Joshua M Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

Posted on December 15, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121044-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-12-15
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joshua M. Waldvogel	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3); CC&Rs Article VI, Section 6.5

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, upon rehearing, affirmed the denial of the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA timely denied the Petitioner's architectural application. The timeline for a decision did not start until October 6, 2020, when the application was considered complete, making the November 19, 2020, denial valid.

Why this result: Petitioner lost because the interpretation of the CC&Rs stipulated that the 60-day timeline starts only upon receipt of a complete application, which the ALJ determined was October 6, 2020.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether the architectural application for a casita was deemed approved due to the HOA missing the 60-day denial deadline.

Petitioner claimed his architectural application, submitted September 15, 2020, was deemed approved because the Denial Notice (November 19, 2020) occurred after the 60-day deadline (November 14, 2020). The ALJ determined that the 60-day period did not begin until the Application was complete with supporting information (October 6, 2020), making the deadline December 5, 2020, and the denial timely.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association
Powell v. Washburn
A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Review, Deemed Approval, HOA Timeline Compliance, CC&R Interpretation, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – 933158.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:31 (106.1 KB)

21F-H2121044-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121044-REL/900658.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:34 (103.7 KB)

Briefing on Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel (Petitioner) and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was the Petitioner’s application to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property, which was denied by the association’s Architectural Committee (ARC).

The central legal question was procedural: the timing of the association’s denial. The Petitioner argued that the 60-day review period stipulated in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) began when he submitted his initial application on September 15, 2020. By this calculation, the association’s November 19, 2020 denial was late, and his application should have been “deemed approved.”

The Respondent countered that the 60-day clock only began after the Petitioner provided a response to a request for additional information on October 6, 2020, making the application complete on that date. This would make the November 19 denial timely.

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over both an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. In both instances, the Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding that the application was not complete until the requested information was provided. The denial was therefore timely and valid. The Petitioner failed to prove that the association violated its governing documents, and his petition was denied in both the initial decision and the final, binding decision on rehearing.

Case Background

• Case Numbers: 21F-H2121044-REL & 21F-H2121044-REL-RHG

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

• Petitioner: Joshua M. Waldvogel, owner of Lot 228 at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

• Respondent: Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association (Sycamore Estates), a homeowners association in Surprise, Arizona.

• Core Issue: Petitioner sought approval from the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee (ARC) to build a casita on his property. The ARC denied the application. The dispute centers on whether the denial was issued within the 60-day timeframe mandated by the community’s CC&Rs.

Chronology of Key Events

September 15, 2020

Petitioner submits an architectural application to build a casita.

October 5, 2020

Sycamore Estates requests additional information, specifically the required permits for the construction.

October 6, 2020

Petitioner emails a response, stating his architect verified compliance with city “laws” but does not provide permits.

November 13, 2020

The ARC reviews the application and decides to deny it based on CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.2.

November 14, 2020

The date the Petitioner asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

November 19, 2020

Sycamore Estates issues the official Denial Notice to the Petitioner.

December 5, 2020

The date the Respondent asserts the 60-day deadline for a decision expired.

July 12, 2021

Initial administrative hearing is held.

August 2, 2021

Initial decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

November 29, 2021

A rehearing is held at the Petitioner’s request.

December 15, 2021

Final decision on rehearing is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Central Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Joshua M. Waldvogel)

• The 60-day timeline for the ARC to approve or deny the application began on the initial submission date of September 15, 2020.

• The deadline for the ARC’s decision was therefore November 14, 2020.

• The association’s request for additional information on October 5, 2020, did not “reset” or pause this timeline.

• Because the Denial Notice was not issued until November 19, 2020, five days after the deadline, the application should be considered “deemed approved” as per the CC&Rs.

• During the rehearing, the Petitioner also argued that Sycamore Estates could only require information listed on the standard submission form.

Respondent’s Position (Sycamore Estates)

• The application was not considered complete until the Petitioner responded to the request for additional information.

• The response, received on October 6, 2020, marked the start of the 60-day review period.

• The deadline for a decision was therefore December 5, 2020.

• The Denial Notice, issued on November 19, 2020, was well within this timeframe and was therefore valid.

Governing Documents and Legal Principles

The case revolved around the interpretation of the Sycamore Estates CC&Rs, which function as a binding contract between the homeowner and the association.

