The Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 (Notice of Violation) was dismissed because the Article governs only recorded notices, and the Petitioner did not prove the notices in question were recorded.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs Article 10.8, because that provision applies only to recorded notices, and the notices issued to the Petitioner were not recorded.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R notice requirements regarding clarity and completeness of violation notices.
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 because the violation notices sent to him failed to include five mandatory pieces of information required by that section of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner also sought the refund of $175 in fines.
Orders: Petitioners' petition in this matter is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&R, Notice of Violation, Recording
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817019-REL Decision – 620124.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:41 (78.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817019-REL
Case Briefing: Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817019-REL, wherein Petitioner Jerry L. Webster’s complaint against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association was dismissed. The central issue revolved around Mr. Webster’s claim that the HOA engaged in a pattern of harassment by issuing vague and improper violation notices that failed to comply with Article 10.8 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The case was decided on a critical legal interpretation of the CC&Rs. The presiding judge determined that the specific requirements of Article 10.8, which Mr. Webster cited as being violated, apply exclusively to violation notices that are formally “Recorded” with the Maricopa County Recorder’s office. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence, or even make the claim, that the notices he received had been recorded. Consequently, Mr. Webster did not meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the HOA had violated the cited article. The dismissal of the petition was based entirely on this procedural and definitional distinction, without a ruling on the petitioner’s underlying allegations of harassment or selective enforcement.
Case Background
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.
◦ Respondent: Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (“Mountain Rose”), located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
• Adjudicating Body:
◦ The Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
◦ Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson.
• Key Dates:
◦ 2016–2017: Mountain Rose issues a series of violation notices to Mr. Webster regarding tree trimming and debris cleanup.
◦ December 6, 2017: Mr. Webster files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
◦ February 9, 2018: A hearing is held.
◦ February 9, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issues the decision dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Webster’s petition centered on the claim that the HOA’s actions constituted harassment and violated specific provisions of the governing documents.
Core Claim: Violation of CC&Rs Article 10.8
Mr. Webster contended that the violation notices he received from Mountain Rose were invalid because they failed to contain information mandated by Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”) of the CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged the notices omitted the following required elements:
• (ii) The legal description of the lot against which the notice is being Recorded.
• (iii) A brief description of the nature of the violation.
• (iv) A statement that the notice is being Recorded by the Association pursuant to the Declaration.
• (v) A statement of the specific steps which must be taken by the Owner or occupant to cure the violation.
Allegations of Harassment and Prejudicial Treatment
In his petition, Mr. Webster framed the HOA’s actions as a targeted and unfair campaign against him.
• Stated Intent: “The intent of this action is to stop the HOA from violating our civil rights by prejudicially harassing us with unclear and unwarranted violation notices.”
• History of Conflict: He alleged that “The HOA has harassed us for over 10 years with vague violation notices.”
• Lack of Communication: He claimed that his “Numerous requests were made for clarification…which were ignored.”
• Financial Penalties: Mr. Webster stated he was recently fined three times for a total of $175, which he sought to have refunded.
• Alleged Bias: To demonstrate selective enforcement, Mr. Webster noted that a review of the neighborhood revealed “22 trees touching dwellings, including ours,” and stated, “It is very doubtful any other member received notices or fines for identical circumstances.”
• Supporting Evidence: Mr. Webster submitted an aerial photo from 2012 showing the tree in a similar condition, a 2017 photo of another home with a tree touching the dwelling, and a 2017 photo of HOA-maintained trees.
Respondent’s Position
The Mountain Rose HOA, represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., presented a focused defense based on the specific language of the CC&Rs.
• Central Argument: The HOA contended that the violation notices issued to Mr. Webster were not recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder.
• Legal Position: Because the notices were not recorded, the stringent requirements outlined in Article 10.8 did not apply to them.
• Additional Detail: The HOA also argued that it had previously communicated the necessary corrective action to Mr. Webster, stating that “his tree needed to be trimmed 8 feet above the ground.”
The Decisive Legal Interpretation and Ruling
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the precise definition and application of “Recording” as established within the Mountain Rose CC&Rs.
The Definition of “Recording”
Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs provides the controlling definition:
“Recording” means placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, and “Recorded” means having been so placed of public record.
Application of Law to Facts
The Judge concluded that Mr. Webster’s entire case rested on a misapplication of Article 10.8.
• Limited Scope of Article 10.8: The ruling states, “Mountain Rose CC&Rs Article 10.8. applies to the recording of notices and recorded notices.”
• Burden of Proof: Under Arizona law (A.A.C. R2-19-119), the burden of proof fell to the petitioner, Mr. Webster, to demonstrate his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Crucial Factual Finding: The decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.“
• Petitioner’s Failure to Allege: The Judge further noted, “Mr. Webster did not even contend that Mountain Rose recorded the notices issued to him.”
Conclusion of Law
Based on the evidence and the plain language of the CC&Rs, the Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to make his case.
“Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs as described above.”
Final Order and Disposition
The petition was summarily dismissed based on the failure to prove that the relevant CC&R article was applicable to the facts presented.
Order:
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition in this matter is dismissed.”
The order was dated February 9, 2018, and transmitted to the parties on February 28, 2018.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817019-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817019-REL
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jerry L. Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, heard on February 9, 2018. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, suggested essay topics for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the source document.
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source text.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in this case and describe their respective roles.
2. What was the central accusation that Petitioner Jerry L. Webster made against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association?
3. Which specific article of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did Mr. Webster claim the HOA violated, and what key information did he allege was missing from the notices he received?
4. Beyond the content of the violation notices, what other complaints did Mr. Webster include in his petition regarding the HOA’s conduct?
5. According to the Mountain Rose CC&Rs, what is the specific definition of “Recording”?
6. What was the key piece of evidence that was absent from the hearing, which proved critical to the final decision?
7. What was the Mountain Rose HOA’s primary defense against Mr. Webster’s allegation that it had violated Article 10.8 of the CC&Rs?
8. In this type of administrative hearing, who holds the burden of proof, and what is the standard of proof required to win the case?
9. What was the final Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson in this matter?
10. What recourse did the parties have after the judge issued the Order on February 9, 2018?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the association, and Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, a planned community in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. Webster filed a petition alleging violations by the HOA, making him the accuser, while the HOA was the party responding to the allegations.
2. Mr. Webster’s central accusation was that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its own CC&Rs. He contended that the HOA engaged in prejudicial harassment by sending him a series of vague, unclear, and unwarranted violation notices over a period of more than 10 years.
3. Mr. Webster claimed the HOA violated Article 10.8, titled “Notice of Violation.” He alleged the notices he received failed to include several required subsections, including the legal description of the lot (ii), a brief description of the violation (iii), a statement that the notice was being Recorded (iv), and a statement of the specific steps needed to cure the violation (v).
4. Mr. Webster also complained that his numerous requests for clarification were ignored and that the HOA’s intent was harassment. He claimed he was fined $175 based on invalid notices and that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement, noting 22 other homes had trees touching dwellings without receiving similar notices or fines.
5. According to Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs, “Recording” is defined as placing an instrument of public record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. “Recorded” means that the instrument has been placed on public record in that office.
6. The key piece of evidence absent from the hearing was any proof that the violation notices sent to Mr. Webster were ever recorded with the County Recorder of Maricopa County. The judge’s decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.”
7. The HOA’s primary defense was that the requirements of Article 10.8 only apply to recorded notices. Since the notices issued to Mr. Webster were never recorded, the HOA argued that the article’s specific formatting requirements were not applicable to their correspondence with him.
8. The burden of proof falls to the party asserting the claim, which in this case was the Petitioner, Mr. Webster. The standard of proof required is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must have the most convincing force and be sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
9. The final Order issued by the judge was that the Petitioner’s petition in the matter be dismissed. This means Mr. Webster’s case was unsuccessful.
10. After the Order was issued, the parties had the right to request a rehearing. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, this request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form, analytical answers. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument as presented in the petition. What was the critical legal misinterpretation regarding Article 10.8 that ultimately led to the dismissal of his case?
2. Explain the direct relationship between Article 1.33 (“Recording”) and Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”). How did the specific definition in the former article completely undermine the petitioner’s entire claim, which was based on the latter?
3. Discuss the concepts of “burden of proof” and “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Citing specific findings from the decision, explain exactly how the petitioner failed to meet this standard.
4. Mr. Webster raised several secondary issues in his petition, including allegations of long-term harassment, selective enforcement (“22 trees touch dwellings”), and ignored requests for clarification. Why were these claims ultimately not addressed or validated in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
5. Based on the text of Article 10.8, what is the specific function and legal purpose of a recorded Notice of Violation? Why might an HOA choose to go through the formal process of recording a notice rather than just sending an unrecorded letter to a homeowner?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
An Arizona Revised Statute that permits a homeowner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Burden of Proof
The responsibility of the party asserting a claim or right to prove their case. In this matter, the burden of proof fell to the Petitioner.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Mountain Rose, which are the governing documents for the homeowners association.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which Mr. Webster filed his petition.
Notice of Violation (Article 10.8)
A written notice that the Association has the right to record. This article specifies that such a recorded notice must contain five key pieces of information, including the legal description of the lot and the specific steps to cure the violation. Its provisions apply specifically to notices that are formally recorded.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition. In this case, it was Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose HOA.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “the greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that…is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Recording (Article 1.33)
The act of “placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.” “Recorded” means having been so placed on public record.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, it was the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817019-REL
Select all sources
620124.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817019-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, addressing a dispute between Petitioner Jerry L. Webster and the Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Webster alleged that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its CC&Rs by issuing unclear and unwarranted violation notices, specifically regarding the trimming of his tree and cleaning debris, and he sought the refund of recent fines. The HOA contended that the notices were not recorded, making the specific requirements of Article 10.8—which applies to recorded notices—inapplicable to the general violation notices Mr. Webster received. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the notices in question were never officially recorded, leading to the dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition.
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jerry L. Webster(petitioner)
Pamela Webster(witness)
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney)
Frank Puma(manager) Mountain Rose
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 (Notice of Violation) was dismissed because the Article governs only recorded notices, and the Petitioner did not prove the notices in question were recorded.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs Article 10.8, because that provision applies only to recorded notices, and the notices issued to the Petitioner were not recorded.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&R notice requirements regarding clarity and completeness of violation notices.
The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 10.8 because the violation notices sent to him failed to include five mandatory pieces of information required by that section of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner also sought the refund of $175 in fines.
Orders: Petitioners' petition in this matter is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, CC&R, Notice of Violation, Recording
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817019-REL Decision – 620124.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:17 (78.5 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817019-REL
Case Briefing: Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817019-REL, wherein Petitioner Jerry L. Webster’s complaint against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association was dismissed. The central issue revolved around Mr. Webster’s claim that the HOA engaged in a pattern of harassment by issuing vague and improper violation notices that failed to comply with Article 10.8 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The case was decided on a critical legal interpretation of the CC&Rs. The presiding judge determined that the specific requirements of Article 10.8, which Mr. Webster cited as being violated, apply exclusively to violation notices that are formally “Recorded” with the Maricopa County Recorder’s office. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence, or even make the claim, that the notices he received had been recorded. Consequently, Mr. Webster did not meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the HOA had violated the cited article. The dismissal of the petition was based entirely on this procedural and definitional distinction, without a ruling on the petitioner’s underlying allegations of harassment or selective enforcement.
Case Background
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.
◦ Respondent: Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (“Mountain Rose”), located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
• Adjudicating Body:
◦ The Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
◦ Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson.
• Key Dates:
◦ 2016–2017: Mountain Rose issues a series of violation notices to Mr. Webster regarding tree trimming and debris cleanup.
◦ December 6, 2017: Mr. Webster files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
◦ February 9, 2018: A hearing is held.
◦ February 9, 2018: The Administrative Law Judge issues the decision dismissing the petition.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
Mr. Webster’s petition centered on the claim that the HOA’s actions constituted harassment and violated specific provisions of the governing documents.
Core Claim: Violation of CC&Rs Article 10.8
Mr. Webster contended that the violation notices he received from Mountain Rose were invalid because they failed to contain information mandated by Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”) of the CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged the notices omitted the following required elements:
• (ii) The legal description of the lot against which the notice is being Recorded.
• (iii) A brief description of the nature of the violation.
• (iv) A statement that the notice is being Recorded by the Association pursuant to the Declaration.
• (v) A statement of the specific steps which must be taken by the Owner or occupant to cure the violation.
Allegations of Harassment and Prejudicial Treatment
In his petition, Mr. Webster framed the HOA’s actions as a targeted and unfair campaign against him.
• Stated Intent: “The intent of this action is to stop the HOA from violating our civil rights by prejudicially harassing us with unclear and unwarranted violation notices.”
• History of Conflict: He alleged that “The HOA has harassed us for over 10 years with vague violation notices.”
• Lack of Communication: He claimed that his “Numerous requests were made for clarification…which were ignored.”
