitioner testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA removed nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo and a playhouse. He also submitted a 2006 letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, which opined that the HOA could enforce a “one detached structure” requirement.

6. The Respondent argued that the intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent second residential dwellings on a lot, not to prohibit recreational items consistent with a family community. Therefore, the Board acted within its authority under CC&R § 4.2 to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to clarify that play structures are permitted.

7. The Respondent’s president, Joseph Hancock, testified that the wording was a typographical error made by the previous Chair of the Architectural Committee (the Petitioner). Board meeting minutes from December 2016 and October 2017 were submitted as evidence to show the Board’s actual intent was to modify the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs.

8. The Poli & Ball law firm opined that play structures are “perfectly consistent with recreation and family use” in a community intended to be a planned recreation property. The firm concluded that the HOA could change the Architectural Committee’s regulations to allow them as long as the change was consistent with the CC&Rs.

9. The Judge concluded that the purpose of Article III is to keep the community single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second dwelling. Since a play structure cannot be easily converted into a second residence, allowing one did not violate the intent of the CC&Rs.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not established that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances, and that the HOA had properly resolved the issue by amending its regulations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon specific facts, arguments, and legal principles from the source document.

1. Discuss the critical distinction between amending the community’s CC&Rs and amending the Architectural Committee’s regulations. Explain how this distinction became the central pivot upon which the entire case turned.

2. Analyze the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s exhibits and testimony, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s evidence more persuasive.

3. The “Conclusions of Law” section discusses the legal principle of interpreting restrictive covenants based on the “intent of the parties.” How did Judge Mihalsky apply this principle to CC&R § 3.1, and how did the community’s stated purpose as a “uniquely planned recreation property” influence this interpretation?

4. Charles Mandela, the Petitioner, was a former board member and president of the Architectural Committee who drafted one of the key documents in question. Discuss how his past involvement in HOA governance may have shaped his legal position and the evidence he presented.

5. Trace the timeline of the “play structure” controversy as detailed in the hearing evidence, from the 2015 discrimination claim to the “clarification vote” in October 2017. How does this sequence of events illustrate the challenges of community governance and rule interpretation within a homeowners’ association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, the ALJ from the Office of Administrative Hearings heard the dispute between the homeowner and the HOA.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for approving any construction, alteration, or improvement to the exterior of any property to ensure it complies with community standards.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. It outlines the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Declaration

The formal legal document that creates the homeowners’ association and its CC&Rs. In this case, amending the Declaration required a 75% vote of the members.

Detached Structure

A building on a property that is separate from the main residence. The dispute centered on whether play structures counted as the “one detached structure” permitted by the CC&Rs.

Improvements

A broad term defined in the CC&Rs (§ 1.17) to include buildings, garages, fences, walls, landscaping, and all other structures of every type and kind on a property.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The judge noted that if Title 33 did not apply, the Office of Administrative Hearings would lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Charles Mandela.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&Rs that limits the use of the property. The “one detached structure” rule is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Single Family Residential Use

The designated purpose of the properties in Blue Ridge Estates, meaning they are to be used exclusively as private homes for single families, not for commercial or multi-family dwelling purposes.

Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf; previously served as president of the Architectural Committee.

Respondent Side

  • Brian C. Axt (attorney)
    Resnick & Louis, P.C.
    Represented Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.
  • Joseph Hancock (board member)
    Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association
    Board's president; presented testimony/witness for Respondent.
  • Jason Miller (counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Provided an email opinion supporting the Respondent's position.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

James and Shawna Larson vs. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717038-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-11
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James and Shawna Larson Counsel Lisa M. Hanger
Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1255(C); CC&R sections 9 and 9(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA acted reasonably and had the authority under the CC&Rs to require the removal of the homeowner's patio cover for necessary painting and repairs. The ALJ determined that because the patio cover is a limited common element, the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation according to A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs or acted unreasonably, and statutory law assigned the expense burden for the limited common element to the homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

Authority of HOA to mandate removal of homeowner's patio cover for maintenance and assignment of removal/reinstallation costs.