Key CC&R Provisions

• Article VI, Section 6.5 (Application for Approval): This section contains the critical language that formed the basis of the Judge’s decision. It states that the 60-day review period begins:

• Article V, Section 5.2 (Building Type and Size): This section provided the substantive basis for the ARC’s denial of the casita, as it specifies:

Legal Standard

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, as the party asserting the claim, had the burden of proof.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Contract Interpretation: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants (like the CC&Rs) are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Rulings and Judicial Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge consistently sided with the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

Initial Hearing and Decision (August 2, 2021)

• Finding: The Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the Petitioner provided his response on October 6, 2020.

• Rationale: Based on the language in Article VI, Section 6.5, the 60-day clock does not start until the application and all supporting information have been submitted. The association’s request for permits was a reasonable part of gathering this supporting information.

• Conclusion: The November 19, 2020 Denial Notice was issued prior to the December 5, 2020 deadline and was therefore valid. The Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

Rehearing and Final Decision (December 15, 2021)

• Basis for Rehearing: The Petitioner requested a rehearing, alleging the initial decision was an “abuse of discretion.” His written basis was:

• Rehearing Arguments: During the rehearing, the Petitioner acknowledged that the Findings of Fact in the initial decision were not in error and presented the same legal arguments as before.

• Final Ruling: The Judge’s conclusion remained unchanged. Upon consideration of all evidence from the rehearing, the Judge again found that the application was not complete until October 6, 2020, and the denial was timely.

• Final Order: The Judge concluded that the “Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent failed to comply with its CC&Rs” and again ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition is denied.” This order was designated as binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.

Study Guide: Waldvogel v. Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. The materials are derived from the Administrative Law Judge Decisions issued on August 2, 2021, and December 15, 2021.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what specific project was the petitioner seeking approval for?

2. What was the central procedural dispute regarding the timeline for the respondent’s decision on the application?

3. According to the community’s CC&Rs, what is the consequence if the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an application within the specified timeframe?

4. On what substantive grounds did the Sycamore Estates Architectural Committee ultimately base its decision to deny Mr. Waldvogel’s application?

5. What key date did the petitioner, Mr. Waldvogel, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was his reasoning?

6. What key date did the respondent, Sycamore Estates, argue was the start of the 60-day review period, and what was its reasoning?

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion in the initial hearing decision issued on August 2, 2021?

8. On what basis did the petitioner request a rehearing after the initial decision was rendered against him?

9. During the rehearing, did the petitioner introduce new evidence or arguments, or did he challenge the established Findings of Fact?

10. What legal standard of proof was required in this administrative hearing, and which party held the burden of proof?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Joshua M. Waldvogel, the record owner of Lot 228. The respondent was the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association. Mr. Waldvogel was seeking approval for a plan to build a second house, or casita, on his property.

2. The central dispute was determining when the 60-day timeline for the Architectural Committee’s decision officially began. The petitioner argued it started upon the initial application submission, while the respondent contended it began only after a request for additional information was answered, thereby making the application “complete.”

3. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs states that if the committee fails to act within sixty days after a complete application and all supporting information have been submitted, “approval will not be required and this Section will be deemed to have been complied with by the Owner.”

4. The committee denied the application based on Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. This section explicitly prohibits the construction of more than “one detached Single Family Residence” on any lot.

5. The petitioner argued the 60-day review period began on September 15, 2020, the date he submitted his initial architectural application. This would have set the deadline at November 14, 2020, making the November 19 Denial Notice late and rendering the application “deemed approved.”

6. The respondent argued the 60-day period began on October 6, 2020, the date the petitioner responded to their request for additional information (permits). Sycamore Estates maintained the application was not complete until that response was received, which would set the deadline at December 5, 2020.

7. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the application was not complete until the petitioner provided a response to the October 5 request for information. Therefore, the Denial Notice issued on November 19, 2020, was timely and valid, and the petitioner’s petition was denied.

8. The petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” His written statement argued that the CC&Rs do not explicitly state that the review timeline restarts upon a request for more information.

9. No, the petitioner did not introduce new arguments. He presented the same arguments during the rehearing as he had in the initial hearing and acknowledged that the Findings of Fact from the first decision did not contain any errors, choosing only to argue their legal effect.

10. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The petitioner, as the party asserting a claim, had the burden of proof to establish that the respondent violated the governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive essay responses that synthesize facts and legal principles from the source documents.

1. Analyze the significance of Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs, specifically the clause “together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it.” How did the interpretation of this specific language become the central legal issue of the case, and why was it determinative of the outcome?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decisions. Explain which party had the burden of proof and evaluate how the Administrative Law Judge applied this standard to the undisputed facts of the case to reach her conclusions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

3. The petitioner’s proposed casita was ultimately denied on the substantive grounds that it violated Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs. Why did the legal proceedings focus almost entirely on the procedural issue of the decision timeline rather than the substantive prohibition of a second residence on the lot?