• Financial Penalties: Mr. Webster stated he was recently fined three times for a total of $175, which he sought to have refunded.
• Alleged Bias: To demonstrate selective enforcement, Mr. Webster noted that a review of the neighborhood revealed “22 trees touching dwellings, including ours,” and stated, “It is very doubtful any other member received notices or fines for identical circumstances.”
• Supporting Evidence: Mr. Webster submitted an aerial photo from 2012 showing the tree in a similar condition, a 2017 photo of another home with a tree touching the dwelling, and a 2017 photo of HOA-maintained trees.
Respondent’s Position
The Mountain Rose HOA, represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., presented a focused defense based on the specific language of the CC&Rs.
• Central Argument: The HOA contended that the violation notices issued to Mr. Webster were not recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder.
• Legal Position: Because the notices were not recorded, the stringent requirements outlined in Article 10.8 did not apply to them.
• Additional Detail: The HOA also argued that it had previously communicated the necessary corrective action to Mr. Webster, stating that “his tree needed to be trimmed 8 feet above the ground.”
The Decisive Legal Interpretation and Ruling
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the precise definition and application of “Recording” as established within the Mountain Rose CC&Rs.
The Definition of “Recording”
Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs provides the controlling definition:
“Recording” means placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, and “Recorded” means having been so placed of public record.
Application of Law to Facts
The Judge concluded that Mr. Webster’s entire case rested on a misapplication of Article 10.8.
• Limited Scope of Article 10.8: The ruling states, “Mountain Rose CC&Rs Article 10.8. applies to the recording of notices and recorded notices.”
• Burden of Proof: Under Arizona law (A.A.C. R2-19-119), the burden of proof fell to the petitioner, Mr. Webster, to demonstrate his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Crucial Factual Finding: The decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.“
• Petitioner’s Failure to Allege: The Judge further noted, “Mr. Webster did not even contend that Mountain Rose recorded the notices issued to him.”
Conclusion of Law
Based on the evidence and the plain language of the CC&Rs, the Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to make his case.
“Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mountain Rose violated its CC&Rs as described above.”
Final Order and Disposition
The petition was summarily dismissed based on the failure to prove that the relevant CC&R article was applicable to the facts presented.
Order:
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition in this matter is dismissed.”
The order was dated February 9, 2018, and transmitted to the parties on February 28, 2018.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817019-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817019-REL
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jerry L. Webster v. Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, heard on February 9, 2018. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, suggested essay topics for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the source document.
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source text.
1. Identify the primary parties involved in this case and describe their respective roles.
2. What was the central accusation that Petitioner Jerry L. Webster made against the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association?
3. Which specific article of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) did Mr. Webster claim the HOA violated, and what key information did he allege was missing from the notices he received?
4. Beyond the content of the violation notices, what other complaints did Mr. Webster include in his petition regarding the HOA’s conduct?
5. According to the Mountain Rose CC&Rs, what is the specific definition of “Recording”?
6. What was the key piece of evidence that was absent from the hearing, which proved critical to the final decision?
7. What was the Mountain Rose HOA’s primary defense against Mr. Webster’s allegation that it had violated Article 10.8 of the CC&Rs?
8. In this type of administrative hearing, who holds the burden of proof, and what is the standard of proof required to win the case?
9. What was the final Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson in this matter?
10. What recourse did the parties have after the judge issued the Order on February 9, 2018?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the association, and Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association, a planned community in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. Webster filed a petition alleging violations by the HOA, making him the accuser, while the HOA was the party responding to the allegations.
2. Mr. Webster’s central accusation was that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its own CC&Rs. He contended that the HOA engaged in prejudicial harassment by sending him a series of vague, unclear, and unwarranted violation notices over a period of more than 10 years.
3. Mr. Webster claimed the HOA violated Article 10.8, titled “Notice of Violation.” He alleged the notices he received failed to include several required subsections, including the legal description of the lot (ii), a brief description of the violation (iii), a statement that the notice was being Recorded (iv), and a statement of the specific steps needed to cure the violation (v).
4. Mr. Webster also complained that his numerous requests for clarification were ignored and that the HOA’s intent was harassment. He claimed he was fined $175 based on invalid notices and that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement, noting 22 other homes had trees touching dwellings without receiving similar notices or fines.
5. According to Article 1.33 of the CC&Rs, “Recording” is defined as placing an instrument of public record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. “Recorded” means that the instrument has been placed on public record in that office.
6. The key piece of evidence absent from the hearing was any proof that the violation notices sent to Mr. Webster were ever recorded with the County Recorder of Maricopa County. The judge’s decision explicitly states, “There was no evidence presented at hearing that the notices issued to Mr. Webster were recorded.”
7. The HOA’s primary defense was that the requirements of Article 10.8 only apply to recorded notices. Since the notices issued to Mr. Webster were never recorded, the HOA argued that the article’s specific formatting requirements were not applicable to their correspondence with him.
8. The burden of proof falls to the party asserting the claim, which in this case was the Petitioner, Mr. Webster. The standard of proof required is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must have the most convincing force and be sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue.
9. The final Order issued by the judge was that the Petitioner’s petition in the matter be dismissed. This means Mr. Webster’s case was unsuccessful.
10. After the Order was issued, the parties had the right to request a rehearing. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, this request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form, analytical answers. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument as presented in the petition. What was the critical legal misinterpretation regarding Article 10.8 that ultimately led to the dismissal of his case?
2. Explain the direct relationship between Article 1.33 (“Recording”) and Article 10.8 (“Notice of Violation”). How did the specific definition in the former article completely undermine the petitioner’s entire claim, which was based on the latter?
3. Discuss the concepts of “burden of proof” and “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. Citing specific findings from the decision, explain exactly how the petitioner failed to meet this standard.
4. Mr. Webster raised several secondary issues in his petition, including allegations of long-term harassment, selective enforcement (“22 trees touch dwellings”), and ignored requests for clarification. Why were these claims ultimately not addressed or validated in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?
5. Based on the text of Article 10.8, what is the specific function and legal purpose of a recorded Notice of Violation? Why might an HOA choose to go through the formal process of recording a notice rather than just sending an unrecorded letter to a homeowner?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
An Arizona Revised Statute that permits a homeowner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Burden of Proof
The responsibility of the party asserting a claim or right to prove their case. In this matter, the burden of proof fell to the Petitioner.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Mountain Rose, which are the governing documents for the homeowners association.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the agency with which Mr. Webster filed his petition.
Notice of Violation (Article 10.8)
A written notice that the Association has the right to record. This article specifies that such a recorded notice must contain five key pieces of information, including the legal description of the lot and the specific steps to cure the violation. Its provisions apply specifically to notices that are formally recorded.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition. In this case, it was Jerry L. Webster, a homeowner and member of the Mountain Rose HOA.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as “the greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that…is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Recording (Article 1.33)
The act of “placing an instrument of public record in the office of County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.” “Recorded” means having been so placed on public record.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, it was the Mountain Rose Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817019-REL
Select all sources
620124.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817019-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, addressing a dispute between Petitioner Jerry L. Webster and the Respondent Mountain Rose Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Webster alleged that the HOA violated Article 10.8 of its CC&Rs by issuing unclear and unwarranted violation notices, specifically regarding the trimming of his tree and cleaning debris, and he sought the refund of recent fines. The HOA contended that the notices were not recorded, making the specific requirements of Article 10.8—which applies to recorded notices—inapplicable to the general violation notices Mr. Webster received. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge found that Mr. Webster failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the notices in question were never officially recorded, leading to the dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition.
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Jerry L. Webster(petitioner)
Pamela Webster(witness)
Respondent Side
Nathan Tennyson(HOA attorney)
Frank Puma(manager) Mountain Rose
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
CC&Rs Section III (d) and (m) CC&Rs Section VI (6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition entirely. The HOA did not violate CC&Rs regarding road maintenance or abuse its discretion in enforcement against Lot 77.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that the Respondent violated its planned community documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Respondent has maintained the roadway Sundance Lane properly
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to properly maintain Sundance Lane. Respondent countered that limited funds necessitated prioritizing roads for full-time residents, but Sundance Lane was accessible.
Whether Respondent has taken appropriate action against the owner of lot 77 in as much as that property allegedly resembles a junk yard
Petitioner alleged Lot 77 violated CC&Rs due to excessive storage and inoperable vehicles. Respondent showed it monitors the property, has written letters, and the owner has previously complied with HOA and County cleanup efforts.
Orders: Complaint regarding enforcement against Lot 77 dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Section VI
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817016-REL Decision – 613995.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:06 (200.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817016-REL
Briefing: Stedronsky v. Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817016-REL, involving Petitioner Thomas J. Stedronsky and Respondent Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA). The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging the POA violated its Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to properly maintain a roadway, Sundance Lane, and by failing to take appropriate action against a neighboring property, Lot 77, which allegedly resembled a junkyard.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Diane Mihalsky, denied the petition in its entirety. The decision found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for both allegations. Regarding road maintenance, the ALJ concluded the POA acted within its reasonable discretion by prioritizing its limited funds ($35,000-$40,000 annually for 20 miles of roads) to maintain roadways used by the community’s approximately 35 full-time residents. Despite the poor condition of the northern section of Sundance Lane, the Petitioner’s lot remained accessible via a passenger car from the south.
Concerning Lot 77, the ALJ determined that the Petitioner did not establish a persistent violation of the CC&Rs. The evidence showed the POA had previously addressed complaints with the lot owner, who had been responsive. Furthermore, the alleged violations were largely located behind the required property buffer zone and were not easily visible from the Petitioner’s property without a telephoto lens. The decision suggests the Petitioner’s long-standing complaints were primarily motivated by his inability to sell his topographically challenging and undeveloped property.
Case Details
Case Information
Details
Case Number
18F-H1817016-REL
Petitioner
Thomas J. Stedronsky (Owner of Lot 76)
Respondent
Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
Presiding Judge
Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
January 10, 2018
Decision Date
January 24, 2018
Final Order
The Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Core Issues
1. Whether the Respondent properly maintained the roadway Sundance Lane. 2. Whether the Respondent took appropriate action against the owner of Lot 77.
Detailed Analysis of Allegations
Allegation 1: Improper Roadway Maintenance of Sundance Lane
The Petitioner alleged that the POA failed to maintain Sundance Lane in accordance with the CC&Rs, particularly the northern section providing access to his Lot 76.
• Photographic Evidence: The Petitioner submitted photographs from September 2017 comparing well-maintained roads like Black Peak Parkway and Copper Hills Road with the poor condition of the northern portion of Sundance Lane near his property. These photos depicted the northern section as a “barely visible road running along the side of a steep hillside that is overgrown with vegetation and has a large number of large boulders.”
• Accessibility Issues: The Petitioner testified that in September 2017, he needed to rent a four-wheel drive truck to access his lot from the northeast via an unnamed road connecting to Sundance Lane.
• Plat Reference: The Petitioner submitted an undated and unsigned preliminary plat that stated “Roadbed 8” Native Gravel Fill Compacted to 95% Maximum Density,” but acknowledged this did not constitute an enforceable requirement for the POA.
• Admission of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that his lot was usually accessible via passenger car from the southern end of Sundance Lane, where it connects with Black Peak Parkway.
• Testimony of Joe Wilson (POA President):
◦ Road Characteristics: Mr. Wilson described Sundance Lane as an “old two-track mining road from the 1940’s or 1950’s that has never been engineered that is too steep to be a perfect road.” He noted the northern part was rough but not impassable with four-wheel drive.
◦ Maintenance Schedule: The POA blades every roadway, including Sundance Lane, at least twice a year. Sundance Lane was bladed in September 2017 and December 2017. More intensive dozer work is sometimes performed on the worst roads.
◦ Prioritization of Resources: The POA board prioritizes maintenance on roads needed by the approximately 35 full-time residents to access their parcels. With an annual budget of only $35,000 to $40,000 to maintain 20 miles of roads, funds are used to better maintain the most traveled roadways.
◦ Financial Constraints: Blading all roads costs $15,000 to $20,000 per year. Paving all 20 miles would cost millions of dollars, requiring a prohibitive assessment of approximately $50,000 per parcel to raise just $1 million.
◦ Access Confirmation: Mr. Wilson testified that the resident of Lot 77 accesses his property from the south on Sundance Lane, and the Petitioner could access his lot from the south at any time. There are no residences that require access from the north side of Sundance Lane.
• Photographic Evidence: The POA submitted photos from December 2017 and January 9, 2018, showing Sundance Lane graded, passable, and cleared of vegetation following maintenance.
• Section III (d): Grants the POA authority to “Grade and maintain the roadways as needed, provide for proper drainage of roadways, install culverts where necessary.”
• Section III (m): Requires the POA to “maintain, care for, and otherwise manage the roadways…in as good condition (deterioration loss by damage due to environmental occurrences which cannot be reasonabl[y] avoided or insured against excepted)[.]”