Petitioners challenged the Respondent HOA's authority and reasonableness in requiring them to remove their patio cover, a limited common element, for building painting and repair, and disputed the requirement that Petitioners bear the costs. The ALJ concluded that the HOA's plan was reasonable, the HOA had the authority under CC&R sections 9 and 9(b), and Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation under A.R.S. § 33-1255(C).

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed the prevailing party. Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA authority, limited common element, maintenance costs, patio cover, CC&Rs, statutory interpretation, dismissal, prevailing party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)
  • CC&R section 9
  • CC&R section 9(b)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 605540.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:44 (105.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 583987.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:48 (53.0 KB)

17F-H1717038-REL Decision – 585505.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:05:53 (385.9 KB)

Briefing on Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (the “Respondent” or “HOA”). The core conflict centered on the HOA’s directive that the Larsons remove their wooden patio cover at their own expense to facilitate a community-wide building repair and painting project.

The case progressed through two distinct phases. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissing the Larsons’ petition for a lack of a “justiciable controversy,” reasoning that the HOA had not yet acted on its threat to remove the patio cover, rendering the dispute speculative. However, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate rejected this recommendation, finding the matter was “ripe for adjudication,” and ordered a full hearing on the merits.

In the final decision, a second ALJ dismissed the Larsons’ petition and ruled in favor of the HOA. The judge found the HOA’s plan to be reasonable and necessary for the proper and safe completion of the project, based on credible testimony from the project manager. The decision affirmed the HOA’s authority under its CC&Rs to require the removal of the structure. Crucially, the ruling established that the patio cover is a “limited common element” under Arizona law. Consequently, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the homeowners (the Larsons) are exclusively responsible for all costs associated with it, including its removal and potential reinstallation.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Rulings

Initial Petition and Dismissal Recommendation

On June 16, 2017, James and Shawna Larson filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate against their HOA, alleging a violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the initial filing did not specify which provisions had been violated.

Upon inquiry, the Petitioners’ counsel admitted via email that no specific provision of the CC&Rs had yet been violated. Instead, their concern was that section 10(a) would be violated if the HOA acted on its threat to forcibly remove their patio cover and charge them for the cost.

This led to the “ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY,” issued on August 25, 2017, by Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Marwil. The key findings of this order were:

• Speculative Harm: The Judge found that the HOA’s actions “have not yet been undertaken and our [are] speculative at this juncture.”

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The order stated that the Office of Administrative Hearings’ jurisdiction, per A.R.S. § 32-2199, is limited to adjudicating existing violations of community documents, not potential future ones.

• Misunderstanding by Both Parties: The order noted, “Both parties fundamentally misunderstand the limits of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” The Petitioners were seeking a ruling on a future action, while the Respondent was urging the Tribunal to find the Petitioners had violated the CC&Rs, which was not the subject of the petition.

• Recommended Forum: The Judge suggested that the appropriate forum for the Petitioners would be a declaratory judgment action in superior court.

Rejection of Dismissal and Re-Hearing

On August 31, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issued an “ORDER REJECTING RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL.”

• The Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the matter lacked a justiciable controversy.

• The order cited a letter from the Respondent dated June 1, 2017, which posed the question: “Is the presence of the awning a violation of the Association’s governing documents?”

• This question was deemed sufficient to make the matter “ripe for adjudication.”

• The Commissioner requested that the hearing be rescheduled for a ruling on the matter. A re-hearing was subsequently conducted on November 20, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

Analysis of the Merits of the Dispute

The re-hearing focused on the substantive conflict: whether the HOA had the authority to compel the Larsons to remove their patio cover at their own expense for the maintenance project.

Respondent’s (HOA) Case

The HOA, consisting of 169 units, initiated a project to make necessary repairs to its twenty-five buildings and then have them painted. The HOA’s position was based on the following points:

• Legal Authority: The HOA asserted its authority under sections 9 and 9(b) of its CC&Rs, which state that the HOA is responsible for maintaining building exteriors and that “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep of the… [building] exteriors… shall be taken by the [Respondent].”

• Project Necessity: The project manager, Wayne King, provided testimony that the HOA’s board deemed credible and reasonable.