4. Examine the petitioner’s basis for requesting a rehearing and the Commissioner’s decision to grant it. Despite the rehearing being granted, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision remained unchanged. Discuss the effectiveness of the petitioner’s arguments during the rehearing process as described in the legal documents.

5. The legal decisions state that CC&Rs are a contract between the parties and that unambiguous restrictive covenants must be enforced to give effect to the parties’ intent. Based on the details provided in this case, explain how the principles of contract law were applied to resolve the dispute between Mr. Waldvogel and the Sycamore Estates association.

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues legally binding decisions. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.

Application

The comprehensive and detailed written request submitted by a homeowner to the Architectural Committee for approval of construction, alteration, or other improvements that would alter the exterior appearance of the property.

Architectural Committee (ARC)

The committee within the Sycamore Estates Community Association responsible for reviewing and approving or denying modifications to lots to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence to prove their claims. In this matter, the petitioner had the burden of proof.

Casita

A small, secondary house or guesthouse. This was the type of structure Mr. Waldvogel sought to build on his property.

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

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. The courts treat it as a contract between the homeowners’ association and the property owners.

Denial Notice

The official written communication from the homeowners’ association (Sycamore Estates) informing a homeowner (Mr. Waldvogel) that their architectural application has been formally denied.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, homeowner Joshua M. Waldvogel.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Property

The specific lot owned by the petitioner, identified as Lot 228 of Sycamore Estates, located at 11208 North 164th Lane, Surprise, Arizona 85388.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the claims. In this case, the Sycamore Estate Parcel 13 Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision within the CC&Rs that limits the use of property. Article V, Section 5.2, which prohibits more than one detached residence per lot, is an example of a restrictive covenant.

He Tried to Use a 60-Day Deadline to Beat His HOA. Here’s What the Judge Decided.

Introduction: The Waiting Game

You’ve done the research, hired the architect, and finally submitted your home improvement plans to the Homeowners Association (HOA). Now, the waiting game begins. The days tick by, and you start wondering: What happens if they miss their own deadline to respond? Can you just start building?

A recent administrative law case in Arizona provides a fascinating and cautionary answer to this very question. It serves as a stark reminder that your community’s governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—are a legally binding contract, and assumptions about deadlines can lead to a losing battle.

——————————————————————————–

The Core of the Dispute: A Casita and a Calendar

The case involved Joshua M. Waldvogel, a homeowner in the Sycamore Estates community in Surprise, Arizona. His goal was to build a second house, or “casita,” on his property.

The conflict centered on a simple timeline. Waldvogel submitted his application on September 15, 2020. He argued the HOA had 60 days to respond, making the deadline November 14. When the HOA sent its denial on November 19, Waldvogel claimed that because the denial was late, his project was automatically “deemed approved.” This dispute over a five-day difference escalated to an administrative law hearing. Here are the key takeaways from the judge’s decision that every homeowner should understand.

1. The 60-Day Clock Doesn’t Start Until Your Application is “Complete”

The homeowner believed the 60-day review clock started the moment he sent his initial application. The judge, however, disagreed based on the precise wording in the HOA’s CC&Rs—the binding contract governing the community.

The power was in the fine print. Article VI, Section 6.5 of the CC&Rs stated:

In the event that the Architectural Committee fails to approve or disapprove an Application for approval within sixty (60) days after the Application, together with all supporting information, plans and specifications required by the Design Guidelines have been submitted to it, approval will not be required…

This single clause was the linchpin of the entire case. On October 5, the HOA requested additional information—specifically, the appropriate permits for the proposed construction. The next day, the homeowner responded, but according to the case findings, he “did not provide any permits as requested.” Instead, he emailed to confirm that his architect had verified the plans complied with city “laws.”

The judge ruled that the 60-day clock never started on September 15 because the application wasn’t yet “complete.” The HOA’s simple request for more information was the pivotal event. It established that the official start date for the review period was October 6, the day the homeowner provided his response. This made the November 19 denial well within the required timeframe. The crucial lesson here is that an HOA’s request for information can determine the official start date of their review, regardless of when you first submitted paperwork.

2. The Underlying Rules Are Your Biggest Hurdle

The entire legal battle focused on the procedural timeline—when the HOA denied the project. But in a twist of irony, the substance of the project—what was being proposed—was a non-starter from the beginning.

Even if the homeowner had won his argument about the deadline, his project was in direct violation of another core rule. Article V, Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs clearly stated:

No building shall be constructed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached Single Family Residence…

The homeowner fought and lost a battle over how he was denied, when the rules clearly stated his casita project was never going to be approved in the first place. This highlights a critical point: winning a procedural argument is meaningless if your project fundamentally violates the community’s substantive rules.