• Section III (b): Authorizes acts “necessary, in the reasonable discretion of the Members, for the betterment of the Property and for the general benefit and welfare of the owners.”
Allegation 2: Failure to Enforce CC&Rs against Lot 77
The Petitioner alleged the POA failed to take appropriate action against the owner of neighboring Lot 77, Jerry Hamlin, for violations including inoperable vehicles and junk, creating a nuisance.
• Photographic Evidence: The Petitioner submitted photos of Lot 77 taken in September 2017, many with a telephoto lens. These photos showed multiple vehicles (some with hoods up), a backhoe, a trailer, and vehicle parts. Notations on the photos claimed vehicles were inoperable and had been sitting for years, though this was not apparent from the images themselves.
• Potential for Nuisance: The Petitioner testified to his belief that vehicles might be leaking oil and other fluids, potentially polluting the groundwater. He acknowledged he had no direct proof as he was unwilling to trespass.
• History of Complaints: The Petitioner acknowledged filing numerous complaints about Lot 77 with both the POA and Gila County over many years.
• Testimony of Joe Wilson (POA President):
◦ Enforcement Actions Taken: The POA has written letters to Mr. Hamlin in response to complaints, and Mr. Hamlin has removed vehicles and cleaned up the lot in the past.
◦ Owner’s Responsiveness: Mr. Hamlin has previously cooperated with the POA and Gila County. However, he expressed frustration with being “hassled” by the Petitioner’s continuing complaints after taking remedial action.
◦ Gila County Dismissal: A complaint filed by the Gila County Community Development Division against Mr. Hamlin was dismissed on November 6, 2013, after an inspector determined the property was “no longer in violation of Gila County Zoning Ordinances.”
◦ Condition of Vehicles: Mr. Hamlin stated to Mr. Wilson that all vehicles on the property were operable. Mr. Wilson noted that in rural areas, vehicle hoods are often left open to prevent vermin from nesting in the engine.
◦ Strategic Enforcement: The POA prefers not to take a “heavy hand” with Mr. Hamlin, as he is the “sort of man who would dig in his heels,” potentially leading to costly litigation that would deplete funds for road maintenance.
◦ Limited Enforcement Power: The POA’s primary enforcement mechanisms are writing letters and, after three failures to comply, liening the property.
• Photographic Evidence: The POA submitted recent photos showing the area was cleaner (a tire seen in the Petitioner’s photo had been removed) and that, from a distance without a telephoto lens, there were no apparent CC&R violations.
• 6.03 Storage: Allows up to 5% of a parcel for unenclosed storage, provided it is neat, orderly, and maintained at least 100 feet from the nearest property line.
• 6.04 Inoperable Vehicles and Equipment: Prohibits the repair or storage of more than one unregistered, inoperable motor vehicle within property boundaries.
• 6.05 Hazardous Materials and Nuisances: Prohibits storage of hazardous materials in a way that constitutes a fire hazard or nuisance.
Underlying Context: Petitioner’s Motivation and Property Challenges
The hearing evidence strongly suggests the Petitioner’s complaints were linked to his long-term inability to sell his unimproved 15-acre parcel, Lot 76.
• History of Complaints: The Petitioner sent numerous letters to the POA between 2012 and 2017, explicitly stating that the condition of Sundance Lane and the “junk on Lot 77” were preventing him from selling the property. A 2009 letter complained about the amount of the annual assessment due to his fixed income.
• POA’s Perspective: A September 27, 2017, letter from the POA to the Petitioner stated: “You have been complaining to the POA since 2009 about your inability to sell your property. … You sir are the only one blaming the POA and your neighbors for your inability to sell an undesirable property.”
• Property Characteristics: The Petitioner’s Lot 76 is located at the top of a steep, rocky hill. The POA President testified that it would be “difficult to build” on the lot, as it has “no level place on which to construct a building pad” and would require a “significant amount of bulldozer work.”
• Development Plans: While the Petitioner stated he would like to build a house, he had never planned construction dates or performed a percolation test. His proposed building site was located as close as possible to Lot 77’s garage.
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order
The ALJ denied the petition, finding the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Regarding Sundance Lane: The ALJ concluded that the POA did not abuse its discretion. Its decision to prioritize maintenance on roads used by full-time residents was deemed reasonable given its limited financial resources. The fact that Lot 76 remained accessible via passenger car from the southern end of Sundance Lane was a key factor.
• Regarding Lot 77: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that there was more than one inoperable vehicle on Lot 77 or that other violations were more than a “transitory condition.” The decision notes that the POA monitors the lot and that the owner is “generally responsive.” Crucially, the ALJ found that the vehicles and storage on Lot 77 “occur behind the buffer zone and are not easily visible from Petitioner’s Lot 76 without binoculars or a telephoto lens.”
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817016-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817016-REL
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Stedronsky (Petitioner) vs. Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (Respondent). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions presented in the hearing.
Case Summary
The case involves a dispute between a property owner, Thomas J. Stedronsky, and the Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA). Mr. Stedronsky, who owns the unimproved Lot 76, filed a petition alleging the POA violated its Covenants, Easements, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, focused on two primary issues: whether the POA properly maintained a roadway known as Sundance Lane, and whether the POA took appropriate action against the owner of the adjacent Lot 77, which was alleged to resemble a junkyard. The Judge ultimately denied the Petitioner’s petition on both counts.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the two specific issues adjudicated at the January 10, 2018 hearing?
3. Describe the financial situation of the Copper Canyon Ranches POA as detailed in the hearing evidence.
4. What was the Petitioner’s specific complaint regarding the condition of Sundance Lane, and what evidence did he provide?
5. How did the Respondent, through its president Joe Wilson, defend its maintenance practices for Sundance Lane?
6. What were the Petitioner’s allegations against the owner of Lot 77, and what specific CC&R sections were potentially violated?
7. What actions had the Respondent and Gila County previously taken regarding complaints about Lot 77?
8. According to the legal conclusions, what is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did he succeed?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent did not abuse its discretion in its road maintenance practices?
10. On what grounds was the Petitioner’s complaint regarding Lot 77 dismissed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Thomas J. Stedronsky, the “Petitioner,” and the Copper Canyon Ranches POA, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner owned Lot 76 in the development and filed the complaint, while the Respondent was the property owners’ association responsible for maintaining the community and enforcing its rules.
2. The two issues were: 1) Whether the Respondent had properly maintained the roadway known as Sundance Lane, and 2) Whether the Respondent had taken appropriate action against the owner of Lot 77, which the Petitioner alleged resembled a junkyard.
3. The POA receives between $35,000 and $40,000 annually from assessments of $250 per parcel. It costs the POA between $15,000 and $20,000 per year just to blade the 20 miles of roadways twice, with additional costs for culverts, backfill, and drainage ditches.
4. The Petitioner complained that the northern portion of Sundance Lane, which provides one access route to his Lot 76, was barely visible, overgrown, and required a four-wheel drive vehicle. He provided photographs taken in September 2017 showing this condition, contrasting them with photos of better-maintained roads in the development.
5. Joe Wilson testified that Sundance Lane is an old, steep mining road that is difficult to maintain perfectly. He stated that the POA blades every road, including Sundance Lane, at least twice a year and prioritizes maintenance on roads used by full-time residents due to limited funds. He also provided evidence that Lot 76 was always accessible from the southern portion of Sundance Lane.
6. The Petitioner alleged that Lot 77 was used for storage of inoperable vehicles and junk, resembling a junkyard. The relevant CC&Rs included Section 6.02 (Trash Removal), 6.03 (Storage), 6.04 (Inoperable Vehicles and Equipment), and 6.05 (Hazardous Materials and Nuisances).
7. In response to past complaints, the Respondent had written letters to the owner of Lot 77, Mr. Hamlin, who subsequently removed vehicles. Gila County also pursued a code enforcement action against Mr. Hamlin, which was dismissed in November 2013 after the property was determined to no longer be in violation of county ordinances.
8. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden for either of his complaints.
9. The Judge concluded the Respondent did not abuse its discretion because it reasonably prioritized maintaining roads used by full-time residents given its limited financial resources. The decision noted that it would be an “absurdity” to expect perfect maintenance on all 20 miles of dirt roads and that the Petitioner’s lot remained accessible via the southern end of Sundance Lane.
10. The complaint was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish there was more than one inoperable vehicle on Lot 77 or that other issues were more than a transitory condition. The Judge found that the Respondent did monitor the lot, that the owner was generally responsive to requests, and that the items in question were behind the CC&R-required buffer zone and not easily visible from the Petitioner’s property.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Based on the source document, formulate a comprehensive response to the following prompts. Do not provide answers.
1. Analyze the concept of “reasonable discretion” as it applies to the Copper Canyon Ranches POA’s duties under the CC&Rs. How did the POA’s financial limitations and the physical characteristics of the development influence the Judge’s interpretation of this standard?
2. Evaluate the photographic evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the conditions of Sundance Lane and Lot 77. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s visual evidence, including the use of different lenses and the timing of the photographs.
3. Discuss the challenges of enforcing CC&Rs in a large, rural community like Copper Canyon Ranches. Using the dispute over Lot 77 as a case study, explain the enforcement mechanisms available to the POA and the strategic reasons a board might choose not to pursue enforcement with a “heavy hand.”
4. Examine the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Explain how this burden of proof was applied to both of the Petitioner’s claims and detail the specific evidence (or lack thereof) that led the Judge to rule that the Petitioner had not met this standard.
5. Synthesize the evidence presented in the “Petitioner’s Efforts to Sell or Plans to Improve Lot 76” section. What does this evidence suggest about the Petitioner’s underlying motivations for filing the petition against the POA, and how did the Respondent use this history of complaints in its defense?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Context of the Document
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Easements, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Copper Canyon Ranches community, stating they should be construed to protect the value and attractiveness of the property. They outline the POA’s powers and members’ obligations.
Copper Canyon Ranches
A rural development north of Globe, Arizona, consisting of 194 large, multi-acre parcels. It is the planned community governed by the Respondent POA.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for petitions referred to it by other state bodies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition, Thomas J. Stedronsky. He is the owner of Lot 76 and a member of the Respondent association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue rather than the other.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition was filed, the Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA).
Roadways
Defined in the CC&Rs as all roads and rights-of-way that the Association owns or is obligated to maintain within the development.
Use Restrictions
A section (Section VI) of the CC&Rs that outlines rules for property owners regarding trash removal, storage of items, inoperable vehicles, and hazardous materials.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817016-REL
We Read a 14-Page HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.
Introduction: The Dream of a Rural Escape Meets Reality
For many homeowners, a letter from their Homeowners Association (HOA) or Property Owners’ Association (POA) is a source of instant frustration. It often feels like a one-sided relationship governed by arbitrary rules. But what happens when a homeowner decides they’ve had enough and takes their association to court?
The story of Thomas Stedronsky offers a fascinating glimpse into this exact scenario. In 2003, he purchased a 15-acre unimproved lot in a rugged, rural Arizona development called Copper Canyon Ranches, likely dreaming of a quiet escape. Crucially, he never built on the property and does not reside there. Over the years, that dream soured, leading him to sue his Property Owners’ Association over a “barely visible” road and a neighbor’s property that he claimed resembled a “junkyard.” The official court decision reveals several surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner.
——————————————————————————–
1. Your HOA Doesn’t Have to Be Perfect, Just “Reasonable”
One of Mr. Stedronsky’s core complaints was that Sundance Lane, the road leading to his remote lot, was in terrible condition. His photos showed a path that was overgrown, rocky, and barely visible. Meanwhile, he argued, other main roads in the development were wide and well-maintained. His argument was clear: the POA was failing in its duty. But the POA’s defense was grounded in the harsh realities of the terrain. The president testified that Sundance Lane wasn’t just any road; it was an “old two-track mining road from the 1940’s or 1950’s that has never been engineered that is too steep to be a perfect road.”
This historical context was bolstered by financial reality. The POA operated on a limited annual budget of only $35,000 to $40,000, which had to cover the maintenance of 20 miles of roadways. The board president testified that they made a strategic decision to prioritize maintenance on the roads used daily by the community’s approximately 35 full-time residents.
Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the POA. The court found that the association did not abuse its discretion. Prioritizing road maintenance based on usage and a limited budget was deemed a reasonable action. The key takeaway for homeowners is powerful: an HOA isn’t legally obligated to maintain every amenity to the same perfect standard, especially when faced with financial constraints. Their actions only need to be “reasonable.”
2. The “Rural Reality” Can Override Suburban Rules
Mr. Stedronsky’s second major complaint centered on his neighbor’s property, Lot 77, which he alleged was a junkyard filled with inoperable vehicles and clutter, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). To prove his point, he submitted photographic evidence taken with a telephoto lens. However, the credibility of his evidence was undermined when the court noted he had added his own notations to the photos—such as “All vehicles have been sitting for years”—which “were not apparent in the photograph.”