◦ Safety: King stated that all five bidding contractors required the patio covers to be removed to ensure a safe work environment as mandated by the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

◦ Logistics: Standard scaffolding would not fit without removing the covers, commercial scaffolding would not provide full access, a forklift was not viable due to overhead power lines, and allowing painters to walk on homeowner patio covers was unsafe.

◦ Quality of Work: The project involved sanding, power washing, and patching before painting to “do the job right.” Many covers had been improperly flashed, causing damage to the buildings that needed repair.

◦ Warranty: The paint company would not provide a warranty for the project if individual homeowners, such as the Larsons, were permitted to paint their own units.

Petitioners’ (Larsons’) Case

The Larsons, who purchased their unit in 1999 with the wooden patio cover already in place, contested the HOA’s demands.

• Challenge to Authority: The Petitioners argued that the HOA had no legal authority to demand the removal of their patio cover.

• Unreasonable Cost: They asserted that the cost of removal and reinstallation was unreasonable, submitting two bids:

◦ One bid quoted $1,250 to remove and dispose of the cover and $3,980 to remove and rebuild it with new wood.

◦ A second bid quoted $5,975 to remove and then replace the structure.

• Proposed Alternative: In a letter dated May 19, 2017, the Larsons offered to have the back of their unit painted at their own expense.

• Compromise Offer: During the November 20, 2017 hearing, after hearing the project manager’s testimony, Ms. Larson offered that they would agree not to reinstall the patio cover if the HOA would pay for its removal.

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

On December 11, 2017, ALJ Thomas Shedden issued a final decision dismissing the Larsons’ petition and finding in favor of the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Key Findings and Conclusions of Law

Finding/Conclusion

Details

Standard of Review

The HOA’s decisions regarding maintenance and repair are given deference, provided they act reasonably.

Reasonableness of HOA Action

Based on the “credible testimony” of Wayne King, the Judge found that the HOA’s proposed plan for repairing and painting the buildings, which required the removal of patio covers, was reasonable.

HOA Authority

CC&R sections 9 and 9(b) were found to be “sufficient to show that Respondent has the authority to remove Petitioners’ patio to complete the painting work.”

Patio Cover Classification

The Petitioners’ patio cover was legally classified as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4).

Cost Responsibility

The central issue of payment was decided by statute. The Judge concluded that under a “reasonable reading of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C),” any common expense associated with a limited common element “shall be assessed exclusively against the units benefitted.”

Final Order

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the following:

“The evidence of record supports a conclusion that Respondent has authority to require Petitioners to remove their patio cover to allow the building to be properly and safely painted, and that Petitioners are responsible for the cost to remove the patio cover and the cost to reinstall it should they choose to do so.”

The final order was that the Petitioners’ petition be dismissed, and the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party.

Study Guide: Larson v. Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowners James and Shawna Larson and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the initial reason given by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Suzanne Marwil for recommending the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition?

3. Why did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, reject the initial recommendation for dismissal?

4. What was the central dispute that was ultimately decided in the November 20, 2017, hearing?

5. According to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision, what is the legal classification of the petitioners’ patio cover?

6. Which specific sections of the CC&Rs did the Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, cite as the basis for its authority?

7. What key reasons did project manager Wayne King provide to justify the necessity of removing the patio covers for the painting project?

8. Describe the significant difference in the cost estimates for removing and replacing the patio cover as presented by the Petitioners versus the Respondent’s project manager.

9. What was the final ruling regarding who was financially responsible for the removal and potential reinstallation of the patio cover?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the Larsons’ petition following the final hearing, and which party was deemed the “prevailing party”?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioners, homeowners James and Shawna Larson, and the Respondent, the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, which is their homeowner’s association (HOA). The dispute arose from the HOA’s plan to repair and paint the building exteriors.

2. ALJ Marwil initially recommended dismissal due to a “lack of justiciable controversy.” She found that the Petitioners had failed to cite any provision of the CC&Rs that the Respondent had currently violated, as the threatened action to remove the patio cover was speculative and had not yet occurred.

3. Commissioner Lowe rejected the dismissal because she found the matter was “ripe for adjudication.” Her decision was based on a June 1, 2017 letter from the Respondent that questioned whether “the presence of the awning [is] a violation of the Association’s governing documents,” which she interpreted as the Respondent alleging a violation.

4. The central dispute was whether the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation had the authority to mandate that homeowners, specifically the Larsons, remove their patio covers at their own expense to facilitate a building repair and painting project.

5. The final decision classifies the Petitioners’ patio cover as a “limited common element” within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4). This classification was crucial to determining financial responsibility.

6. The Respondent cited sections 9 and 9(b) of the CC&Rs. Section 9(b) makes the Respondent responsible for maintaining building exteriors, and section 9 grants it the authority to take “Any cooperative action necessary or appropriate to the proper maintenance and upkeep” of those exteriors.

7. Wayne King testified that removal was necessary to properly and safely complete the work using scaffolding, as required by modern safety laws. He also stated that removal was needed to repair improperly flashed areas behind the covers and to ensure the painting contractor would provide a warranty for the project.

8. The Petitioners presented bids showing the cost to remove and rebuild the cover would be between $3,980 and $5,975. In contrast, Mr. King opined these estimates were very high and that the cost should be closer to $1,000 if existing materials were reused.

9. The final ruling, based on ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1255(C), was that the Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the patio cover and, if they choose, the cost of reinstalling it. This is because the patio cover is a limited common element assigned specifically to their unit.

10. The final outcome was the dismissal of the Larsons’ petition. The Respondent, Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Use the provided documents to construct a detailed, evidence-based response.

1. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing to the final decision. Discuss the key turning points, including the initial recommendation for dismissal, its rejection by the Commissioner, and the reasoning behind the final judgment.

2. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent in the November 2017 hearing. On what specific statutes and CC&R provisions did each side rely, and how did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately interpret these documents?

3. Evaluate the role of expert testimony in this case, specifically focusing on the evidence provided by project manager Wayne King. How did his testimony regarding safety, project requirements, and cost estimates influence the Administrative Law Judge’s findings on the reasonableness of the Respondent’s actions?

4. Discuss the legal concept of a “limited common element” as defined and applied in the source documents. Explain how this classification was central to the final decision regarding financial responsibility for the patio cover’s removal and reinstallation.

5. The initial Administrative Law Judge found no “justiciable controversy,” while the Commissioner later found the matter “ripe for adjudication.” Based on the details in all three documents, explain the arguments for both positions and analyze why the case ultimately proceeded to a full hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official in the Office of Administrative Hearings who adjudicates complaints regarding condominium and planned community documents and ensures compliance with relevant statutes.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The documents that govern the community and are described as a contract between the homeowner’s association and the homeowners.

Justiciable Controversy

A real dispute that a tribunal has the authority to resolve. The initial petition was recommended for dismissal for a lack of a justiciable controversy because the Respondent’s threatened actions were deemed speculative.

Limited Common Element

A legal classification for property defined under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1212(4). In this case, the Petitioners’ patio cover was classified as such, meaning any common expense associated with its maintenance, repair, or replacement is assessed against the unit to which it is assigned.

Petition

The formal document filed with the Department of Real Estate to initiate a complaint against a homeowner’s association.

Petitioner

The party that files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowners James and Shawna Larson.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this matter, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party that is successful in a legal dispute. In the final order, the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation.

Ripe for Adjudication

A term used by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to indicate that a dispute is ready to be formally heard and decided by the Administrative Law Judge.

Select all sources
583987.pdf
585505.pdf
605540.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

17F-H1717038-REL-RHG

3 sources

These documents chronicle the legal dispute between James and Shawna Larson (Petitioners) and the Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation (Respondent) concerning the removal of the Larsons’ patio cover for building maintenance. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended dismissal because the Petitioners did not allege a current violation of the governing documents, thus lacking a justiciable controversy since the association had only threatened action. However, the Department of Real Estate Commissioner rejected this recommendation, asserting that a violation of the governing documents was alleged by the Respondent, making the matter ripe for adjudication. Following a rehearing, a different ALJ issued a final decision finding that the Respondent acted reasonably in requiring the patio cover removal for safe and proper painting and repairs, concluding that the Petitioners must bear the cost of removal and reinstallation as the cover is a limited common element.

3 sources

Based on 3 sources

00:00
00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Larson (petitioner)
  • Shawna Larson (petitioner)
  • Lisa M. Hanger (attorney)
    Counsel for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • Nathan Tennyson (attorney)
    Brown Alcott PLLC
    Counsel for Respondent Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corporation
  • Wayne King (witness)
    Project manager hired by Respondent for the painting project; provided testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Suzanne Marwil (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Authored Recommended Order Dismissal dated August 25, 2017
  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Authored Administrative Law Judge Decision dated December 11, 2017
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Rejected Recommendation of Dismissal
  • Dan Gardner (HOA coordinator)
    Transmitted documents (Order Rejecting Recommendation of Dismissal)

Other Participants

  • Chris Morga (contractor)
    Jacob and Co.
    Mentioned as a vendor who could remove patio covers

Brian Sopatk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Assoc., Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brian Sopatyk Counsel Nathan Andrews, Esq. and Jill Kennedy, Esq.
Respondent The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc. Counsel Bradley R. Jardine, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The contested $660 fee was determined to be a working capital contribution authorized by the Association's CC&Rs (section 8.13), which is distinct from the resale disclosure fees limited by statute.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a statutory violation because the fee in question was a valid working capital fee collected under the CC&Rs, not an illegal transfer fee under A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum fee for resale disclosure/transfer documents.

Petitioner alleged the Association charged a $660 transfer fee, plus a $30 statement fee, violating A.R.S. § 33-1260, which limits aggregate fees for resale disclosure and transfer services to $400. The ALJ found the $660 fee was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a statutory disclosure fee, despite being mislabeled by the Association.

Orders: Petitioner Brian D. Sopatyk's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory compliance, burden of proof, condominium association, resale disclosure
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 1-243

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:10 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T09:44:12 (154.0 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 531040.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:02 (67.9 KB)

17f-H1716004-REL Decision – 540004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:06:07 (154.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Study Guide: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided case documents. Each answer should be two to three sentences in length.

1. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did petitioner Brian Sopatyk allege that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

2. Identify the two fees charged in connection with Mr. Sopatyk’s unit purchase, the amount of each fee, and how they were documented on the HUD-1 disclosure statement.

3. What was the Association’s central argument for why the $660 fee did not violate the statute in question?

4. Who was the Association’s manager, and what explanation did she provide for the labeling of the $660 fee?

5. According to the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), what is the purpose of the fee outlined in section 8.13?

6. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on November 14, 2016?

7. During the rehearing, a discrepancy was noted between Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn petition and his testimony regarding the payment of the $660 fee. What was this discrepancy?

8. What corrective actions did the Association’s Board vote to take during its meeting on May 18, 2016, after Mr. Sopatyk raised the issue?

9. What is the standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this case, and did the Administrative Law Judge find that he met it?

10. What was the final, certified administrative decision in this matter after the rehearing on June 9, 2017?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Brian Sopatyk alleged a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260. This statute requires a condominium association to provide specific disclosure documents to a prospective purchaser and limits the aggregate fee for preparing these documents and other related services to no more than four hundred dollars.

2. The two fees were a $660 “Transfer Fee” and a $30 “Resale Statement Fee.” The HUD-1 disclosure statement shows the $660 fee was split, with $330 paid by the borrower (Sopatyk) and $330 paid by the seller, while the seller alone paid the $30 fee.

3. The Association’s central argument was that the $660 fee was not a transfer fee for disclosure services but was actually a “working capital fee” collected pursuant to section 8.13 of its CC&Rs. They contended that the fee had been incorrectly labeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error.

4. The Association’s manager was Amy Telnes. She testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly told the working capital fee was the transfer fee, and these fees had been mislabeled since that time.

5. According to CC&R section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”), each new unit owner is to be assessed a fee of at least twice the average monthly assessment. These fees are to be deposited into the working capital fund, which the Association refers to as its Reserve Fund.

6. Following the initial hearing, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden found that Mr. Sopatyk had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute. The Judge’s decision was to dismiss Mr. Sopatyk’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

7. In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated that the $660 fee was split between him and the seller. However, at the hearing, he testified that he had in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit, meaning one of his statements had to be false.

8. The Board directed Ms. Telnes to account for all working capital fees and transfer them to the Reserve Account to correct the error. The Board also determined its system was confusing and voted to assess a single transfer fee of $400 (and no other fees) on all future transactions.

9. The petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, bore the burden of proof and was required to meet the standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Administrative Law Judge concluded in both hearings that Mr. Sopatyk did not meet this burden.

10. The final decision was that Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed again. On August 10, 2017, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision from the rehearing was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Real Estate because the Department took no action to reject or modify it.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the evidence presented by the Association was deemed to have greater convincing force than the evidence presented by the Petitioner, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

2. Discuss the critical role of the Association’s governing documents, specifically CC&R section 8.13, in its successful defense. How did the language of this section allow the Association to re-characterize the disputed $660 fee and differentiate it from the fees regulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260?

3. Trace the procedural history of case No. 17F-H1716004-REL, from the filing of the petition to the final certified order. Identify the key dates, participants (judges, legal counsel, witnesses), and the function of the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Department of Real Estate in the process.

4. Examine the actions taken by the Association’s Board during its May 18, 2016, meeting. Evaluate whether these actions demonstrated good-faith governance and a proactive attempt to correct a procedural error, and discuss how the minutes from this meeting were used as evidence in the hearing.

5. Despite losing the case, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition prompted significant changes in the Association’s fee structure. Argue whether the petitioner’s actions ultimately served the public interest for future condominium purchasers in the Lakeshore Village community, even though he did not prevail in his specific legal claim.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on the evidence presented.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260

The Arizona statute that requires a condominium association to furnish a prospective purchaser with disclosure documents and other information. It explicitly limits the fee an association can charge for these services to “no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars.”

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their claims. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Brian Sopatyk.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which are the governing documents for the condominium association. Section 8.13 of the Lakeshore Village CC&Rs authorizes the collection of a fee for a working capital fund.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Brian Sopatyk.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party defending against a petition. In this case, The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Reserve Fund

The account into which the Association deposits its working capital fees. It is also referred to as the Working Capital Fund.

Statement Fee / Resale Statement Fee

A $30 fee, separate from the disputed $660, that was paid by the seller to the Association for the preparation of the resale statement. This fee was considered part of the allowable charges under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260.

Transfer Fee

The label erroneously applied to the $660 fee on the disclosure statement and HUD-1 form. The central dispute of the case was whether this was a true transfer fee subject to the statutory cap or a mislabeled working capital fee.

Working Capital Fee

A fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13 to be assessed from each new unit owner for the purpose of funding the Association’s working capital fund (Reserve Fund). The Association successfully argued the $660 charge was this type of fee.

How a $660 Fee Sparked a Legal Showdown: 5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner vs. HOA Dispute

We sign, we initial, we pay—assuming every line item on our closing documents is gospel. When buying a home in a condominium association, the stack of paperwork and list of fees can feel overwhelming. But what if one of those “standard” fees wasn’t standard at all?

For homeowner Brian Sopatyk, a single $660 charge from The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association wasn’t just a number; it was a thread he pulled that unraveled a surprising story of HOA governance, legal strategy, and the power of asking “why?” This post breaks down the five most impactful takeaways from a seemingly minor dispute that went all the way through a formal hearing and re-hearing.

1. A Simple Label Can Ignite a Legal Firestorm

A clerical error triggers a full-blown legal dispute.

The entire case hinged on a single, crucial mistake: the HOA mislabeled a “working capital fee” as a “transfer fee” on its disclosure forms.

Why was this one word so important? Because Mr. Sopatyk’s formal petition alleged that by charging a “$660 transfer fee,” the HOA violated Arizona statute 33-1260, which caps fees for resale disclosure services at a maximum of $400. On its face, the $660 charge looked like a clear violation of state law.

The Association’s manager, Amy Telnes, testified that when she took over her position, she was given erroneous information that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. As a result, the charge had been incorrectly labeled ever since. This simple administrative error was enough to trigger a formal petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, a full administrative hearing, and eventually, a re-hearing, proving how a small clerical mistake can escalate into a significant legal conflict.

2. In the Eyes of the Law, Substance Can Trump Form

Why the fee’s purpose mattered more than its name.

The Association’s core defense was that while the name of the fee was wrong, its purpose and authority were legitimate. The $660 charge, they argued, wasn’t for resale documents (the service capped by state law), but was a “working capital fee” authorized by an entirely different rule: the Association’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Specifically, Section 8.13 of the CC&Rs allowed for this assessment, with the funds designated for the Association’s reserve fund. This working capital fee, in contrast, was an assessment on the new owner as mandated by the CC&Rs to ensure the association’s financial health. The actual fee for the statutory disclosure documents was a separate, compliant $30 “Resale Statement Fee,” which was paid by the seller.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed. The fee’s underlying purpose and the HOA’s authority to collect it (its substance) were deemed more important than its incorrect name on the form (its form). This is a crucial lesson for any homeowner challenging an HOA: it’s not enough to find a mistake on a form. You must be prepared to argue against the underlying authority and purpose of the action itself.

3. You Can Lose the Battle but Win the War

How a dismissed case led to a major policy victory.

Perhaps the most counter-intuitive outcome is that although Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed, his actions were the direct catalyst for a significant and positive policy change by the HOA.

In a summary of the Association’s May 18, 2016, Board Meeting, which was entered as evidence, the judge noted that the Board reviewed the very issue Mr. Sopatyk had raised. Under the pressure of his legal challenge, they came to a powerful conclusion about their own system, determining it was “confusing and unfair.”

As a direct result of this internal review prompted by the dispute, the Board voted to simplify its process. It resolved to assess a single, clear transfer fee of $400 on all future transactions, eliminating the other confusing fees. This proves that even an unsuccessful legal challenge can be a powerful tool, forcing an organization to confront and correct its own problematic practices for the benefit of all future members.

4. The ‘Burden of Proof’ Is More Than Just a Phrase

What it really means to have to prove your case.

In both the original decision and the re-hearing, the judge repeatedly stated that Mr. Sopatyk, as the petitioner, bore the “burden of proof.” This legal standard was critical to the outcome. It meant he had to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court documents defined as:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

In this case, it meant Mr. Sopatyk’s job was to prove that the $660 fee was, more likely than not, an illegal charge for resale documents. The HOA’s defense—that it was a legally separate “working capital fee” that was simply mislabeled—created enough doubt that he couldn’t clear this hurdle.

5. A Small Contradiction Can Damage Credibility

When every word you say (and write) is on the record.

A fascinating detail appeared in the re-hearing decision, highlighting how every word matters in a legal proceeding.

There was a discrepancy in Mr. Sopatyk’s statements. His sworn petition, filed on August 9, 2016, stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660.”

The judge noted this contradiction directly in footnote 3 of the re-hearing decision, stating: “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.” While not the deciding factor, this kind of inconsistency can subtly erode a petitioner’s standing. Remember the “burden of proof” from Takeaway 4? It requires convincing a judge to “incline a fair and impartial mind” to your side. Contradictions, even small ones, make that inclination much harder to achieve.

Conclusion: The Devil Is in the Details

This case is the perfect microcosm of community association disputes. It began with a clerical error (form), was adjudicated on intent (substance), was lost on a technicality (the burden of proof), yet resulted in a victory for transparency. Mr. Sopatyk may not have won his case, but he won a better system for his neighbors.

The ultimate lesson? In an HOA, the most powerful tool isn’t always a lawsuit—sometimes, it’s a magnifying glass. It leaves us with a thought-provoking question: When is it worth challenging the system for clarity and fairness, even if the outcome isn’t a clear ‘win’ on paper?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brian Sopatyk (petitioner)
  • Nathan Andrews (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Jill M. Kennedy (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Chance Peterson (petitioner attorney)
    ASU Alumni Law Group
  • Judy Sopatyk (party)
    Wife of petitioner and co-purchaser of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Bradley R. Jardine (HOA attorney)
    Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston
    Attorney for Respondent
  • Amy Telnes (property manager/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association manager who testified
  • Michael Cibellis (association president/witness)
    The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.
    Association president who testified at rehearing

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner
  • Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
    OAH
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)
    ADRE
    Administrative contact for rehearing requests
  • Rosella J. Rodriguez (administrative staff)
    Involved in copy mailing/distribution