3. You Can Appeal, But It’s an Uphill Battle

After losing the initial hearing, the homeowner filed for a rehearing, claiming the judge’s decision was an “abuse of discretion.” The appeal, however, only solidified the original outcome and underscored the difficulty of such challenges.

The legal record from the rehearing is particularly telling. The judge noted two critical facts: first, the petitioner “acknowledged that the Findings of Fact set forth in the underlying decision in this matter did not include any errors.” Second, he “presented the same arguments during the rehearing that he provided during the initial hearing.”

In essence, the homeowner appealed without disputing the established facts and by using the same legal argument that had already failed. Unsurprisingly, the judge’s decision remained the same, and the petition was denied again. This serves as a potent reminder that challenging an HOA’s interpretation of its own governing documents can be a difficult, expensive, and often fruitless endeavor.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read the Fine Print Before You Dream

This case serves as a powerful lesson for every homeowner living under an HOA. Your community’s CC&Rs are a binding contract, and the specific language within them holds immense power. Assumptions about procedures, deadlines, and what you’re allowed to build can be costly mistakes.

It all boils down to one final, critical question: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and what crucial detail might be waiting in the fine print?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joshua M. Waldvogel (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
Represented Respondent
Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed during initial decision transmission
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressed during rehearing decision transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for case transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for case transmission
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for case transmission
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Email recipient for case transmission

Richard E Jewell v. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.

Posted on October 25, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221005-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-10-25
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard E Jewell	Counsel	—
Respondent	Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.	Counsel	Nicole Payne and Carlotta L. Turman

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on the alleged violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Board Member Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute regarding conflict of interest when the board hired the board president as a paid office assistant and the conflict was not disclosed by the president. The ALJ found that while the president did not disclose the conflict, the conflict was made known by another attendee prior to discussion and action, fulfilling the statutory purpose.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Conflict of interest, Statutory interpretation, Board voting

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:33 (89.3 KB)

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:53 (89.3 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Richard E Jewell, Petitioner, vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp., Respondent* (No. 22F-H2221005-REL), heard on October 7, 2021.

Concise Legal Summary

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioner Richard E. Jewell, a homeowner and member of the Respondent, Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp. (an Arizona homeowners association or HOA), alleged that the HOA board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1811. The central issue was whether the Board of Directors improperly handled a conflict of interest when voting to hire the sitting Board President, George Pavia, as a salaried office assistant.

The Board voted on July 15, 2021, to employ Mr. Pavia for 40 hours a week at a wage of $15.00 per hour. Petitioner asserted that his only issue was that the Board President failed to personally disclose the conflict of interest prior to the action being taken.

Key Legal Points and Arguments

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1811, stipulates that if a contract or action for compensation benefits a board member, that member "shall declare a conflict of interest" in an open meeting before discussion or action. A contract entered in violation of this section is void and unenforceable.

During the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge reviewed evidence, including a recording of the July meeting. The evidence showed:

At the outset of the virtual meeting, Mr. Pavia indicated he would recuse himself from the discussion.
An individual attending the meeting raised the possibility of a conflict of interest.
The conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.
Mr. Pavia refrained from participating in the vote.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure HOA members are aware of conflicts prior to discussion. Interpreting the statute to achieve a "fair and sensible result", the Judge determined that the conflict was, in fact, made known and discussed prior to action. The statute's requirement was satisfied, as the fact that Mr. Pavia was not the individual who disclosed the conflict did not negate that the conflict was discussed at length and known to those voting.

Outcome

At the conclusion of the Petitioner’s presentation of evidence, Respondent moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The motion was granted.

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent acted in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

contract validity
statutory interpretation
enforcement

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title: Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date: 2021-10-25
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA board member also be a paid employee of the association?

Short Answer

Yes, provided the conflict of interest is properly declared.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

conflict of interest
board compensation
hiring

Question

Does a conflicted board member have to personally announce their own conflict of interest?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, as long as the members are made aware of the conflict.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

conflict of interest
procedural requirements
meetings

Question

Can a board member vote on a contract that benefits them financially?

Short Answer

Yes, after declaring the conflict.

Detailed Answer

State law allows a board member to vote on an issue benefiting them, provided they have declared the conflict in an open meeting before discussion or action is taken.

Alj Quote

The member shall declare the conflict in an open meeting of the board before the board discusses or takes action on that issue and that member may then vote on that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

voting rights
conflict of interest
board powers

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) is responsible for proving their claim. They must show that their version of events is more likely true than not (the greater weight of the evidence).