More importantly, the judge’s perspective was heavily influenced by the setting. In its final conclusion, the court officially determined that because Copper Canyon Ranches consists of large parcels in a remote area, “The CC&Rs also contemplate that parcel owners will have vehicles and other stored items on their parcels, as is common in remote rural areas.”
This point was brought to life by the colorful testimony of the POA president, Mr. Wilson. He explained that in rural areas, it’s common practice to leave vehicle hoods open. Why? To prevent mice and rats from nesting inside the engines. What looks like a clear violation in a manicured suburb is often standard, practical procedure in a rural development. This case shows that homeowner expectations—and an HOA’s enforcement standards—must adapt to the local context and culture.
3. Sometimes, an HOA’s Best Move IsNotto Enforce a Rule
Behind every HOA violation notice is a decision-making process, and this case pulls back the curtain on the strategic thinking involved. The POA president testified that they had, in fact, written letters to the owner of Lot 77, Mr. Hamlin, in the past and that he was “generally responsive.” However, they were hesitant to take a “heavy hand” with him, characterizing him as “the sort of man who would dig in his heels.”
The president’s testimony reveals a fascinating look into the pragmatic balancing act an HOA board must perform. He explained the board’s strategic calculation:
If Mr. Hamlin is pushed beyond the point where Lot 77 needs to be in compliance with the zoning code and CC&Rs, he will resist and Respondent will incur litigation costs that will decrease the amount of money available for road maintenance.
This is a crucial lesson in community governance. The board made a calculated decision that avoiding a costly and protracted legal battle with one resident was more beneficial for the community as a whole than strictly enforcing every rule to the letter. It was a choice between pursuing a single violation and preserving the limited funds needed for essential services for everyone.
4. An Unsellable Property Can Fuel a Losing Battle
While the lawsuit focused on roads and junkyards, the court documents reveal a deeper, underlying motivation. Mr. Stedronsky’s complaints were not new; they started as far back as 2009 and were often linked in his letters to his “inability to sell his property.” His frustration was made more tangible by the fact that he had informed the POA in 2013 that the lot was under contract for sale, a deal that apparently fell through.
From the POA’s perspective, the problem wasn’t the road or the neighbor—it was the lot itself. The board president described Lot 76 as “undesirable” because it was steep, rocky, and would require a significant amount of bulldozer work just to create a level place to build.
After years of complaints, the POA president sent a blunt and revealing letter to Mr. Stedronsky that was included as evidence in the case:
“You have been complaining to the POA since 2009 about your inability to sell your property. Many properties have been unable to sell due to Rural Rugged area. You sir are the only one blaming the POA and your neighbors for your inability to sell an undesirable property. The POA has done its due diligence in this matter. Please cease complaints to the POA on this matter.”
While Mr. Stedronsky’s frustration was evident, the judge ultimately found that he failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims. The case was dismissed. This serves as a powerful reminder that feeling wronged, even for years, is not enough to win a legal dispute.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Lesson in Pragmatism
The case of Lot 76 is a powerful story about the gap between homeowner expectations and the messy, pragmatic reality of community governance. It demonstrates that an association’s decisions are often a complex calculation involving limited budgets, local norms, and strategic risk management.
It reminds us that boards are not faceless corporations but groups of neighbors tasked with making difficult choices for the collective good. The next time you disagree with your HOA, will you see them as an adversary, or as a group of neighbors managing limited resources with “reasonable discretion”?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas J Stedronsky(petitioner) Appeared and testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
John S. Perlman(attorney) Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Joe Wilson(board president, witness) Copper Canyon Ranches POA Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the decision
Other Participants
Jerry Hamlin(property owner) Lot 77 Subject of CC&R enforcement action
Helen Hamlin(property owner) Lot 77 Named in Gila County enforcement action related to Lot 77
CC&Rs Section III (d) and (m) CC&Rs Section VI (6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05)
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition entirely. The HOA did not violate CC&Rs regarding road maintenance or abuse its discretion in enforcement against Lot 77.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that the Respondent violated its planned community documents.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Respondent has maintained the roadway Sundance Lane properly
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to properly maintain Sundance Lane. Respondent countered that limited funds necessitated prioritizing roads for full-time residents, but Sundance Lane was accessible.
Whether Respondent has taken appropriate action against the owner of lot 77 in as much as that property allegedly resembles a junk yard
Petitioner alleged Lot 77 violated CC&Rs due to excessive storage and inoperable vehicles. Respondent showed it monitors the property, has written letters, and the owner has previously complied with HOA and County cleanup efforts.
Orders: Complaint regarding enforcement against Lot 77 dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Section VI
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817016-REL Decision – 613995.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:09 (200.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817016-REL
Briefing: Stedronsky v. Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 18F-H1817016-REL, involving Petitioner Thomas J. Stedronsky and Respondent Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA). The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging the POA violated its Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to properly maintain a roadway, Sundance Lane, and by failing to take appropriate action against a neighboring property, Lot 77, which allegedly resembled a junkyard.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Diane Mihalsky, denied the petition in its entirety. The decision found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for both allegations. Regarding road maintenance, the ALJ concluded the POA acted within its reasonable discretion by prioritizing its limited funds ($35,000-$40,000 annually for 20 miles of roads) to maintain roadways used by the community’s approximately 35 full-time residents. Despite the poor condition of the northern section of Sundance Lane, the Petitioner’s lot remained accessible via a passenger car from the south.
Concerning Lot 77, the ALJ determined that the Petitioner did not establish a persistent violation of the CC&Rs. The evidence showed the POA had previously addressed complaints with the lot owner, who had been responsive. Furthermore, the alleged violations were largely located behind the required property buffer zone and were not easily visible from the Petitioner’s property without a telephoto lens. The decision suggests the Petitioner’s long-standing complaints were primarily motivated by his inability to sell his topographically challenging and undeveloped property.
Case Details
Case Information
Details
Case Number
18F-H1817016-REL
Petitioner
Thomas J. Stedronsky (Owner of Lot 76)
Respondent
Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Adjudicating Body
Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
Presiding Judge
Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
January 10, 2018
Decision Date
January 24, 2018
Final Order
The Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Core Issues
1. Whether the Respondent properly maintained the roadway Sundance Lane. 2. Whether the Respondent took appropriate action against the owner of Lot 77.
Detailed Analysis of Allegations
Allegation 1: Improper Roadway Maintenance of Sundance Lane
The Petitioner alleged that the POA failed to maintain Sundance Lane in accordance with the CC&Rs, particularly the northern section providing access to his Lot 76.
• Photographic Evidence: The Petitioner submitted photographs from September 2017 comparing well-maintained roads like Black Peak Parkway and Copper Hills Road with the poor condition of the northern portion of Sundance Lane near his property. These photos depicted the northern section as a “barely visible road running along the side of a steep hillside that is overgrown with vegetation and has a large number of large boulders.”
• Accessibility Issues: The Petitioner testified that in September 2017, he needed to rent a four-wheel drive truck to access his lot from the northeast via an unnamed road connecting to Sundance Lane.
• Plat Reference: The Petitioner submitted an undated and unsigned preliminary plat that stated “Roadbed 8” Native Gravel Fill Compacted to 95% Maximum Density,” but acknowledged this did not constitute an enforceable requirement for the POA.
• Admission of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that his lot was usually accessible via passenger car from the southern end of Sundance Lane, where it connects with Black Peak Parkway.
• Testimony of Joe Wilson (POA President):
◦ Road Characteristics: Mr. Wilson described Sundance Lane as an “old two-track mining road from the 1940’s or 1950’s that has never been engineered that is too steep to be a perfect road.” He noted the northern part was rough but not impassable with four-wheel drive.
◦ Maintenance Schedule: The POA blades every roadway, including Sundance Lane, at least twice a year. Sundance Lane was bladed in September 2017 and December 2017. More intensive dozer work is sometimes performed on the worst roads.
◦ Prioritization of Resources: The POA board prioritizes maintenance on roads needed by the approximately 35 full-time residents to access their parcels. With an annual budget of only $35,000 to $40,000 to maintain 20 miles of roads, funds are used to better maintain the most traveled roadways.
◦ Financial Constraints: Blading all roads costs $15,000 to $20,000 per year. Paving all 20 miles would cost millions of dollars, requiring a prohibitive assessment of approximately $50,000 per parcel to raise just $1 million.
◦ Access Confirmation: Mr. Wilson testified that the resident of Lot 77 accesses his property from the south on Sundance Lane, and the Petitioner could access his lot from the south at any time. There are no residences that require access from the north side of Sundance Lane.
• Photographic Evidence: The POA submitted photos from December 2017 and January 9, 2018, showing Sundance Lane graded, passable, and cleared of vegetation following maintenance.
• Section III (d): Grants the POA authority to “Grade and maintain the roadways as needed, provide for proper drainage of roadways, install culverts where necessary.”
• Section III (m): Requires the POA to “maintain, care for, and otherwise manage the roadways…in as good condition (deterioration loss by damage due to environmental occurrences which cannot be reasonabl[y] avoided or insured against excepted)[.]”
• Section III (b): Authorizes acts “necessary, in the reasonable discretion of the Members, for the betterment of the Property and for the general benefit and welfare of the owners.”
Allegation 2: Failure to Enforce CC&Rs against Lot 77
The Petitioner alleged the POA failed to take appropriate action against the owner of neighboring Lot 77, Jerry Hamlin, for violations including inoperable vehicles and junk, creating a nuisance.
• Photographic Evidence: The Petitioner submitted photos of Lot 77 taken in September 2017, many with a telephoto lens. These photos showed multiple vehicles (some with hoods up), a backhoe, a trailer, and vehicle parts. Notations on the photos claimed vehicles were inoperable and had been sitting for years, though this was not apparent from the images themselves.
• Potential for Nuisance: The Petitioner testified to his belief that vehicles might be leaking oil and other fluids, potentially polluting the groundwater. He acknowledged he had no direct proof as he was unwilling to trespass.
• History of Complaints: The Petitioner acknowledged filing numerous complaints about Lot 77 with both the POA and Gila County over many years.
• Testimony of Joe Wilson (POA President):
◦ Enforcement Actions Taken: The POA has written letters to Mr. Hamlin in response to complaints, and Mr. Hamlin has removed vehicles and cleaned up the lot in the past.
◦ Owner’s Responsiveness: Mr. Hamlin has previously cooperated with the POA and Gila County. However, he expressed frustration with being “hassled” by the Petitioner’s continuing complaints after taking remedial action.
◦ Gila County Dismissal: A complaint filed by the Gila County Community Development Division against Mr. Hamlin was dismissed on November 6, 2013, after an inspector determined the property was “no longer in violation of Gila County Zoning Ordinances.”
◦ Condition of Vehicles: Mr. Hamlin stated to Mr. Wilson that all vehicles on the property were operable. Mr. Wilson noted that in rural areas, vehicle hoods are often left open to prevent vermin from nesting in the engine.
◦ Strategic Enforcement: The POA prefers not to take a “heavy hand” with Mr. Hamlin, as he is the “sort of man who would dig in his heels,” potentially leading to costly litigation that would deplete funds for road maintenance.
◦ Limited Enforcement Power: The POA’s primary enforcement mechanisms are writing letters and, after three failures to comply, liening the property.
• Photographic Evidence: The POA submitted recent photos showing the area was cleaner (a tire seen in the Petitioner’s photo had been removed) and that, from a distance without a telephoto lens, there were no apparent CC&R violations.
• 6.03 Storage: Allows up to 5% of a parcel for unenclosed storage, provided it is neat, orderly, and maintained at least 100 feet from the nearest property line.
• 6.04 Inoperable Vehicles and Equipment: Prohibits the repair or storage of more than one unregistered, inoperable motor vehicle within property boundaries.
• 6.05 Hazardous Materials and Nuisances: Prohibits storage of hazardous materials in a way that constitutes a fire hazard or nuisance.
Underlying Context: Petitioner’s Motivation and Property Challenges
The hearing evidence strongly suggests the Petitioner’s complaints were linked to his long-term inability to sell his unimproved 15-acre parcel, Lot 76.
• History of Complaints: The Petitioner sent numerous letters to the POA between 2012 and 2017, explicitly stating that the condition of Sundance Lane and the “junk on Lot 77” were preventing him from selling the property. A 2009 letter complained about the amount of the annual assessment due to his fixed income.
• POA’s Perspective: A September 27, 2017, letter from the POA to the Petitioner stated: “You have been complaining to the POA since 2009 about your inability to sell your property. … You sir are the only one blaming the POA and your neighbors for your inability to sell an undesirable property.”
• Property Characteristics: The Petitioner’s Lot 76 is located at the top of a steep, rocky hill. The POA President testified that it would be “difficult to build” on the lot, as it has “no level place on which to construct a building pad” and would require a “significant amount of bulldozer work.”
• Development Plans: While the Petitioner stated he would like to build a house, he had never planned construction dates or performed a percolation test. His proposed building site was located as close as possible to Lot 77’s garage.
Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order
The ALJ denied the petition, finding the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Regarding Sundance Lane: The ALJ concluded that the POA did not abuse its discretion. Its decision to prioritize maintenance on roads used by full-time residents was deemed reasonable given its limited financial resources. The fact that Lot 76 remained accessible via passenger car from the southern end of Sundance Lane was a key factor.
• Regarding Lot 77: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that there was more than one inoperable vehicle on Lot 77 or that other violations were more than a “transitory condition.” The decision notes that the POA monitors the lot and that the owner is “generally responsive.” Crucially, the ALJ found that the vehicles and storage on Lot 77 “occur behind the buffer zone and are not easily visible from Petitioner’s Lot 76 without binoculars or a telephoto lens.”
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817016-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817016-REL
This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Stedronsky (Petitioner) vs. Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (Respondent). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, arguments, and legal conclusions presented in the hearing.
Case Summary
The case involves a dispute between a property owner, Thomas J. Stedronsky, and the Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA). Mr. Stedronsky, who owns the unimproved Lot 76, filed a petition alleging the POA violated its Covenants, Easements, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, focused on two primary issues: whether the POA properly maintained a roadway known as Sundance Lane, and whether the POA took appropriate action against the owner of the adjacent Lot 77, which was alleged to resemble a junkyard. The Judge ultimately denied the Petitioner’s petition on both counts.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the two specific issues adjudicated at the January 10, 2018 hearing?
3. Describe the financial situation of the Copper Canyon Ranches POA as detailed in the hearing evidence.
4. What was the Petitioner’s specific complaint regarding the condition of Sundance Lane, and what evidence did he provide?
5. How did the Respondent, through its president Joe Wilson, defend its maintenance practices for Sundance Lane?
6. What were the Petitioner’s allegations against the owner of Lot 77, and what specific CC&R sections were potentially violated?
7. What actions had the Respondent and Gila County previously taken regarding complaints about Lot 77?
8. According to the legal conclusions, what is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did he succeed?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent did not abuse its discretion in its road maintenance practices?
10. On what grounds was the Petitioner’s complaint regarding Lot 77 dismissed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Thomas J. Stedronsky, the “Petitioner,” and the Copper Canyon Ranches POA, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner owned Lot 76 in the development and filed the complaint, while the Respondent was the property owners’ association responsible for maintaining the community and enforcing its rules.
2. The two issues were: 1) Whether the Respondent had properly maintained the roadway known as Sundance Lane, and 2) Whether the Respondent had taken appropriate action against the owner of Lot 77, which the Petitioner alleged resembled a junkyard.
3. The POA receives between $35,000 and $40,000 annually from assessments of $250 per parcel. It costs the POA between $15,000 and $20,000 per year just to blade the 20 miles of roadways twice, with additional costs for culverts, backfill, and drainage ditches.
4. The Petitioner complained that the northern portion of Sundance Lane, which provides one access route to his Lot 76, was barely visible, overgrown, and required a four-wheel drive vehicle. He provided photographs taken in September 2017 showing this condition, contrasting them with photos of better-maintained roads in the development.
5. Joe Wilson testified that Sundance Lane is an old, steep mining road that is difficult to maintain perfectly. He stated that the POA blades every road, including Sundance Lane, at least twice a year and prioritizes maintenance on roads used by full-time residents due to limited funds. He also provided evidence that Lot 76 was always accessible from the southern portion of Sundance Lane.
6. The Petitioner alleged that Lot 77 was used for storage of inoperable vehicles and junk, resembling a junkyard. The relevant CC&Rs included Section 6.02 (Trash Removal), 6.03 (Storage), 6.04 (Inoperable Vehicles and Equipment), and 6.05 (Hazardous Materials and Nuisances).
7. In response to past complaints, the Respondent had written letters to the owner of Lot 77, Mr. Hamlin, who subsequently removed vehicles. Gila County also pursued a code enforcement action against Mr. Hamlin, which was dismissed in November 2013 after the property was determined to no longer be in violation of county ordinances.
8. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires proof that a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden for either of his complaints.
9. The Judge concluded the Respondent did not abuse its discretion because it reasonably prioritized maintaining roads used by full-time residents given its limited financial resources. The decision noted that it would be an “absurdity” to expect perfect maintenance on all 20 miles of dirt roads and that the Petitioner’s lot remained accessible via the southern end of Sundance Lane.
10. The complaint was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish there was more than one inoperable vehicle on Lot 77 or that other issues were more than a transitory condition. The Judge found that the Respondent did monitor the lot, that the owner was generally responsive to requests, and that the items in question were behind the CC&R-required buffer zone and not easily visible from the Petitioner’s property.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Based on the source document, formulate a comprehensive response to the following prompts. Do not provide answers.
1. Analyze the concept of “reasonable discretion” as it applies to the Copper Canyon Ranches POA’s duties under the CC&Rs. How did the POA’s financial limitations and the physical characteristics of the development influence the Judge’s interpretation of this standard?
2. Evaluate the photographic evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the conditions of Sundance Lane and Lot 77. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s visual evidence, including the use of different lenses and the timing of the photographs.
3. Discuss the challenges of enforcing CC&Rs in a large, rural community like Copper Canyon Ranches. Using the dispute over Lot 77 as a case study, explain the enforcement mechanisms available to the POA and the strategic reasons a board might choose not to pursue enforcement with a “heavy hand.”
4. Examine the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” Explain how this burden of proof was applied to both of the Petitioner’s claims and detail the specific evidence (or lack thereof) that led the Judge to rule that the Petitioner had not met this standard.
5. Synthesize the evidence presented in the “Petitioner’s Efforts to Sell or Plans to Improve Lot 76” section. What does this evidence suggest about the Petitioner’s underlying motivations for filing the petition against the POA, and how did the Respondent use this history of complaints in its defense?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition within the Context of the Document
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party (in this case, the Petitioner) to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Easements, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Copper Canyon Ranches community, stating they should be construed to protect the value and attractiveness of the property. They outline the POA’s powers and members’ obligations.
Copper Canyon Ranches
A rural development north of Globe, Arizona, consisting of 194 large, multi-acre parcels. It is the planned community governed by the Respondent POA.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for petitions referred to it by other state bodies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition, Thomas J. Stedronsky. He is the owner of Lot 76 and a member of the Respondent association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue rather than the other.
Respondent
The party against whom the petition was filed, the Copper Canyon Ranches Property Owners’ Association (POA).
Roadways
Defined in the CC&Rs as all roads and rights-of-way that the Association owns or is obligated to maintain within the development.
Use Restrictions
A section (Section VI) of the CC&Rs that outlines rules for property owners regarding trash removal, storage of items, inoperable vehicles, and hazardous materials.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817016-REL
We Read a 14-Page HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.
Introduction: The Dream of a Rural Escape Meets Reality
For many homeowners, a letter from their Homeowners Association (HOA) or Property Owners’ Association (POA) is a source of instant frustration. It often feels like a one-sided relationship governed by arbitrary rules. But what happens when a homeowner decides they’ve had enough and takes their association to court?
The story of Thomas Stedronsky offers a fascinating glimpse into this exact scenario. In 2003, he purchased a 15-acre unimproved lot in a rugged, rural Arizona development called Copper Canyon Ranches, likely dreaming of a quiet escape. Crucially, he never built on the property and does not reside there. Over the years, that dream soured, leading him to sue his Property Owners’ Association over a “barely visible” road and a neighbor’s property that he claimed resembled a “junkyard.” The official court decision reveals several surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner.
——————————————————————————–
1. Your HOA Doesn’t Have to Be Perfect, Just “Reasonable”
One of Mr. Stedronsky’s core complaints was that Sundance Lane, the road leading to his remote lot, was in terrible condition. His photos showed a path that was overgrown, rocky, and barely visible. Meanwhile, he argued, other main roads in the development were wide and well-maintained. His argument was clear: the POA was failing in its duty. But the POA’s defense was grounded in the harsh realities of the terrain. The president testified that Sundance Lane wasn’t just any road; it was an “old two-track mining road from the 1940’s or 1950’s that has never been engineered that is too steep to be a perfect road.”
This historical context was bolstered by financial reality. The POA operated on a limited annual budget of only $35,000 to $40,000, which had to cover the maintenance of 20 miles of roadways. The board president testified that they made a strategic decision to prioritize maintenance on the roads used daily by the community’s approximately 35 full-time residents.
Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the POA. The court found that the association did not abuse its discretion. Prioritizing road maintenance based on usage and a limited budget was deemed a reasonable action. The key takeaway for homeowners is powerful: an HOA isn’t legally obligated to maintain every amenity to the same perfect standard, especially when faced with financial constraints. Their actions only need to be “reasonable.”
2. The “Rural Reality” Can Override Suburban Rules
Mr. Stedronsky’s second major complaint centered on his neighbor’s property, Lot 77, which he alleged was a junkyard filled with inoperable vehicles and clutter, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). To prove his point, he submitted photographic evidence taken with a telephoto lens. However, the credibility of his evidence was undermined when the court noted he had added his own notations to the photos—such as “All vehicles have been sitting for years”—which “were not apparent in the photograph.”
More importantly, the judge’s perspective was heavily influenced by the setting. In its final conclusion, the court officially determined that because Copper Canyon Ranches consists of large parcels in a remote area, “The CC&Rs also contemplate that parcel owners will have vehicles and other stored items on their parcels, as is common in remote rural areas.”
This point was brought to life by the colorful testimony of the POA president, Mr. Wilson. He explained that in rural areas, it’s common practice to leave vehicle hoods open. Why? To prevent mice and rats from nesting inside the engines. What looks like a clear violation in a manicured suburb is often standard, practical procedure in a rural development. This case shows that homeowner expectations—and an HOA’s enforcement standards—must adapt to the local context and culture.
3. Sometimes, an HOA’s Best Move IsNotto Enforce a Rule
Behind every HOA violation notice is a decision-making process, and this case pulls back the curtain on the strategic thinking involved. The POA president testified that they had, in fact, written letters to the owner of Lot 77, Mr. Hamlin, in the past and that he was “generally responsive.” However, they were hesitant to take a “heavy hand” with him, characterizing him as “the sort of man who would dig in his heels.”
The president’s testimony reveals a fascinating look into the pragmatic balancing act an HOA board must perform. He explained the board’s strategic calculation:
If Mr. Hamlin is pushed beyond the point where Lot 77 needs to be in compliance with the zoning code and CC&Rs, he will resist and Respondent will incur litigation costs that will decrease the amount of money available for road maintenance.
This is a crucial lesson in community governance. The board made a calculated decision that avoiding a costly and protracted legal battle with one resident was more beneficial for the community as a whole than strictly enforcing every rule to the letter. It was a choice between pursuing a single violation and preserving the limited funds needed for essential services for everyone.
4. An Unsellable Property Can Fuel a Losing Battle
While the lawsuit focused on roads and junkyards, the court documents reveal a deeper, underlying motivation. Mr. Stedronsky’s complaints were not new; they started as far back as 2009 and were often linked in his letters to his “inability to sell his property.” His frustration was made more tangible by the fact that he had informed the POA in 2013 that the lot was under contract for sale, a deal that apparently fell through.
From the POA’s perspective, the problem wasn’t the road or the neighbor—it was the lot itself. The board president described Lot 76 as “undesirable” because it was steep, rocky, and would require a significant amount of bulldozer work just to create a level place to build.
After years of complaints, the POA president sent a blunt and revealing letter to Mr. Stedronsky that was included as evidence in the case:
“You have been complaining to the POA since 2009 about your inability to sell your property. Many properties have been unable to sell due to Rural Rugged area. You sir are the only one blaming the POA and your neighbors for your inability to sell an undesirable property. The POA has done its due diligence in this matter. Please cease complaints to the POA on this matter.”
While Mr. Stedronsky’s frustration was evident, the judge ultimately found that he failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims. The case was dismissed. This serves as a powerful reminder that feeling wronged, even for years, is not enough to win a legal dispute.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Lesson in Pragmatism
The case of Lot 76 is a powerful story about the gap between homeowner expectations and the messy, pragmatic reality of community governance. It demonstrates that an association’s decisions are often a complex calculation involving limited budgets, local norms, and strategic risk management.
It reminds us that boards are not faceless corporations but groups of neighbors tasked with making difficult choices for the collective good. The next time you disagree with your HOA, will you see them as an adversary, or as a group of neighbors managing limited resources with “reasonable discretion”?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Thomas J Stedronsky(petitioner) Appeared and testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
John S. Perlman(attorney) Copper Canyon Ranches POA
Joe Wilson(board president, witness) Copper Canyon Ranches POA Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the decision
Other Participants
Jerry Hamlin(property owner) Lot 77 Subject of CC&R enforcement action
Helen Hamlin(property owner) Lot 77 Named in Gila County enforcement action related to Lot 77
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy
Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.
Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.
The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.
Case Overview
The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Real Estate Commissioner
Judy Lowe
Hearing Date
August 30, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
September 6, 2017
Final Order Date
September 14, 2017
Core Dispute and Party Positions
Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)
• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.
• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”
• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.
• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”
• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.
Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)
• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.
• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”
• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:
1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.
2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).
3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.
4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.
Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)
• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.
• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:
◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.
◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.
◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”
◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”
◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”
Analysis of Governing Documents
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”
◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”
◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.
• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls
◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”
◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.
• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls
◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”
◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.
• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”
◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:
▪ Free-standing alumawood.
▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.
▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”
◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.
• Key Findings of Law:
1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.
2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.
3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).
• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”
• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
Final Order and Subsequent Actions
• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.
• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:
1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.
4. Newly discovered material evidence.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.
7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.
• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy
Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.
Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.
The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.
Case Overview
The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Real Estate Commissioner
Judy Lowe
Hearing Date
August 30, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
September 6, 2017
Final Order Date
September 14, 2017
Core Dispute and Party Positions
Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)
• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.
• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”
• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.
• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”
• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.
Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)
• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.
• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”
• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:
1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.
2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).
3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.
4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.
Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)
• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.
• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:
◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.
◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.
◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”
◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”
◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”
Analysis of Governing Documents
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”
◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”
◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.
• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls
◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”
◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.
• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls
◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”
◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.
• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”
◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:
▪ Free-standing alumawood.
▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.
▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”
◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.
• Key Findings of Law:
1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.
2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.
3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).
• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”
• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
Final Order and Subsequent Actions
• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.
• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:
1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.
4. Newly discovered material evidence.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.
7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.
• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy
Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.
Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.
The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.
Case Overview
The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Real Estate Commissioner
Judy Lowe
Hearing Date
August 30, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
September 6, 2017
Final Order Date
September 14, 2017
Core Dispute and Party Positions
Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)
• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.
• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”
• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.
• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”
• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.
Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)
• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.
• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”
• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:
1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.
2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).
3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.
4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.
Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)
• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.
• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:
◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.
◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.
◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”
◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”
◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”
Analysis of Governing Documents
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”
◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”
◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.
• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls
◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”
◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.
• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls
◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”
◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.
• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”
◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:
▪ Free-standing alumawood.
▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.
▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”
◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.
• Key Findings of Law:
1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.
2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.
3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).
• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”
• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
Final Order and Subsequent Actions
• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.
• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:
1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.
4. Newly discovered material evidence.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.
7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.
• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.
Study Guide – 17F-H1717037-REL
Study Guide: Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community (Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association. It covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented, the relevant community rules, and the final legal outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific structure that the Petitioner, Richard Long, proposed to build, and what was its intended purpose?
2. On what grounds did the Respondent, Pebble Creek Resort Community, justify its restrictions against the type of wall the Petitioner proposed?
3. What conditional variance did the Respondent offer to the Petitioner on May 1, 2017?
4. What were the primary concerns expressed by the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans, which led them to decline the proposed wall agreement?
5. According to ALC Guideline JJ, what alternative structure could the Petitioner have built for privacy, and what were its key requirements?
6. How do the CC&Rs define a “Party Wall,” and what right does CC&R § 2(P)(i) grant to contiguous property owners regarding such a wall?
7. What rule from the ALC Guidelines prohibits the construction of two parallel walls side-by-side, and why is this rule in place?
8. What is the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the hearing decision?
9. Who held the burden of proof to establish that the homeowners’ association violated its governing documents?
10. What was the final, binding outcome of the case after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was reviewed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner proposed to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall for privacy between his patio and his neighbor’s patio. The wall was to be located a foot or so inside his side of the property line, so his neighbors could not attach to it.
2. The Respondent explained that walls built near, but not on, the property line can lead to problems. This can result in two parallel walls being built, creating an unmaintainable space between them that collects refuse, leaves, insects, nests, and rodents.
3. The Respondent approved a variance on the condition that the wall be built on the property line. Both the Petitioner and his neighbors (the Rohlmans) had to agree in writing that current or future owners could extend the wall, with this agreement being disclosed upon sale of either house.
4. The Rohlmans declined because they believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect their property’s value. They were also concerned about the legal expense and perpetual nature of an easement, and the possibility that future owners could lengthen the wall without consent.
5. ALC Guideline JJ permits a “privacy panel wall,” which is a free-standing alumawood wall. This wall must be 6 feet high, no longer than 16 feet, and located at least 3 feet from the property line. The Petitioner rejected this option, feeling it was “unsightly and flimsy.”
6. CC&R § 1(Hh) defines a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of lots. CC&R § 2(P)(i) states that each owner of a contiguous property has the right to use the Party Wall, provided it does not interfere with the other owner’s use.
7. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states that an existing party wall along a joint property line “precludes any adjacent parallel party wall.” This rule is in place to prevent the negative situation described by the Respondent where a difficult-to-maintain space is created between two walls.
8. A “preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is also described as “the greater weight of the evidence” that is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue over the other.
9. The Petitioner, Richard Long, bore the burden of proof. He had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
10. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, becoming a Final Order. The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case documents to formulate a comprehensive answer supported by specific facts and citations to the community’s governing documents.
1. Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s desire for a specific type of privacy structure and the Respondent’s interpretation of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines. How did the governing documents prioritize community standards and potential future problems over an individual homeowner’s preference?
2. Discuss the role and reasoning of the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans. Evaluate their concerns regarding property value, easements, and future modifications as presented in their email, and explain how their refusal to sign the agreement was a critical factor in the dispute.
3. Explain the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky to reach her decision. Detail which specific sections of the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines were most influential and how she applied them to unequivocally deny the Petitioner’s request.
4. Compare and contrast the two types of structures discussed for ensuring privacy: the block wall proposed by the Petitioner and the “privacy panel wall” permitted by ALC Guideline JJ. What are the key differences in their material, specifications, placement, and the implications of those differences within the community’s rules?
5. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Final Order. Describe the distinct roles and authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC), the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes decisions on disputes. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.
Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC)
The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties, such as walls and fences, based on the community’s guidelines.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community documents.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
The Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The organization that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association was the Respondent.
Party Wall
As defined in CC&R § 1(Hh), “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.” CC&R § 2(P)(i) grants each owner the right to use the Party Wall.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner Richard Long.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this civil case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and “[t]he greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association.
Blog Post – 17F-H1717037-REL
Why Your HOA Can Control a Wall Built Entirely on Your Property
Introduction: The Privacy Paradox
Imagine you want a bit more privacy from your next-door neighbor. The solution seems simple: build a wall. To avoid any disputes, you decide to build it entirely on your land, a good foot inside your property line. It’s your property, your wall, your right. But what if your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) tells you that you can’t? This is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s precisely what happened to homeowner Richard Long when he tried to build a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall.
Mr. Long proposed building the wall just one foot inside his property line, believing this would make it a private structure, free from the shared-property rules that often complicate neighborly relations. The HOA denied his request, sparking a legal dispute. The outcome of this case provides surprising and counter-intuitive lessons that every homeowner in a planned community should understand about property rights, community rules, and the hidden logic that governs them.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Hidden Logic: Preventing the “Rodent Run”
At first glance, the HOA’s rule might seem like arbitrary overreach. Why should they care if a wall is on the property line or one foot away from it? The answer reveals a practical, long-term logic designed to prevent a specific, unpleasant problem: two parallel walls built side-by-side.
The HOA’s governing documents were written to avoid a scenario where a small, unmaintainable gap is created between two separate walls on adjacent properties. If Mr. Long built his wall a foot inside his line, and his neighbor later decided to do the same, a narrow dead space would be created between the homes. In its official written answer, the HOA vividly described the issue this creates:
This is not a good situation in that there often isn’t room between the walls to properly maintain either wall, and the area in between the two walls becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.
This reveals a core principle of planned community management: rules are often designed not to restrict current owners, but to mitigate future risks and liabilities for the entire community. This preventative governance aims to protect the community from future blight, sanitation issues, and pest infestations.
——————————————————————————–
2. The “Immediately Adjacent” Rule: Your Property Isn’t an Island
The homeowner’s central argument was that by building the wall a foot inside his property, it was his private wall, not a shared “party wall” subject to joint rules. It was a clever attempt to circumvent the regulations, but it failed because of the precise wording in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Here, the dispute hinged on two seemingly innocuous words. The community’s CC&Rs define a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed “on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary.” The Administrative Law Judge interpreted a wall built only a foot away as falling under the definition of “immediately adjacent.” This single phrase effectively negated the homeowner’s entire strategy.
The judge’s determination that the wall qualified as “immediately adjacent” was critical. By legally defining it as a Party Wall, another rule from the CC&Rs automatically kicked in: the adjoining neighbor’s explicit right to use it. This completely undermined the homeowner’s central goal of creating a purely private structure.
As if that weren’t definitive enough, another, even more explicit rule served as the final nail in the coffin. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.” This rule directly forbids the exact “rodent run” scenario, showing that the governing documents had multiple, overlapping prohibitions against his plan.
——————————————————————————–
3. The Neighbor’s Veto: It’s a Three-Party Problem
In an attempt to find a middle ground, the HOA offered a potential compromise. They would approve the wall, but only if it were built directly on the property line and if both Mr. Long and his neighbors, the Rohlmans, signed a formal “Party Wall/Fence Agreement.” This solution, however, revealed another layer of complexity. The neighbors refused to sign.
The Rohlmans explained their reasoning in an email, highlighting concerns that went beyond simple aesthetics. They worried about the financial and legal implications of a shared wall on the property line.
[We] declined to have a wall built on the property line between our homes because it affects the current and future value of our property – and yours. Furthermore, each of us would have to grant the other an easement in perpetuity, which is a legal document… Upon the sale of our home, we would have to inform the purchaser of the easement, which lowers the value of the property.
This demonstrates a common blind spot for homeowners: disputes are rarely bilateral. The rights and financial interests of adjacent property owners create a complex, multi-party dynamic. More often than not, an HOA dispute is a three-party negotiation, and a neighbor’s consent—or lack thereof—can be the deciding factor.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Rules You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
The final outcome was decisive. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the HOA’s decision, and the homeowner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the community’s governing documents “unequivocally prohibit” the proposed wall. However, this was not a total denial of privacy. Mr. Long did have an approved option: a free-standing “alumawood” privacy panel, provided it was located three feet from the property line. He rejected this alternative because he felt it was “unsightly and flimsy.”
This case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts. The conflict was ultimately not between a homeowner’s right to privacy and the HOA, but between the homeowner’s specific aesthetic preference and the community’s established architectural standards. What you can do on your own land is deeply intertwined with the collective rules you agreed to when you purchased your home.
Before your next home improvement project, does your plan align not just with your vision, but also with the shared vision encoded in your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Richard Long(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Petitioner's wife(interested party) Required, along with Petitioner, to agree in writing to the wall conditions for variance approval (Unit 39 Lot 12)
Respondent Side
Jack Sarsam(executive/witness) Robson Communities Senior Vice President for Robson Communities, overseeing Respondent's operations; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner who adopted the ALJ decision in the Final Order
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Contact for rehearing requests; listed as HOA Coordinator
Other Participants
The Rohlmans(neighbor/interested party) Adjacent neighbors (Unit 39 lot 11) whose refusal to sign the party wall agreement was central to the dispute
The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof demonstrating the HOA violated community documents by refusing the requested block wall. The wall was prohibited by CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines because it was planned for just inside the property line and excluded the adjacent owner from use, potentially leading to prohibited parallel walls.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusal to approve construction of a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy
Petitioner sought approval for a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall for privacy, built a foot or so inside his property line, designed to prevent adjacent neighbors (the Rohlmans) from using it. Respondent denied the wall based on community documents restricting such constructions to avoid parallel walls and requiring party walls to be on or immediately adjacent to the property line, granting contiguous owners the right to use them.
Briefing: Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL, Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and final decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long (“Petitioner”) and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association (“Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block privacy wall approximately one foot inside his property line, which the Respondent’s Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) denied.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent’s governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and ALC Guidelines—unequivocally prohibit the proposed wall. The ALJ concluded that a wall built so close to a property line is defined as a “Party Wall,” which must be constructed “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary and be usable by both property owners. The Petitioner’s proposal violated these foundational rules by being set back from the property line with the explicit intent of preventing neighbor access and use.
The Respondent had offered a conditional variance for a wall to be built directly on the property line, but this required a mutual “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” with the adjacent neighbor, who refused to sign, citing concerns over property value and the legal complexity of a perpetual easement. The final ruling affirmed the Respondent’s authority to enforce its governing documents as written.