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

legal standards
burden of proof
administrative hearing

Question

Which specific law covers conflict of interest for HOAs (Planned Communities) versus Condominiums?

Short Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 for HOAs; A.R.S. § 33-1243 for Condominiums.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

statutes
jurisdiction
legal definitions

Question

Is a contract void if the technical requirements of declaring a conflict weren't perfectly followed?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the conflict was known and discussed.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Case Law (Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission)

Topic Tags

contract validity
statutory interpretation
enforcement

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title: Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date: 2021-10-25
Alj Name: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard E Jewell (petitioner)
Jewell Company Inc.

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (respondent attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
Carlotta L. Turman (respondent attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
George Pavia (HOA board president/employee)
Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Subject of conflict of interest allegation

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission

Marc D Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on September 3, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919063-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-09-03
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA) and dismissed the petition. The HOA's rejection of the flat roof design was found to be reasonable and consistent with the architectural rules requiring pitched roofs to predominate and designs to be harmonious with surrounding structures.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc D. Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nichols C. Hogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA) and dismissed the petition. The HOA's rejection of the flat roof design was found to be reasonable and consistent with the architectural rules requiring pitched roofs to predominate and designs to be harmonious with surrounding structures.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute; the evidence showed the HOA's decision was based on valid architectural rules.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Petitioner sought approval for a garage addition with a flat roof. The Board denied final approval because the design was not harmonious with surrounding structures (pitched roofs) and did not meet the exception for hidden flat roofs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)
A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919063-REL Decision – 733775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:20:41 (86.0 KB)

19F-H1919063-REL Decision – 733775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:16:55 (86.0 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document provides a detailed briefing on the administrative hearing between Petitioner Marc D. Archer and Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1919063-REL). The dispute centered on the Petitioner's proposal to construct a garage addition with a flat roof, which the Association Board declined to approve in its final form.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association unreasonably withheld approval in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1817(3), arguing that the design was harmonious and that the Association’s enforcement of rules was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Association maintained that its governing documents—specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Architectural Rules—prioritize pitched roofs and visual harmony with surrounding structures.

On September 3, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson ruled in favor of the PMPE Community Association, dismissing the petition. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted unreasonably or violated statutory requirements.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Harmony and Structural Consistency

The primary conflict arose from the discrepancy between the Petitioner's proposed design and the existing aesthetic of the community. While the Petitioner’s residence already featured a pitched roof on the existing garage, his plan for the addition utilized a flat roof.

Respondent’s Position: The Association argued that pitched roofs are a fundamental component of the community's visual environment and must predominate.
Petitioner’s Position: Archer argued the flat roof was harmonious because it mirrored a pitched roof/flat patio combination on the opposite side of his home.
Legal Finding: The judge found that the Association’s insistence on a pitched roof was reasonable, as the proposed flat roof was inconsistent with the existing structures, including Archer's own pitched garage roof.

2. The "Visible From Neighboring Property" Standard

A critical point of contention was whether the proposed addition violated visibility standards set forth in CC&R 1.34.

The 9-Foot Threshold: The adjoining wall was 9 feet tall. The Petitioner’s proposed flat roof would exceed this height.
The Visibility Rule: Under CC&R 1.34, an object is "visible from neighboring property" if it can be seen by a person six feet tall standing at ground level on an adjoining lot or common area. However, objects in a backyard that do not exceed the height of the enclosing wall are exempt from this definition.
Association's Compromise: The Board indicated it would allow a flat roof only if its height remained below the adjacent wall to ensure it was not visible from neighboring properties.

3. Allegations of Arbitrary Enforcement

The Petitioner attempted to demonstrate that the Association enforced CC&Rs inconsistently. He cited instances where other homeowners allegedly:

Kept a kitchen countertop in a front yard for nearly a year.
Constructed patio additions that were purportedly not harmonious with surrounding structures.
Kept a cart on their property longer than allowed.

The Association denied these claims, asserting consistent enforcement. Ultimately, the court found the Petitioner's evidence insufficient to prove that the Association’s specific decision regarding his garage was discriminatory or arbitrary.

4. Statutory and Contractual Compliance

The decision reinforced the legal standing of CC&Rs as contracts.

A.R.S. § 33-1817(3): This statute prohibits associations from "unreasonably" withholding approval of architectural plans.
Contractual Obligation: Citing Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, the ruling noted that CC&Rs are contracts and all parties are required to comply with their terms.
Burden of Proof: The Petitioner held the burden of proof to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." The court defined this as the "greater weight of the evidence" or "evidence that has the most convincing force."

Important Quotes and Context

Quote	Context
"“Visible From Neighboring Property” means… that such object is or would be visible to a person six feet tall, standing at ground level on any part of the adjoining Lot or Common Area."	CC&R 1.34 Definition: Establishes the objective physical standard used to determine if a structure infringes on the community's visual environment.
"Since roofscapes will form an important part of the visual environment, they must be carefully designed. It is intended that pitched roofs predominate."	PMPE Architectural Rules Section 4.4: The specific guideline the Board used to justify requiring a pitched roof instead of a flat one.
"The Board… may promulgate architectural design, with particular regard to the harmony of the design with the surrounding structures and topography."	CC&R Article 5.10: Grants the Board the legal authority to judge the "harmony" of a project, which was central to their rejection of Archer's plans.
"Mr. Archer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that PMPE violated A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)."	Conclusion of Law: The final determination that the Petitioner's arguments regarding unreasonable withholding of approval were legally insufficient.

Actionable Insights for Stakeholders

For Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)

Maintain Clear Definitions: The use of specific measurements (e.g., the "six-foot tall person" standard in CC&R 1.34) provides a defensible, objective basis for architectural decisions.
Document "Harmony": When rejecting a plan based on "harmony with surrounding structures," associations should point to specific existing architectural features (like pitched roofs) that the proposal contradicts.
Offer Conditional Approvals: The Board’s willingness to allow the flat roof if it remained below the wall height demonstrated a reasonable attempt at compromise, which likely supported their "reasonable" standing in court.

For Homeowners

Align with Predominant Features: If governing documents state that a certain style (like pitched roofs) must "predominate," proposing a different style for a large addition carries a high risk of rejection.
Understand the Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings regarding A.R.S. § 33-1817(3), the homeowner must provide "convincing force" that the Board's decision was unreasonable. Simply pointing to other minor violations in the neighborhood (like a countertop in a yard) may not be enough to prove discriminatory enforcement regarding structural additions.
Review Visibility Restrictions: Before designing additions, homeowners should measure existing perimeter walls, as these often serve as the height limit for structures to remain exempt from "Visible From Neighboring Property" restrictions.

Archer v. PMPE Community Association: Administrative Law Case Study

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Marc D. Archer and the PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 19F-H1919063-REL). It covers the legal standards, architectural regulations, and the specific findings of fact that led to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim regarding homeowners' association (HOA) architectural approvals.

Key Concepts and Legal Principles

1. Architectural Standards and Harmony

Under the PMPE CC&Rs and Architectural Rules, specific design principles govern modifications to residences.

Predominance of Pitched Roofs: According to Architectural Rule 4.4, pitched roofs are intended to predominate because roofscapes form a vital part of the visual environment.
Design Harmony: Article 5.10 grants the Board or Architectural Committee the authority to evaluate designs based on their harmony with surrounding structures and topography.
Flat Roof Requirements: While flat roofs are permitted in some instances (such as patio areas), they must have parapets. In this case, the Board allowed a flat roof only if it remained below the height of the adjacent wall to ensure it was not visible from neighboring properties.

2. "Visible From Neighboring Property"

CC&R 1.34 establishes a specific objective standard for determining visibility:

The Six-Foot Standard: An object is considered visible if it can be seen by a person six feet tall standing at ground level on any part of an adjoining lot or common area.
The Wall Exception: Objects in a backyard enclosed by a wall are not deemed "visible" if they do not exceed the height of that wall. In this case, the wall height was established at 9 feet.

3. Legal Standards of Proof and Authority

Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) has authority over these matters pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.
Statutory Restriction (A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)): An association is legally prohibited from "unreasonably" withholding approval of architectural plans.
Preponderance of the Evidence: This is the standard of proof required at the hearing. It is defined as the "greater weight of the evidence" or evidence that possesses the most "convincing force," inclining an impartial mind toward one side of the issue.
Contractual Nature of CC&Rs: In Arizona, CC&Rs are viewed as a contract between the parties. If the terms are clear and unambiguous, they must be enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the specific height of the adjoining wall in the Archer residence dispute?

The adjoining wall was 9 feet high.

2. According to CC&R 1.34, how is a person's height and position defined when determining if an object is "Visible From Neighboring Property"?

The person is defined as being six feet tall and standing at ground level on any part of the adjoining Lot or Common Area.

3. What was the Board’s primary reason for refusing final approval of Mr. Archer’s garage addition?

The Board learned that the addition would have a flat roof enclosed on all sides with a height exceeding the 9-foot adjoining wall, making it visible from neighboring properties.