Case Overview
The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition filed by the Petitioner with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA had violated its own governing documents by refusing to approve his proposed wall.
Case Detail
Information
Case Name
Richard Long, Petitioner, v. Pebble Creek Resort Community, Respondent
Case Number
No. 17F-H1717037-REL / HO 17-17/037
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Richard Long (Appeared on his own behalf)
Respondent
Pebble Creek Resort Community (Represented by Jack Sarsam, SVP for Robson Communities)
Administrative Law Judge
Diane Mihalsky
Real Estate Commissioner
Judy Lowe
Hearing Date
August 30, 2017
ALJ Decision Date
September 6, 2017
Final Order Date
September 14, 2017
Core Dispute and Party Positions
Petitioner’s Proposal and Argument (Richard Long)
• Project: A 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall intended to provide privacy between his patio and the patio of his adjacent neighbors, the Rohlmans.
• Proposed Location: “A foot or so inside his side of the property line.”
• Stated Intent: To construct a wall to which his neighbors could not attach or otherwise use. The Petitioner testified that if the Rohlmans later wanted their own wall (e.g., for a pool or pet), they could build a separate, parallel wall on their property.
• Rejection of Alternatives: The Petitioner acknowledged that the ALC would approve a “privacy panel wall” made of alumawood or lattice, but he rejected this option, deeming it “unsightly and flimsy.”
• Core Claim: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit the construction of his proposed block wall at its intended location inside his property line.
Respondent’s Position and Actions (Pebble Creek HOA)
• Initial Action: The ALC denied the Petitioner’s request.
• Rationale for Denial: The Respondent explained that walls near lot lines can become problematic, particularly if they result in “two parallel walls.” This situation can create a narrow, inaccessible space between the walls that is difficult to maintain and “becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.”
• Conditional Variance: On May 1, 2017, the Respondent offered to approve a variance with several key conditions:
1. The wall must be constructed directly on the property line.
2. Both the Petitioner and the Rohlmans must sign a written “Party Wall/Fence Agreement” (Form ALC 48).
3. This agreement must grant current and future owners permission to “extend/complete the wall” and must be disclosed upon the sale of either home.
4. The signed agreement would be kept in the ALC files for both properties.
Neighbor’s Position (The Rohlmans)
• The Rohlmans declined to sign the Party Wall/Fence Agreement proposed by the Respondent.
• In an email submitted as evidence, they outlined their reasons for refusal:
◦ Property Value: They believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect the “current and future value” of both properties.
◦ Legal Complexity: The agreement would require granting a perpetual easement, which they identified as a legal document entailing legal expenses.
◦ Disclosure upon Sale: The easement would have to be disclosed to future buyers, which they argued “lowers the value of the property.”
◦ Future Construction: A wall on the property line could be extended by either party or future owners “without the agreement of the other party.”
◦ They concluded that “All of these requirements are onerous.”
Analysis of Governing Documents
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of four key sections of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
• CC&R § 1(Hh) – Definition of “Party Walls”
◦ This section defines a party wall as: “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.”
◦ The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s proposal for a wall “a foot or so inside” the property line did not meet this definition.
• CC&R § 2(P)(i) – Use of Party Walls
◦ This rule states: “Each Owner shall have the right to use the Party Wall, provided that such use does not interfere with the other Owner’s use and enjoyment thereof.”
◦ This directly contradicted the Petitioner’s goal of building a wall that his neighbors would be prohibited from using.
• ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) – Parallel Walls
◦ This guideline explicitly states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.”
◦ The Petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged the possibility of his neighbor building a parallel wall in the future, a scenario the guidelines are designed to prevent.
• ALC Guideline JJ – “Privacy Panel Wall”
◦ This section details the pre-approved alternative for privacy screening. Such a wall must be:
▪ Free-standing alumawood.
▪ Six feet in height and no more than sixteen feet in length.
▪ Located “at least three (3) feet from the property line.”
◦ This demonstrates a clear distinction in the rules between a shared “Party Wall” near the boundary and a private “Privacy Panel” set significantly back from it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ, Diane Mihalsky, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated its governing documents.
• Key Findings of Law:
1. A block wall built “a foot inside the property line” does not conform to CC&R § 1(Hh), which requires a party wall to be “on or immediately adjacent to” the boundary.
2. The Petitioner’s intent to deny his neighbor the use of the wall violates CC&R § 2(P)(i), which grants both owners rights to use a party wall.
3. The Petitioner’s proposal creates the potential for prohibited parallel walls, violating ALC Guideline SS(4)(a).
• Conclusion: The ALJ stated that the community’s documents “unequivocally prohibit Respondent from building a 6’ high, 10’ long block wall a foot from his property line that the Rohlmans are not permitted to use.”
• Recommended Order: On September 6, 2017, the ALJ issued a recommended order that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.
Final Order and Subsequent Actions
• Adoption of Decision: On September 14, 2017, Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
• Effect of Order: The denial of the petition became final, binding, and effective immediately.
• Conditions for Rehearing: The Final Order stipulated that a rehearing could be granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04, but only for one of the following reasons:
1. Irregularity in proceedings or abuse of discretion by the ALJ.
2. Misconduct by the Department, ALJ, or prevailing party.
3. Accident or surprise that could not have been prevented.
4. Newly discovered material evidence.
5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.
6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence.
7. The decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
8. The findings of fact are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law.
• Judicial Review: The order is subject to judicial review through the filing of a complaint pursuant to state law.
Study Guide – 17F-H1717037-REL
Study Guide: Long v. Pebble Creek Resort Community (Case No. 17F-H1717037-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision concerning a dispute between homeowner Richard Long and the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association. It covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented, the relevant community rules, and the final legal outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific structure that the Petitioner, Richard Long, proposed to build, and what was its intended purpose?
2. On what grounds did the Respondent, Pebble Creek Resort Community, justify its restrictions against the type of wall the Petitioner proposed?
3. What conditional variance did the Respondent offer to the Petitioner on May 1, 2017?
4. What were the primary concerns expressed by the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans, which led them to decline the proposed wall agreement?
5. According to ALC Guideline JJ, what alternative structure could the Petitioner have built for privacy, and what were its key requirements?
6. How do the CC&Rs define a “Party Wall,” and what right does CC&R § 2(P)(i) grant to contiguous property owners regarding such a wall?
7. What rule from the ALC Guidelines prohibits the construction of two parallel walls side-by-side, and why is this rule in place?
8. What is the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the hearing decision?
9. Who held the burden of proof to establish that the homeowners’ association violated its governing documents?
10. What was the final, binding outcome of the case after the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was reviewed?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner proposed to build a 10-foot long, 6-foot high block wall for privacy between his patio and his neighbor’s patio. The wall was to be located a foot or so inside his side of the property line, so his neighbors could not attach to it.
2. The Respondent explained that walls built near, but not on, the property line can lead to problems. This can result in two parallel walls being built, creating an unmaintainable space between them that collects refuse, leaves, insects, nests, and rodents.
3. The Respondent approved a variance on the condition that the wall be built on the property line. Both the Petitioner and his neighbors (the Rohlmans) had to agree in writing that current or future owners could extend the wall, with this agreement being disclosed upon sale of either house.
4. The Rohlmans declined because they believed a wall on the property line would negatively affect their property’s value. They were also concerned about the legal expense and perpetual nature of an easement, and the possibility that future owners could lengthen the wall without consent.
5. ALC Guideline JJ permits a “privacy panel wall,” which is a free-standing alumawood wall. This wall must be 6 feet high, no longer than 16 feet, and located at least 3 feet from the property line. The Petitioner rejected this option, feeling it was “unsightly and flimsy.”
6. CC&R § 1(Hh) defines a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of lots. CC&R § 2(P)(i) states that each owner of a contiguous property has the right to use the Party Wall, provided it does not interfere with the other owner’s use.
7. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states that an existing party wall along a joint property line “precludes any adjacent parallel party wall.” This rule is in place to prevent the negative situation described by the Respondent where a difficult-to-maintain space is created between two walls.
8. A “preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is also described as “the greater weight of the evidence” that is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side of an issue over the other.
9. The Petitioner, Richard Long, bore the burden of proof. He had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines.
10. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition, and this decision was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, becoming a Final Order. The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a longer, essay-style response. Use the case documents to formulate a comprehensive answer supported by specific facts and citations to the community’s governing documents.
1. Analyze the conflict between the Petitioner’s desire for a specific type of privacy structure and the Respondent’s interpretation of the community’s CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines. How did the governing documents prioritize community standards and potential future problems over an individual homeowner’s preference?
2. Discuss the role and reasoning of the Petitioner’s neighbors, the Rohlmans. Evaluate their concerns regarding property value, easements, and future modifications as presented in their email, and explain how their refusal to sign the agreement was a critical factor in the dispute.
3. Explain the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky to reach her decision. Detail which specific sections of the CC&Rs and ALC Guidelines were most influential and how she applied them to unequivocally deny the Petitioner’s request.
4. Compare and contrast the two types of structures discussed for ensuring privacy: the block wall proposed by the Petitioner and the “privacy panel wall” permitted by ALC Guideline JJ. What are the key differences in their material, specifications, placement, and the implications of those differences within the community’s rules?
5. Trace the procedural path of this dispute, from the initial petition to the Final Order. Describe the distinct roles and authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC), the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Commissioner.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes decisions on disputes. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.
Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC)
The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties, such as walls and fences, based on the community’s guidelines.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community documents.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the guidelines for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
The Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The organization that creates and enforces rules for the properties within its jurisdiction. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association was the Respondent.
Party Wall
As defined in CC&R § 1(Hh), “a wall constructed on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary of Lots, Parcels, Common Areas or other areas in PebbleCreek Golf Resort.” CC&R § 2(P)(i) grants each owner the right to use the Party Wall.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the homeowner Richard Long.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this civil case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and “[t]he greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Pebble Creek Resort Community homeowners’ association.
Blog Post – 17F-H1717037-REL
Why Your HOA Can Control a Wall Built Entirely on Your Property
Introduction: The Privacy Paradox
Imagine you want a bit more privacy from your next-door neighbor. The solution seems simple: build a wall. To avoid any disputes, you decide to build it entirely on your land, a good foot inside your property line. It’s your property, your wall, your right. But what if your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) tells you that you can’t? This is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s precisely what happened to homeowner Richard Long when he tried to build a 10’ long, 6’ high block wall.
Mr. Long proposed building the wall just one foot inside his property line, believing this would make it a private structure, free from the shared-property rules that often complicate neighborly relations. The HOA denied his request, sparking a legal dispute. The outcome of this case provides surprising and counter-intuitive lessons that every homeowner in a planned community should understand about property rights, community rules, and the hidden logic that governs them.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Hidden Logic: Preventing the “Rodent Run”
At first glance, the HOA’s rule might seem like arbitrary overreach. Why should they care if a wall is on the property line or one foot away from it? The answer reveals a practical, long-term logic designed to prevent a specific, unpleasant problem: two parallel walls built side-by-side.
The HOA’s governing documents were written to avoid a scenario where a small, unmaintainable gap is created between two separate walls on adjacent properties. If Mr. Long built his wall a foot inside his line, and his neighbor later decided to do the same, a narrow dead space would be created between the homes. In its official written answer, the HOA vividly described the issue this creates:
This is not a good situation in that there often isn’t room between the walls to properly maintain either wall, and the area in between the two walls becomes filled with refuse, leaves, insects, nests and rodents.
This reveals a core principle of planned community management: rules are often designed not to restrict current owners, but to mitigate future risks and liabilities for the entire community. This preventative governance aims to protect the community from future blight, sanitation issues, and pest infestations.
——————————————————————————–
2. The “Immediately Adjacent” Rule: Your Property Isn’t an Island
The homeowner’s central argument was that by building the wall a foot inside his property, it was his private wall, not a shared “party wall” subject to joint rules. It was a clever attempt to circumvent the regulations, but it failed because of the precise wording in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Here, the dispute hinged on two seemingly innocuous words. The community’s CC&Rs define a “Party Wall” as a wall constructed “on or immediately adjacent to the common boundary.” The Administrative Law Judge interpreted a wall built only a foot away as falling under the definition of “immediately adjacent.” This single phrase effectively negated the homeowner’s entire strategy.
The judge’s determination that the wall qualified as “immediately adjacent” was critical. By legally defining it as a Party Wall, another rule from the CC&Rs automatically kicked in: the adjoining neighbor’s explicit right to use it. This completely undermined the homeowner’s central goal of creating a purely private structure.
As if that weren’t definitive enough, another, even more explicit rule served as the final nail in the coffin. ALC Guideline SS(4)(a) states: “An existing party wall along a joint property line precludes any adjacent parallel party wall, i.e. Two walls cannot be built side by side.” This rule directly forbids the exact “rodent run” scenario, showing that the governing documents had multiple, overlapping prohibitions against his plan.
——————————————————————————–
3. The Neighbor’s Veto: It’s a Three-Party Problem
In an attempt to find a middle ground, the HOA offered a potential compromise. They would approve the wall, but only if it were built directly on the property line and if both Mr. Long and his neighbors, the Rohlmans, signed a formal “Party Wall/Fence Agreement.” This solution, however, revealed another layer of complexity. The neighbors refused to sign.
The Rohlmans explained their reasoning in an email, highlighting concerns that went beyond simple aesthetics. They worried about the financial and legal implications of a shared wall on the property line.
[We] declined to have a wall built on the property line between our homes because it affects the current and future value of our property – and yours. Furthermore, each of us would have to grant the other an easement in perpetuity, which is a legal document… Upon the sale of our home, we would have to inform the purchaser of the easement, which lowers the value of the property.
This demonstrates a common blind spot for homeowners: disputes are rarely bilateral. The rights and financial interests of adjacent property owners create a complex, multi-party dynamic. More often than not, an HOA dispute is a three-party negotiation, and a neighbor’s consent—or lack thereof—can be the deciding factor.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Rules You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
The final outcome was decisive. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the HOA’s decision, and the homeowner’s petition was denied. The judge concluded that the community’s governing documents “unequivocally prohibit” the proposed wall. However, this was not a total denial of privacy. Mr. Long did have an approved option: a free-standing “alumawood” privacy panel, provided it was located three feet from the property line. He rejected this alternative because he felt it was “unsightly and flimsy.”
This case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s governing documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts. The conflict was ultimately not between a homeowner’s right to privacy and the HOA, but between the homeowner’s specific aesthetic preference and the community’s established architectural standards. What you can do on your own land is deeply intertwined with the collective rules you agreed to when you purchased your home.
Before your next home improvement project, does your plan align not just with your vision, but also with the shared vision encoded in your community’s rules?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Richard Long(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Petitioner's wife(interested party) Required, along with Petitioner, to agree in writing to the wall conditions for variance approval (Unit 39 Lot 12)
Respondent Side
Jack Sarsam(executive/witness) Robson Communities Senior Vice President for Robson Communities, overseeing Respondent's operations; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner who adopted the ALJ decision in the Final Order
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Contact for rehearing requests; listed as HOA Coordinator
Other Participants
The Rohlmans(neighbor/interested party) Adjacent neighbors (Unit 39 lot 11) whose refusal to sign the party wall agreement was central to the dispute
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely provide access to association records
The Respondent failed to fulfill the Petitioner's February 6, 2017, records request within 10 business days. The Respondent argued that disclosure was prohibited under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) due to pending criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The ALJ determined that the exception applies only to pending litigation between the association and the member, not a criminal case in which the association was not a party.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days and pay the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, access to records, pending litigation exception, HOA records, planned community
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 575932.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:52 (79.9 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 578529.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:53 (726.4 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 586360.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:53 (95.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717032-REL
Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative case of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., focusing on a homeowner association’s (HOA) obligation to provide records to a member under Arizona law. The core issue was the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption within A.R.S. § 33-1805, which allows an association to withhold certain records.
Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) denied a records request from its member, William M. Brown, citing a pending criminal case against him. However, Terravita was not a party to this criminal litigation. Mr. Brown contended this denial violated state law, arguing the exemption only applies when the association itself is a party to the litigation. Terravita argued for a broader interpretation, claiming the statute did not require the association to be a party.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of Mr. Brown. The judge concluded that Terravita’s interpretation would lead to an “absurd result,” effectively allowing any HOA to deny records related to any litigation anywhere. The judge established that the sensible and plain meaning of the statute is that the exemption for “pending litigation” applies only to legal disputes between the association and the member.
The Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision in a Final Order. Terravita was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, ordered to produce the requested records, and mandated to reimburse Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee.
Case Timeline and Factual Background
The dispute followed a clear sequence of events, beginning with the records request and culminating in a final administrative order.
February 6, 2017
William M. Brown, a member of Terravita, formally requests records from the association.
February 14, 2017
Terravita sends an email to Mr. Brown denying the request. The denial cites a “pending criminal litigation” against him and invokes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) as justification.
Post-Feb. 6, 2017
Terravita fails to fulfill the records request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.
April 13, 2017
The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives a Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond.
May 2, 2017
Terravita files its response, formally asserting as an affirmative defense that it was not required to disclose the records due to the pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.
May 3, 2017
The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, setting the matter for June 26, 2017, before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 26, 2017
The administrative hearing is conducted. Both parties present their arguments.
July 14, 2017
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issues a decision finding in favor of the Petitioner, Mr. Brown.
July 24, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
Core Dispute: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central conflict was the proper application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. Subsection (A) mandates that records be made available for examination within 10 business days. Subsection (B) provides exemptions, including for records related to “pending litigation.”
Petitioner’s Position (William M. Brown)
Mr. Brown’s argument was straightforward and focused on a narrow interpretation of the statutory exemption.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within the legally mandated 10 business days.
• Limited Scope of Exemption: He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only to litigation in which the association itself is a party.
• Factual Basis: Since Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought against him by the City of Scottsdale, the exemption was inapplicable.
• Legislative Intent: Mr. Brown noted that the statute had been amended to remove the phrase “contemplated litigation,” suggesting the legislature intended to narrow, not broaden, the scope of the exemption.
Respondent’s Position (Terravita Country Club, Inc.)
Terravita argued for a broader interpretation of the statute, asserting that its non-party status was irrelevant.
• “Plain Meaning” of the Statute: Terravita’s position was that the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) does not explicitly require the association to be a party to the pending litigation.
• Relevance of the Litigation: The association argued the criminal case was germane because it was “based upon an allegation that Mr. Brown threated Terravita’s board members and property.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision provided a comprehensive legal analysis, ultimately rejecting Terravita’s interpretation of the law and finding that Mr. Brown had established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Statutory Interpretation and the “Absurd Result” Doctrine
The decision hinged on the principle that legislation must be given a “sensible construction that avoids absurd results.” The judge analyzed the consequences of Terravita’s interpretation:
“Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.”
Based on this reasoning, the judge rejected Terravita’s argument and established a clear standard for applying the exemption.
The Correct Interpretation of the Law
The ALJ articulated the “plain meaning” of the statute, establishing a critical precedent for its application:
“The plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) is that while homeowners’ associations must provide access to financial and other documents to its members within 10 business days, an association may withhold documents that relate to pending litigation between the association and the member.”
Final Conclusion
The judge applied this correct interpretation to the undisputed facts of the case:
1. At the time of Mr. Brown’s request, he was facing criminal charges initiated by the City of Scottsdale.
2. Terravita was not a party to that criminal case.
3. Therefore, the exemption did not apply, and Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill the records request within 10 business days.
Final Order and Mandates
The decision issued by the ALJ on July 14, 2017, became the basis for the Final Order issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017. The Commissioner accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision, making its mandates binding and effective immediately.
The key directives of the order were:
• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was formally deemed the prevailing party.
• Compliance: Terravita was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days of the order.
• Reimbursement of Fees: Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 directly within 30 days of the order.
• No Civil Penalty: The judge found that a civil penalty was not appropriate in the matter.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute within 10 days and refund the $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was found appropriate.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to timely provide access to association records
The Respondent failed to fulfill the Petitioner's February 6, 2017, records request within 10 business days. The Respondent argued that disclosure was prohibited under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) due to pending criminal litigation against the Petitioner. The ALJ determined that the exception applies only to pending litigation between the association and the member, not a criminal case in which the association was not a party.
Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days and pay the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: records request, access to records, pending litigation exception, HOA records, planned community
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 575932.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:05 (79.9 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 578529.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:05 (726.4 KB)
17F-H1717032-REL Decision – 586360.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:06 (95.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717032-REL
Briefing Document: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative case of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., focusing on a homeowner association’s (HOA) obligation to provide records to a member under Arizona law. The core issue was the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption within A.R.S. § 33-1805, which allows an association to withhold certain records.
Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) denied a records request from its member, William M. Brown, citing a pending criminal case against him. However, Terravita was not a party to this criminal litigation. Mr. Brown contended this denial violated state law, arguing the exemption only applies when the association itself is a party to the litigation. Terravita argued for a broader interpretation, claiming the statute did not require the association to be a party.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of Mr. Brown. The judge concluded that Terravita’s interpretation would lead to an “absurd result,” effectively allowing any HOA to deny records related to any litigation anywhere. The judge established that the sensible and plain meaning of the statute is that the exemption for “pending litigation” applies only to legal disputes between the association and the member.
The Arizona Department of Real Estate adopted the ALJ’s decision in a Final Order. Terravita was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, ordered to produce the requested records, and mandated to reimburse Mr. Brown’s $500 filing fee.
Case Timeline and Factual Background
The dispute followed a clear sequence of events, beginning with the records request and culminating in a final administrative order.
February 6, 2017
William M. Brown, a member of Terravita, formally requests records from the association.
February 14, 2017
Terravita sends an email to Mr. Brown denying the request. The denial cites a “pending criminal litigation” against him and invokes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) as justification.
Post-Feb. 6, 2017
Terravita fails to fulfill the records request within the statutory 10-business-day deadline.
April 13, 2017
The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives a Petition for Hearing from Mr. Brown, alleging Terravita’s failure to timely respond.
May 2, 2017
Terravita files its response, formally asserting as an affirmative defense that it was not required to disclose the records due to the pending criminal litigation against Mr. Brown.
May 3, 2017
The Department issues a Notice of Hearing, setting the matter for June 26, 2017, before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 26, 2017
The administrative hearing is conducted. Both parties present their arguments.
July 14, 2017
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issues a decision finding in favor of the Petitioner, Mr. Brown.
July 24, 2017
Judy Lowe, Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, issues a Final Order adopting the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.
Core Dispute: Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
The central conflict was the proper application of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which governs a member’s right to access association records. Subsection (A) mandates that records be made available for examination within 10 business days. Subsection (B) provides exemptions, including for records related to “pending litigation.”
Petitioner’s Position (William M. Brown)
Mr. Brown’s argument was straightforward and focused on a narrow interpretation of the statutory exemption.
• Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A): Terravita failed to fulfill his February 6, 2017 records request within the legally mandated 10 business days.
• Limited Scope of Exemption: He contended that the exemption for “pending litigation” under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) applies only to litigation in which the association itself is a party.
• Factual Basis: Since Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought against him by the City of Scottsdale, the exemption was inapplicable.
• Legislative Intent: Mr. Brown noted that the statute had been amended to remove the phrase “contemplated litigation,” suggesting the legislature intended to narrow, not broaden, the scope of the exemption.
Respondent’s Position (Terravita Country Club, Inc.)
Terravita argued for a broader interpretation of the statute, asserting that its non-party status was irrelevant.
• “Plain Meaning” of the Statute: Terravita’s position was that the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) does not explicitly require the association to be a party to the pending litigation.
• Relevance of the Litigation: The association argued the criminal case was germane because it was “based upon an allegation that Mr. Brown threated Terravita’s board members and property.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision provided a comprehensive legal analysis, ultimately rejecting Terravita’s interpretation of the law and finding that Mr. Brown had established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Statutory Interpretation and the “Absurd Result” Doctrine
The decision hinged on the principle that legislation must be given a “sensible construction that avoids absurd results.” The judge analyzed the consequences of Terravita’s interpretation:
“Terravita’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) would allow the association to deny records request of documents that relate to pending litigation between any parties. Such an interpretation would lead to the absurd result of denying records requests of all documents that relate to pending litigation anywhere, between any two parties.”
Based on this reasoning, the judge rejected Terravita’s argument and established a clear standard for applying the exemption.
The Correct Interpretation of the Law
The ALJ articulated the “plain meaning” of the statute, establishing a critical precedent for its application:
“The plain meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2) is that while homeowners’ associations must provide access to financial and other documents to its members within 10 business days, an association may withhold documents that relate to pending litigation between the association and the member.”
Final Conclusion
The judge applied this correct interpretation to the undisputed facts of the case:
1. At the time of Mr. Brown’s request, he was facing criminal charges initiated by the City of Scottsdale.
2. Terravita was not a party to that criminal case.
3. Therefore, the exemption did not apply, and Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill the records request within 10 business days.
Final Order and Mandates
The decision issued by the ALJ on July 14, 2017, became the basis for the Final Order issued by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 24, 2017. The Commissioner accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision, making its mandates binding and effective immediately.
The key directives of the order were:
• Prevailing Party: Petitioner William M. Brown was formally deemed the prevailing party.
• Compliance: Terravita was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding the records request within 10 days of the order.
• Reimbursement of Fees: Terravita was ordered to pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 directly within 30 days of the order.
• No Civil Penalty: The judge found that a civil penalty was not appropriate in the matter.