4. What does A.R.S. § 33-1817(3) stipulate regarding an HOA’s power over construction plans?

It stipulates that an association shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a construction project’s architectural plans.

5. How does PMPE Architectural Rule 4.4 describe the preferred style for roofs?

It states that roofscapes are an important part of the visual environment and that it is intended for pitched roofs to predominate.

6. On what grounds did Mr. Archer argue that the Board's enforcement of the CC&Rs was "arbitrary and discriminatory"?

He contended that the Board allowed other homeowners to have non-harmonious patio additions, a kitchen countertop in a front yard for nearly a year, and a cart for longer than allowed.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Balance of Reasonableness in HOA Governance

A.R.S. § 33-1817(3) prohibits an HOA from "unreasonably" withholding approval. Analyze the Board's decision in Archer v. PMPE through the lens of this statute. Consider whether the Board's willingness to allow a flat roof only if it remained below the wall height constitutes a reasonable compromise or an arbitrary restriction, given the neighborhood's preference for pitched roofs.

2. Consistency and Selective Enforcement

Mr. Archer alleged that the HOA practiced arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by highlighting violations by other residents (e.g., the kitchen countertop and carts). Discuss the legal challenge of proving selective enforcement in an administrative hearing. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find these arguments insufficient to prove that the Board violated the law in Mr. Archer's specific case?

3. Contractual Interpretation of CC&Rs

Arizona law treats CC&Rs as contracts. Explore the implications of this classification. If a CC&R clearly defines a term like "Visible From Neighboring Property," to what extent does the Board have discretion to deviate from that definition? Discuss how the "unambiguous" nature of the PMPE CC&Rs influenced the Judge's final decision.

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)	The Arizona Revised Statute that prevents HOAs from unreasonably withholding architectural plan approvals.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	The presiding official (in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson) who hears evidence and issues a decision in administrative disputes.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal governing documents that dictate the rules and residents' obligations within a community.
Harmony of Design	A criteria used by the Board to ensure that new construction matches the existing aesthetics and topography of surrounding structures.
Parapet	A low protective wall along the edge of a roof; required for all flat roof patio areas under PMPE Architectural Rules.
Pitched Roof	A sloping roof; the architectural style that the PMPE rules state should "predominate" in the community.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The legal standard of proof requiring that a claim is more likely to be true than not (the "greater weight" of evidence).
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, PMPE Community Association, Inc.
Visible From Neighboring Property	An object visible to a six-foot person at ground level on an adjoining lot; objects below the height of a backyard wall are exempt.

Roof Wars: Lessons in HOA Architectural Compliance and Community Standards

1. Introduction: The Conflict Under the Eaves

For homeowners, the boundary between personal property rights and community governance is often defined by the roofline. While a property owner may view a garage addition as a functional necessity, a Homeowners Association (HOA) views that same structure through the lens of aesthetic uniformity and "harmony of design." This tension is the focal point of Marc D. Archer vs. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 19F-H1919063-REL), a case that highlights the legal complexities of architectural compliance.

The core dispute involved a homeowner’s attempt to construct a flat-roof garage addition in a community where pitched roofs are the mandated standard. This case provides a critical look at how administrative courts evaluate "reasonableness" and the high evidentiary bar homeowners must clear when alleging arbitrary enforcement by a Board.

2. The Project and the Initial Denial

Upon review of the Findings of Fact, the dispute began in September 2017 when the Petitioner, Mr. Archer, submitted plans for a garage addition to the Respondent, the PMPE Board. While the Board initially issued a preliminary approval, they withheld final authorization after a detailed review revealed that the proposed structure deviated from the community's architectural standards.

The proposed addition included the following specifications:

Roof Style: A flat roof design, enclosed on all sides.
Height: A structure reaching a height that would exceed the 9-foot adjoining wall.
Visual Relationship: The new flat roof would be physically attached to the Petitioner’s existing garage, which featured an arched/pitched roof.

Critically, the Board did not issue a blanket denial. In an attempt at compromise, the Board notified the Petitioner that the flat roof would be acceptable if—and only if—the height remained below the adjacent wall. This would have utilized the visibility exception in the CC&Rs. However, the Petitioner insisted on a height exceeding the wall, leading to the final denial and subsequent legal challenge.

3. Defining "Visible From Neighboring Property"

The legal pivot point of this case rests on the definition of visibility. If a structure is "visible," it is subject to the full weight of the HOA’s architectural guidelines.

Terms to Know: "Visible From Neighboring Property" Under PMPE CC&R 1.34, an object is "Visible From Neighboring Property" if it can be seen by a six-foot-tall person standing at ground level on any portion of an adjoining lot or common area. The Exception: An object located in a backyard enclosed by a wall is not deemed visible if it does not exceed the height of the wall enclosing that backyard. This "wall height" standard is a safe harbor for homeowners, but once a structure rises above that line, it falls under Board jurisdiction for aesthetic harmony.

4. The Homeowner's Challenge: Claims of Arbitrary Enforcement

The Petitioner challenged the denial under A.R.S. § 33-1817(3), asserting that the Board was unreasonably withholding approval. He presented three primary arguments to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):

Harmony of Design: The Petitioner argued the flat roof was harmonious because it mirrored the opposite side of his home, which featured a pitched roof adjacent to a flat-top patio.
Inconsistent Enforcement: He alleged that the HOA was targeting him while ignoring violations by other neighbors, thereby acting in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Specific Examples of Non-Compliance: To support the claim of inconsistency, he cited "whataboutism" examples, such as a neighbor keeping a kitchen countertop in a front yard for a year and others leaving carts in yards past allowable timeframes.

5. The HOA’s Defense: The Predominance of Pitched Roofs

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner's request would violate the fundamental "roofscape" of the community. Their defense was rooted in the specific technical requirements of the governing documents:

HOA Rule/Article	Specific Design Requirement
Article 5.10	Grants the Board/Architectural Committee authority to promote design with particular regard to harmony with surrounding structures and topography.
Section 4.4 (Architectural Rules)	Establishes that roofscapes are vital to the visual environment; it is mandated that pitched roofs predominate.
Section 4.4 (Technical Specs)	Pitched roofs must be hipped whenever possible and maintain a maximum slope of five to 12 feet (5’ to 12’).
Section 4.4 (Flat Roofs)	While flat roofs are generally discouraged, all flat roof patio areas must have parapets.

The Respondent emphasized that since the Petitioner’s existing garage featured a pitched roof, an attached flat-roof addition would create a jarring architectural disconnect.

6. The Administrative Decision: Why the HOA Prevailed

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson applied the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard, as required by Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119. Under this standard, the Petitioner must prove their case with "the greater weight of the evidence"—meaning the evidence must be more than 50% convincing. In administrative law, a "tie" or a 50/50 split in evidence means the Petitioner has failed to meet their burden, and the HOA prevails.

The ALJ's ruling for the Respondent was based on two key legal conclusions:

Reasonableness of the Board: The Board’s decision was deemed reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1817(3) because the rules explicitly prioritize pitched roofs. The Board's offer of a compromise (keeping the roof below wall height) further demonstrated a lack of malice or unreasonableness.
The Failure of "Whataboutism": The judge dismissed the Petitioner’s claims regarding kitchen countertops and yard carts. Legally, the failure to enforce minor maintenance or "clutter" rules does not waive an HOA's right to enforce major, permanent structural and architectural standards. Structural harmony is a distinct legal tier from temporary yard maintenance.

7. Conclusion: 4 Essential Takeaways for Homeowners

The dismissal of the Petitioner’s case provides a roadmap for navigating architectural disputes in Arizona:

Understand the "Harmony" Clause: Architectural harmony is not just about matching your neighbors; it is about matching the existing structures on your own lot. As established in Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, CC&Rs are binding contracts. If your home is designed with pitched roofs, a flat-roof addition is a difficult legal sell.
The Visibility Standard: Your "building rights" are often tied to the height of your perimeter wall. If a structure exceeds the wall height and becomes visible to a six-foot-tall neighbor, you lose the "safe harbor" protection and must strictly adhere to architectural design rules.
The Petitioner’s Burden of Proof: In an administrative hearing, the homeowner carries the heavy lifting. You must prove the Board is being unreasonable. Per Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119, if the evidence is only equally balanced, the homeowner loses.
Contractual Obligations: Arizona courts, following cases like Powell v. Washburn, treat CC&Rs as unambiguous contracts. Judges will prioritize the clear terms of the document—such as "pitched roofs shall predominate"—to protect the original intent of the community's design.

Homeowners should meticulously review their association's specific "Architectural Rules" before finalizing designs, as these documents often contain technical specifications—like roof slope and parapet requirements—that are just as binding as the CC&Rs themselves.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Marc D. Archer (petitioner)
PMPE Community Association, Inc. (Member)
Appeared on behalf of himself; testified

Respondent Side

Nichols C. Hogami (respondent attorney)
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Keith Scott Kauffman (witness)
PMPE Board of Directors
Member of the PMPE Board of Directors; testified

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmitted order