Tag Archives: ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:46 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:50 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120020-REL/881665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:53 (167.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent” or “HOA”). The core of the case, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), was the Petitioners’ allegation that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly fulfill a request to inspect voting records.

The conflict centered on the HOA’s response to the request. Citing concerns for member privacy and safety, the HOA initially required the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which they refused. Subsequently, the HOA provided the requested records for inspection by separating them into two stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. The Petitioners argued this method was an unlawful barrier that made it impossible to cross-reference voters with their votes, thus failing to make the records “reasonably available” as required by statute. The HOA contended its actions were a necessary and reasonable balance of its legal duties to provide access and protect its members.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark denied the petition. The Judge ruled that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The initial decision found that the NDA request was not a statutory violation, and the method of providing the documents, while “not ideal,” was reasonable under the circumstances. This decision was upheld in a final order following a rehearing, solidifying the finding that no violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 had occurred.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

• Case Number: 21F-H2120020-REL (Initial); 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark

• Core Legal Issue: Whether the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by a member, in its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

Parties Involved

Name(s)

Representation

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Kristin Roebuck, Esq. (later Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.) of Horne Siaton, PLLC

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Jeremy Johnson, Esq. & Sam Cote, Esq. (later Samantha Cote, Esq.) of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC

II. Factual Background and Chronology of Events

The dispute arose from requests to inspect records related to two separate votes conducted by the HOA.

Oct 4, 2017

The HOA Board adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

Oct 28, 2019

Approximate date of a vote regarding an increase in HOA dues.

Dec 2019

A vote occurs on a proposed Declaration amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

Jan 2, 2020

Petitioners make a verbal request to the HOA’s management company, Vision, to “view the votes” on the cumulative voting amendment.

Jan 6, 2020

Petitioners formalize their verbal request in a letter to Vision’s attorney, Clint Goodman.

Jan 13, 2020

The HOA Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign an NDA before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy and prior complaints of “harassing” behavior by Petitioners. Petitioners decline to sign.

Jan 16, 2020

Petitioners’ counsel sends a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase and the cumulative voting amendment.

Jan 30, 2020

The HOA’s counsel responds, stating the HOA must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and confirming the records will be made available for inspection.

Feb 7, 2020

Petitioners inspect records at the attorney’s office for 3.5 hours. They are provided with two separate stacks: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes, which they are unable to match. They review only the cumulative voting records (approx. 122 pages).

Aug 5, 2020

Petitioners’ attorney sends a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents for an in-person inspection. No additional documents are provided.

Sep 22, 2020

Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging a violation of statute.

III. The Central Dispute: Access to Voting Records

The conflict revolved around the interpretation of the “reasonably available” standard in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

The HOA’s Response and Justification

Faced with the records request, the HOA’s Board expressed concern for member privacy. This was based on a general fear of retaliation against members based on their votes and specific complaints from homeowners labeling past behaviors by the Petitioners as “harassing.” The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this position in a January 30, 2020, letter:

“The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.”

To manage these competing interests, the HOA took two primary actions:

1. NDA Requirement: An 8:1 Board vote mandated an NDA, which the Petitioners refused to sign.

2. Document Separation: During the February 7, 2020, inspection, the HOA provided two sets of documents: ballots with member information redacted and the corresponding unredacted envelopes. This method physically separated a voter’s identity from their specific vote, preventing direct correlation.

The HOA maintained that this process provided the totality of the requested information while protecting members.

IV. Legal Proceedings and Arguments

The dispute proceeded to an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A. Petitioners’ Position

The Petitioners argued that the HOA committed three distinct violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by:

1. Requiring an NDA: This was an unlawful prerequisite not supported by any statutory exception.

2. Providing Redacted Records: The statute requires access to original records, not redacted versions.

3. Failing to Provide Unredacted Copies: The records were never made “reasonably available” because the format prevented a meaningful review.

During the rehearing, the Petitioners’ counsel argued that the document separation method “erected an unlawful barrier” and that they “were unable to cross reference (i.e. match) the votes with the purported voters.” They also contended that because some ballots contained names or signatures, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, rendering the ballots not truly “secret.”

B. Respondent’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s defense rested on the argument that it had fulfilled its statutory obligations. Key points included:

• “Reasonably Available”: The HOA met its obligation by providing all requested records for a 3.5-hour inspection.

• No Prescribed Method: The statute dictates what must be provided but not how. The HOA devised a method to comply with the law while also fulfilling its duty to protect member safety and privacy.

• Totality of Information: All information was provided, even if in two separate stacks. The HOA argued it was possible for the Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• Irrelevance of NDA: The NDA was a moot point because the inspection proceeded even after the Petitioners declined to sign it.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decisions and Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioners’ petition in both the initial decision and the final order after rehearing, concluding that they failed to meet their burden of proof.

A. Initial Decision (May 17, 2021)

The ALJ’s initial findings were:

• The HOA’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA did not constitute a statutory violation.

• The Petitioners failed to prove the HOA did not make the documents available within the 10-day statutory timeframe. It was unclear if the records were available for inspection prior to the February 7, 2020, date chosen by the Petitioners.

• The statutory provision for purchasing copies was inapplicable, as Petitioners only requested to examine the records and never requested to pay for copies.

• The Petitioners did not provide binding authority compelling an HOA to make unredacted voting records available where privacy is a concern.

B. Rehearing and Final Order (February 2, 2022)

The Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” No new evidence was introduced; the parties presented oral arguments reiterating their positions. The ALJ’s final order affirmed the original decision, elaborating on the core issue:

• Reasonableness of Methodology: The ALJ concluded that the HOA’s method of document delivery did not violate the statute. The record reflected that the “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).”

• Final Conclusion: The order stated that while the HOA’s method “may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

The final order denied the petition, making the decision binding unless appealed to the Superior Court.

VI. Key Statutory Language

The entire case hinged on the interpretation of a single statute.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A):

“Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member’s representative. The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records by any member… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.” (Emphasis added)






Study Guide – 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal case involving homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, focusing on the dispute over access to voting records under Arizona law.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who were the primary parties (the Petitioners and the Respondent) in case number 21F-H2120020-REL?

2. What specific Arizona statute was the central subject of the legal dispute?

3. What two distinct sets of voting records did the Petitioners request in their formal letter dated January 16, 2020?

4. What condition did the Respondent’s Board of Directors initially try to impose on the Petitioners before they would be permitted to view the voting records?

5. Describe the format in which the Respondent provided the cumulative voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Respondent’s primary justification for its actions, including the initial request for an NDA and the eventual provision of redacted documents?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was assigned this burden of proof?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was the statutory 10-day provision for providing copies of records deemed inapplicable in this case?

9. What was the ultimate outcome of the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 17, 2021, and the Final Order after the rehearing on February 2, 2022?

10. On what grounds did the Petitioners file their request for a rehearing on June 22, 2021?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioners were Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, who were property owners and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent was the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

2. The central subject of the dispute was Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. This statute governs the access of association members to the financial and other records of a homeowners’ association.

3. In their letter, the Petitioners requested all ballots and related documents from the vote on an increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. They also requested the written consent forms and ballots for a proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting from December 2019.

4. The Respondent’s Board of Directors voted 8-to-1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The Petitioners declined to sign the NDA.

5. On February 7, 2020, the Respondent provided the records as two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other contained unredacted envelopes, making it impossible for the Petitioners to discern which ballot belonged to which envelope.

6. The Respondent’s stated justification was the need to balance the Petitioners’ request against the privacy and safety of all owners. The Board expressed concern that personal information on the documents could lead to individual members being harassed or retaliated against based on their vote.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the burden of proof required in this case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioners bore this burden to prove the Respondent had violated the statute.

8. The judge found the 10-day copy provision inapplicable because the Petitioners had requested to examine the records, not to purchase copies of them. The statute has separate provisions for examination (which is free) and purchasing copies (for which a fee can be charged).

9. In both the initial decision and the Final Order after the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Respondent had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

10. The Petitioners filed their DISPUTE REHEARING REQUEST on the grounds that the initial decision’s “findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate detailed essay responses that synthesize facts, legal arguments, and procedural history from the provided documents.

1. Analyze the core conflict between a homeowner’s right to access association records under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and the association’s duty to protect member privacy. How did the Respondent attempt to balance these competing interests, and why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately find their method acceptable under the law?

2. Discuss the Petitioners’ multi-faceted argument that the Respondent violated the statute. Detail their specific claims regarding the NDA, the redaction of records, and the failure to provide unredacted copies, and explain the judge’s legal reasoning for rejecting each one.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the initial records request in January 2020 to the Final Order in February 2022. Include key dates, specific requests, filings, hearings, and the progression from the initial decision to the rehearing and final judgment.

4. The concept of making records “reasonably available” is central to this case. Based on the arguments from both parties and the judge’s decision, construct a detailed definition of what “reasonably available” means in the context of this dispute, addressing both the timeliness and the format of the records provided.

5. Examine the legal standards and principles of statutory construction cited by the Administrative Law Judge. How were concepts like “preponderance of the evidence” and giving statutory words their “natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning” applied to the facts of this case to reach the final decision?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The Arizona statute at the heart of the case, which mandates that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association. The Board voted to require an NDA and was concerned about member privacy.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioners had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Circle G Ranches 4 HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.

Department

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

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract creating a confidential relationship. The Respondent’s Board requested the Petitioners sign an NDA before viewing voting records, which they declined.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent Arizona state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. The Department referred this case to the OAH.

Petitioners

The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition. In this case, Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, homeowners in the Circle G Ranches 4 subdivision.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the evidence presented is more likely to be true than not. This was the evidentiary burden placed on the Petitioners.

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential information. The Respondent provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Secret Ballot

A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous. The HOA had a “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for special assessments, which became relevant to the privacy arguments.

Tribunal

A general term for a body established to settle a dispute. In these documents, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association. The initial records requests were submitted to Vision.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG


5 Surprising Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight to See HOA Records

For many homeowners, transparency from their Homeowners Association (HOA) is the bedrock of fair governance. But what happens when one member’s right to scrutinize the board collides with the board’s duty to protect the entire community from potential harm? The Arizona legal case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association offers a fascinating and cautionary answer. A seemingly straightforward request to inspect voting records escalated into a legal battle that reveals surprising truths about the balance between a homeowner’s right to know and an association’s responsibility to keep its members safe. This article breaks down the key lessons from this dispute, offering sharp, practical insights for any homeowner seeking clarity from their board.

The Letter of the Law: “Reasonably Available” Doesn’t Mean Convenient

The central conflict hinged on the interpretation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805), which mandates that an HOA’s records be made “reasonably available” for examination. When homeowners Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes requested to see ballots for a dues increase and a voting amendment, their HOA complied—but not in the way they expected.

They were presented with two separate stacks of documents: one of anonymous, redacted ballots and another of unredacted envelopes bearing member names and addresses. This separation made it impossible to match a specific vote to a specific homeowner without significant effort. The homeowners argued this was an “unlawful barrier.” The HOA countered that the statute doesn’t dictate the methodology of delivery, only that the information be provided.

The judge affirmed the HOA’s interpretation, ruling that the statute governs what must be provided but grants the association discretion in the methodology of its delivery. Because the homeowners “timely received the totality of the documents,” the HOA had met its legal obligation. In the final rehearing decision, the judge reflected on this point, noting that, “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision [was] reasonable…” The ruling underscores a critical distinction for homeowners: the legal standard of “reasonably available” focuses on the completeness of the information, not the convenience of its format. The lesson for homeowners is to be precise in your records request and prepared for the possibility that the HOA will provide the data in a format that requires you to do the analytical work of connecting the dots.

Privacy vs. Transparency: Why Your HOA Can Protect Its Members

The HOA’s core defense for its cumbersome delivery method was its duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the privacy and safety of all its members. This was not a theoretical concern. The case file reveals a complex community dynamic, noting, “While it has never been Petitioners’ intention to harass other Members of the Association, many homeowners have complained to Vision [the management company] regarding behaviors they have labeled ‘harassing’ by Petitioners.”

This context illuminates the difficult position of the board. The HOA’s attorney, Clint Goodman, articulated this balancing act in a letter to the homeowners’ counsel:

The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.

The court’s validation of this approach signals that an HOA’s right to take proactive steps to protect member privacy can outweigh an individual member’s demand for perfectly convenient access, especially when there are documented concerns about potential harassment.

An NDA Isn’t an Automatic Red Flag: Why HOAs Can Request Confidentiality

Early in the dispute, the HOA Board took a step that many homeowners would assume is illegal: citing privacy concerns, it voted 8-to-1 to require the homeowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. The homeowners refused.

While an NDA might seem like an unlawful impediment to a statutory right, the Administrative Law Judge found otherwise. The decision explicitly states that the HOA’s request for the homeowners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of the statute. Though the homeowners ultimately viewed the records without signing the agreement, the ruling is clear. It affirms that an HOA’s attempt to use an NDA as a tool to protect sensitive member information is not, in and of itself, an illegal act. This stands as a counter-intuitive but vital lesson: a request for confidentiality is a legally permissible option for a board concerned about its duty to protect member data.

Feeling Wronged Isn’t Enough: The High Bar of Proving an HOA Violation

This case is a potent reminder of the legal realities facing homeowners. The petitioners had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA violated the statute. The court defines this standard as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Despite their persistence through an initial hearing and a rehearing, the judge concluded in both decisions that the homeowners “did not sustain their burden of proof.” A critical insider detail from the judge reveals one reason why: the case was “skewed, as Petitioners only paid to have 1 issue adjudicated” despite splicing their complaint into three subparts. This suggests that procedural missteps or a narrowly defined petition can weaken a homeowner’s case from the start.

This legal standard means that a successful petition requires more than a feeling of being wronged; it demands a well-documented case proving a specific statutory violation with clear evidence. Simply showing that an HOA’s actions were inconvenient, frustrating, or fell short of personal expectations is not enough to win in court.

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Scrutiny and Safety

The case of Swanson & Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 illuminates the inherent tension between a homeowner’s right to scrutinize their association and an HOA’s duty to protect the entire community. While the law provides for access, this ruling demonstrates that it also grants HOAs significant and reasonable discretion in how they provide it, particularly when member safety is a documented concern. The court’s decision prioritizes protecting members from potential harassment over providing perfect, convenient transparency.

It leaves every community member with a thought-provoking question: In your own community, how do you think the balance should be struck between total transparency and protecting your neighbors from potential harassment?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
    Also listed as a witness
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
    Also listed as a witness
  • Kristin Roebuck (attorney)
    Horne Siaton, PLLC
    Appeared as Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq. in rehearing,

Respondent Side

  • Jeremy Johnson (attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
  • Samantha Cote (attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Also referred to as Sam Cote, Esq.,,,
  • Patricia Ahler (witness)
  • Amanda Stewart (witness)
  • Jennifer Amundson (witness)
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Vision Community Management, LLC
    Attorney for Vision, the Association's property manager,,

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner listed on original decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner listed on rehearing decision transmission,
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Transmission recipient c/o Commissioner,,

Clifford (Norm) Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent

Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:56 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:01 (124.8 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121051-REL/899423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:05 (101.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and final decision in the case of Clifford (Norm) Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 21F-H2121051-REL). The core of the dispute was Petitioner Burnes’s allegation that the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities by taking two official actions on May 3, 2020, without holding a public meeting. The HOA defended its actions, stating that it utilized a provision in the Arizona statutes for non-profit corporations (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821) that allows a board to take action “without a meeting” through the unanimous written consent of all directors.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA. The key finding was that no “meeting” as defined by the open meeting law actually occurred on May 3, 2020. Instead, the Board President individually visited other board members to obtain signatures on consent forms. The ALJ concluded that the two relevant statutes—the open meeting law (§ 33-1803/1804) and the action-by-consent statute (§ 10-3821)—are not in conflict. An HOA board can legally use the action-by-consent procedure, but if it chooses to hold a meeting, it must comply with the open meeting law.

Mr. Burnes’s request for a rehearing, which raised several legal and jurisdictional arguments, was granted but ultimately denied on its merits. The ALJ systematically rejected each of Burnes’s arguments, reaffirming the original decision. The final order dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition, making the HOA the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Clifford (Norm) Burnes

• Respondent: Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

• Case Number: 21F-H2121051-REL (and 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG for rehearing)

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that on May 3, 2020, the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 in the initial decision and § 33-1804 in the rehearing decision) by taking two formal actions via unanimous written consent without allowing members to attend and speak.

• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent acknowledged taking action by unanimous consent but asserted this was permissible under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which allows for action without a meeting. Therefore, the open meeting law did not apply.

Factual Background and Timeline

1. April 2020: Mr. Burnes and his wife raised two issues with the HOA Board concerning “lot 7,” which is adjacent to their property. The issues were related to a construction bond waiver and the placement of a house on the lot.

2. April 2020 (Post-Complaint): Following the complaint, research was conducted by Jamie Argueta, and emails were exchanged between Mr. Burnes, the Board members, and Mr. Argueta.

3. April 19 & 21, 2020: The Board members met with Mr. and Ms. Burnes to discuss the issues. Minutes were kept for these meetings.

4. Undated Discussions: Board President Esmerelda Sarina Martinez and Board member Mr. Madill had informal discussions with other HOA members, which Ms. Martinez characterized as “neighbors talking and not a meeting.”

5. May 3, 2020: Ms. Martinez, acting alone, drafted two unanimous consent forms. She personally brought the forms and related documents to the homes of the other Board members, who each read the information and signed. The two actions taken by consent were:

◦ Honoring a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7.

◦ A decision regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

6. August 29, 2020: The first regularly scheduled Board meeting after the May 3rd actions was held. The meeting minutes did not include an entry showing that the written consent documents had been filed with the corporate records, a requirement of § 10-3281(A).

Procedural History

• May 7, 2021: Mr. Burnes filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initially asserting seven violations but being required to select only one for adjudication due to paying a single fee. He selected the violation of members not being permitted to attend and speak before the Board took formal action on May 3, 2020.

• July 16, 2021: An initial hearing was held before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

• July 28, 2021: The ALJ issued a decision dismissing Mr. Burnes’s petition, finding he had not proven a violation because no meeting occurred on May 3, 2020.

• September 2, 2021 (approx.): Mr. Burnes filed a Rehearing Request.

• September 22, 2021: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• December 9, 2021: The ALJ issued an order concluding the rehearing matter, noting that since only legal issues were raised, the decision would be based on the existing record and supplemental briefs (though neither party filed one).

• January 3, 2022: The ALJ issued the final decision on the rehearing, once again dismissing the petition and upholding the original ruling. This order was final and binding, subject to judicial review in the Superior Court.

Analysis of Legal Arguments from Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Burnes raised six primary legal arguments against the initial decision. The ALJ addressed and rejected each one.

Petitioner’s Argument

ALJ’s Analysis and Conclusion

1. Limited Jurisdiction: The ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 and does not include ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.

Rejected. Jurisdiction was proper because Mr. Burnes alleged a violation of § 33-1804 (which is in Title 33, Ch. 16). Nothing prohibits a Respondent from raising defenses from outside Title 33, or the ALJ from considering them.

2. Inapplicability of § 10-3821: The statute for action-by-consent only applies to actions found in Title 10, Chapters 24-40. The actions the HOA took are not found there.

Rejected. The ALJ noted that Mr. Burnes himself acknowledged that “voting” is an action found within those chapters of Title 10, and voting is precisely the action that was taken by unanimous consent.

3. Conflict of Law (§ 10-3701(F)): Statute § 10-3701(F) states that in cases of inconsistency, Title 33 (planned communities) controls over Title 10.

Rejected. This analysis is flawed because § 10-3701(F) applies specifically to membership meetings (Title 10, Ch. 30). The statute for action by consent, § 10-3821, deals with directors’ meetings and is in a different chapter (Title 10, Ch. 31), which has no similar provision. The legislature’s choice to include this provision for membership meetings but not for board meetings indicates an intent to allow boards more latitude to act by consent.

4. Specific vs. General Statute: § 33-1804 is specific to planned communities and should control over § 10-3821, which applies to all non-profits. The policy of the state favors open meetings.

Rejected. This principle of statutory construction only applies when statutes are in conflict and cannot both be given effect. Here, they are not in conflict. Both can be given full effect: an HOA may take action without a meeting per § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, it must follow the open meeting requirements of § 33-1804.

5. Bylaws Are Irrelevant: The ALJ wrongly cited the HOA’s bylaws allowing action-by-consent, because § 33-1804 applies “notwithstanding any provision in the… bylaws.”

Rejected. Mr. Burnes was correct that bylaws do not trump the open meeting law. However, he overlooked that § 10-3821 itself contains an exception: it does not apply if the corporation’s bylaws prohibit action by consent. The finding regarding the bylaws was necessary only to show that this exception did not apply to the HOA, thus making § 10-3821 available to them.

6. A Meeting Did Occur: Mr. Burnes asserted a meeting did take place on May 3, 2020.

Rejected. The ALJ found this position had several flaws: Mr. Burnes cited no evidence from the record to prove discussion occurred on May 3rd; he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd; and he provided no legal authority to show that drawing on past discussions to draft a consent form constitutes a “meeting.” The ALJ also dismissed his reliance on new dictionary definitions not presented at the original hearing.

Key Statutes and Legal Principles

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804 (Open Meetings Law):

◦ Mandates that “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association.”

◦ Members “shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

◦ A “quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business… shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions.”

◦ Reflects a state policy that provisions should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting):

◦ “Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action… to be taken at a directors’ meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all of the directors.”

◦ The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents, signed by each director, and included in the minutes filed with corporate records.

◦ A consent signed under this section has “the effect of a meeting vote.”

• Saguaro Crest HOA Bylaws (Section 3.5):

◦ The association’s bylaws explicitly provide directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

Conclusion and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Saguaro Crest HOA violated the open meeting law. The central finding was that the HOA’s actions on May 3, 2020, did not constitute a “meeting” but were a legally permissible “action without a meeting” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821. The subsequent rehearing confirmed this legal interpretation.

The final order, issued January 3, 2022, was:

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes’s petition is dismissed.”

The order was final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review by the Superior Court within 35 days.






Study Guide – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the single, specific violation that Clifford (Norm) Burnes alleged against the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary legal justification for the actions its Board of Directors took on May 3, 2020?

3. What two specific decisions did the Board make using the unanimous consent forms on May 3, 2020?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), how can both the open meeting law (§ 33-1804) and the statute allowing action without a meeting (§ 10-3821) be given effect without being in conflict?

5. What was the purpose of the rehearing granted to Mr. Burnes, and what was the outcome?

6. How did the HOA’s bylaws, specifically section 3.5, support the Respondent’s case?

7. What argument did Mr. Burnes make regarding the ALJ’s jurisdiction to consider ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and who bears the burden of meeting it?

9. Mr. Burnes asserted that a meeting did occur on May 3, 2020. What flaws did the ALJ identify in this assertion?

10. What specific requests did Mr. Burnes make in his petition as a remedy for the alleged violation?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. Mr. Burnes’s single alleged violation was that at the “meeting” on May 3, 2020, HOA members were not permitted to attend and speak after discussion but before the Board took formal action. This, he claimed, was a violation of Arizona’s open meeting law, cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 and later § 33-1804.

2. The Respondent acknowledged taking two actions by consent but argued that no meeting actually occurred. Their defense was that they acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which explicitly allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if it is done via unanimous written consent of all directors.

3. The two decisions made via unanimous consent related to issues Mr. Burnes had raised about lot 7, which abuts his property. The first action was to honor a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7, and the second action was regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

4. The ALJ reasoned that the statutes are not in conflict because they apply to different situations. Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow all the requirements of the open meeting law, § 33-1804.

5. Mr. Burnes requested a rehearing, alleging that the initial ALJ decision’s findings of fact were not supported by evidence or were contrary to law. The rehearing was granted to review these legal issues, but the outcome was the same: the ALJ once again concluded that no violation had occurred and dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition.

6. Section 3.5 of the Association’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly provides the directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.” This directly supported the Respondent’s claim that its actions were permissible under its own governing documents as well as state law.

7. Mr. Burnes argued that the ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16, and therefore the ALJ had no jurisdiction to consider section 10-3821 as a defense because it is not found in that title. The ALJ rejected this, stating that jurisdiction was proper because the complaint was about a violation of Title 33, and nothing prohibits a respondent from raising defenses from outside that title.

8. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner, Mr. Burnes, bore the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.

9. The ALJ found several flaws in this assertion: Mr. Burnes did not cite evidence from the record proving a discussion occurred on May 3rd, he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd, and he provided no legal authority showing that prior discussions are pertinent to whether a meeting occurred on that specific day.

10. Mr. Burnes requested that the Respondent be ordered to rescind the consent actions, comply with the open meeting law, pay his filing fee, and be assessed a civil penalty.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the central conflict between ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (“Open meetings”) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (“Action without meeting”) as presented in this case. Explain the ALJ’s reasoning for concluding that the statutes do not conflict and can both be given effect.

2. Describe the timeline of events leading up to the May 3, 2020 unanimous written consent. How did the meetings and communications in April 2020 between Mr. Burnes and the Board influence the context of the dispute, even though they were not the subject of the final legal violation claim?

3. Evaluate the six specific legal arguments Mr. Burnes raised in his request for rehearing. For each, summarize his point and the ALJ’s counter-argument or legal conclusion.

4. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain why the ALJ concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

5. Examine the relationship between state statutes and an association’s governing documents (like bylaws) in this case. How did the ALJ address Mr. Burnes’s argument that § 33-1804 should apply “notwithstanding any provision in the…bylaws”?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Statute

Definition

Action without meeting

A procedure allowed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 and the Association’s Bylaws (Section 3.5) where a board of directors may take action if it is evidenced by one or more written consents signed by all directors. The consent has the effect of a meeting vote.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, assigned to adjudicate complaints and ensure compliance with relevant statutes for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

The state statute titled “Action without meeting” that permits a board of directors to take action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804

The state’s “Open meetings” law for planned communities. It requires that all meetings of an HOA board be open to all members, who shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Burnes) bore the burden of proof.

Clifford (Norm) Burnes

The Petitioner in the case, a member of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action; in this case, Clifford (Norm) Burnes.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this case, 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.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

The Respondent in the case; a planned community governed by a Board of Directors.

Unanimous Written Consent

The method used by the Respondent’s Board of Directors on May 3, 2020, to take action. It involved each board member signing written consent forms, as permitted by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG


Your HOA Board Can Legally Make Decisions in Secret—Here’s How One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Proved It

1.0 Introduction: The Expectation vs. The Reality

For most homeowners living in a planned community, the principle of transparency is paramount. The common expectation is that all significant decisions made by the Homeowners Association (HOA) board of directors will happen in open meetings. These are forums where members can attend, listen to the deliberations, and, at the appropriate time, make their voices heard before the board takes a formal vote. This commitment to openness is often seen as a cornerstone of fair governance.

But what if a board could make a decision without ever holding a meeting at all? This question was at the heart of a legal dispute in Arizona, where a homeowner named Clifford (Norm) Burnes took his HOA, Saguaro Crest, to court. Mr. Burnes alleged that his board violated the state’s open meeting law when it took action on two separate issues without convening a meeting. The case worked its way through an administrative law court, and the final decision sided with the HOA, establishing a critical legal precedent that boards can, under specific circumstances, bypass open meetings entirely.

2.0 Takeaway 1: Boards Can Legally Act “Without a Meeting”

The central facts of the case were not in dispute. On May 3, 2020, the Saguaro Crest HOA board made two formal decisions concerning a neighboring lot, specifically regarding a construction bond waiver and home placement—issues that Mr. Burnes himself had previously raised. Instead of calling a meeting, the board used a procedure known as “unanimous written consent.” The Board President, Ms. Martinez, drafted two consent forms, personally brought them to the homes of the other board members, and had each director sign them.

This action, while sidestepping an open meeting, was found to be perfectly legal. The board was operating under the authority of a specific Arizona state law, ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821, titled “Action without meeting.” This statute explicitly allows the board of a non-profit corporation to take action without a meeting, provided the action is taken by all directors and is documented by written consent.

Furthermore, this power was not just granted by state law; it was also written directly into the HOA’s own governing documents. Section 3.5 of the Saguaro Crest HOA’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly grants its directors “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

3.0 Takeaway 2: A Legal Puzzle—When Two State Laws Seem to Conflict

Mr. Burnes’s case created a compelling legal puzzle by highlighting two state laws that appeared to be in direct opposition. On one side was Arizona’s Planned Community law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804), which strongly mandates open meetings for HOA boards and includes a policy statement that any interpretation of the law should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

On the other side was the state’s Nonprofit Corporation law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821), which, as noted, expressly permits a board to act without a meeting. Mr. Burnes argued that the open meeting law should take precedence.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, made a crucial distinction. Applying a standard legal principle that courts must try to give effect to both laws if possible, the judge determined the two statutes do not actually conflict. The judge’s reasoning clarifies how both can exist and be applied legally.

In this case, both sections 10-3821 and 33-1804 can be given effect in that Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by section 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow the requirements of section 33-1804.

This interpretation is the core of the decision. The open meeting law, with all its requirements for notice and member participation, only applies if a meeting is held. By using the “action without meeting” statute, the Saguaro Crest board legally sidestepped the requirement to hold a meeting in the first place, thereby rendering the open meeting law inapplicable to their actions on that day.

4.0 Takeaway 3: Legislative Intent Can Be Read in a Law’s Silence

Mr. Burnes also advanced a more sophisticated legal argument: that in any conflict, the specific laws written for HOAs (found in Title 33 of the state code) should overrule the more general laws for non-profit corporations (found in Title 10).

The judge’s response to this provided a fascinating lesson in how courts interpret legislative intent, not just from what a law says, but from what it doesn’t say. The judge noted that the section of law governing general membership meetings does contain a specific clause stating that in the case of an inconsistency, the HOA laws control.

Crucially, the section of law governing board meetings, where the “action without meeting” statute is found, has no such clause. The judge interpreted this difference not as an oversight, but as a deliberate choice by lawmakers. This “silence” in the statute was read as a “legislative intent to allow boards latitude to act by consent.” In other words, if the legislature had intended for the open meeting law to always override the board’s ability to act by written consent, it would have explicitly said so, just as it did for membership meetings.

5.0 Conclusion: Efficiency vs. Transparency

While homeowners understandably value and expect open meetings as a tool for transparency and participation, the law also recognizes the need for boards to operate efficiently. The unanimous written consent procedure provides a legal mechanism for boards to make decisions, particularly on straightforward matters, without the time and expense of convening a formal meeting.

This case is more than a legal curiosity; it’s a practical lesson for every homeowner. The power wielded by the Saguaro Crest board is not unique to Arizona. If you want to understand the true scope of your own board’s authority, take these two steps:

1. Review your HOA’s bylaws. Look for a clause titled “Action Without a Meeting” or similar language that grants the board the right to act via written consent. This is the internal authorization.

2. Check your state’s Nonprofit Corporation Act. Search for a statute similar to Arizona’s § 10-3821. This is the ultimate source of the board’s power, and it likely exists in some form in your state, defining the boundary between efficiency and transparency for your community.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford (Norm) Burnes (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ms. Burnes (spouse of petitioner)
    Wife of Clifford (Norm) Burnes; raised issues with the Board

Respondent Side

  • John Crotty (HOA attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
  • Esmerelda Sarina Martinez (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Board president and witness
  • Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Referred to as 'Mr. Madill'
  • Jennifer Elias (HOA attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressee of original decision
  • Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
    Transmitted original decision and final rehearing decision (By Miranda Alvarez/Miranda A.)
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressee of documents relating to the rehearing
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitted Order Concluding Matter

Other Participants

  • Jamie Argueta (researcher/staff)
    Conducted research regarding issues raised by Petitioner

James Iannuzo v. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner James Iannuzo Counsel —
Respondent Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association Counsel Jason E. Smith

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243(H)(4)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed by showing the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243. The Association was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. Petitioner's requests for voiding election results, assessing a civil penalty, and appointing an administrator were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of statutory procedure for board member removal concerning ballot tabulation after deadline.

The Association violated the statute by tabulating ballots for a recall election at the August 19, 2021 meeting, as those ballots were only valid for the canceled June 30, 2021 special meeting.

Orders: Respondent must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order. Other requested remedies (voiding results, assessing civil penalty, appointing administrator) were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA board recall, Ballot tabulation, Quorum dispute, Statutory violation, Filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Ass'n
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 935534.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:19 (128.9 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 945764.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:24 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 949683.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:26 (49.4 KB)

Questions

Question

What is the deadline for an HOA to hold a special meeting after receiving a petition to recall board members?

Short Answer

The meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the petition.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, once an HOA receives a petition for the removal of a board member, it is legally required to call, notice, and actually hold the special meeting within a 30-day timeframe.

Alj Quote

The special meeting shall be called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

Can an HOA count ballots collected for a specific meeting date at a later, rescheduled meeting?

Short Answer

No, ballots are only valid for the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

An HOA cannot use ballots collected for a canceled meeting at a subsequent meeting held on a different date. The decision clarified that counting such ballots violates the statute because the ballots are strictly limited to the meeting for which they were originally valid.

Alj Quote

The Association’s decision to count the ballots at the August 19th meeting does not comply with section 33-1243 because those ballots were valid only for the June 30th meeting as evidenced by the ballots, the Notice, and the voting instructions.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) void an HOA election or remove board members?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the authority to void election results or appoint administrators.

Detailed Answer

While an ALJ can determine if a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order an election to be voided or appoint an independent administrator to oversee the HOA. These remedies are outside the tribunal's statutory scope.

Alj Quote

Mr. Iannuzo’s requests that the tribunal void the election results and that an oversight administrator be appointed have not been shown to be within the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

Is an HOA allowed to determine a quorum based solely on mail-in ballots before the meeting starts?

Short Answer

Likely no; the quorum should be determined based on eligible voters present at the time of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the statute calls for a quorum to be determined based on the number of eligible voters at the time of the meeting, implying that canceling a meeting beforehand based solely on returned ballots is not supported by persuasive legal argument.

Alj Quote

The Association presented no persuasive legal argument or authority showing that in determining whether a quorum existed it was appropriate for the Association to use only the ballots returned by June 29th, rather than using the ballots and the members present at the meeting on June 30th.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee refunded?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA must be ordered to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the homeowner has prevailed in proving a violation, the law mandates that the Judge order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

Can an HOA fix a violation for missing the 30-day recall meeting deadline by holding the meeting later?

Short Answer

No, this specific violation cannot be cured after the fact.

Detailed Answer

Once the 30-day window for holding a recall meeting has passed, the violation is established and cannot be retroactively fixed by holding the meeting late.

Alj Quote

And although the Association did not conduct the required meeting within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, this violation cannot be cured.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221014-REL
Case Title
James Iannuzo vs. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association
Decision Date
2021-12-30
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What is the deadline for an HOA to hold a special meeting after receiving a petition to recall board members?

Short Answer

The meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the petition.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, once an HOA receives a petition for the removal of a board member, it is legally required to call, notice, and actually hold the special meeting within a 30-day timeframe.

Alj Quote

The special meeting shall be called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

Can an HOA count ballots collected for a specific meeting date at a later, rescheduled meeting?

Short Answer

No, ballots are only valid for the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

An HOA cannot use ballots collected for a canceled meeting at a subsequent meeting held on a different date. The decision clarified that counting such ballots violates the statute because the ballots are strictly limited to the meeting for which they were originally valid.

Alj Quote

The Association’s decision to count the ballots at the August 19th meeting does not comply with section 33-1243 because those ballots were valid only for the June 30th meeting as evidenced by the ballots, the Notice, and the voting instructions.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

Can an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) void an HOA election or remove board members?

Short Answer

No, the ALJ does not have the authority to void election results or appoint administrators.

Detailed Answer

While an ALJ can determine if a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order an election to be voided or appoint an independent administrator to oversee the HOA. These remedies are outside the tribunal's statutory scope.

Alj Quote

Mr. Iannuzo’s requests that the tribunal void the election results and that an oversight administrator be appointed have not been shown to be within the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

Is an HOA allowed to determine a quorum based solely on mail-in ballots before the meeting starts?

Short Answer

Likely no; the quorum should be determined based on eligible voters present at the time of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the statute calls for a quorum to be determined based on the number of eligible voters at the time of the meeting, implying that canceling a meeting beforehand based solely on returned ballots is not supported by persuasive legal argument.

Alj Quote

The Association presented no persuasive legal argument or authority showing that in determining whether a quorum existed it was appropriate for the Association to use only the ballots returned by June 29th, rather than using the ballots and the members present at the meeting on June 30th.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee refunded?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA must be ordered to pay the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the homeowner has prevailed in proving a violation, the law mandates that the Judge order the HOA to reimburse the petitioner for the filing fee.

Alj Quote

If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

Can an HOA fix a violation for missing the 30-day recall meeting deadline by holding the meeting later?

Short Answer

No, this specific violation cannot be cured after the fact.

Detailed Answer

Once the 30-day window for holding a recall meeting has passed, the violation is established and cannot be retroactively fixed by holding the meeting late.

Alj Quote

And although the Association did not conduct the required meeting within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, this violation cannot be cured.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221014-REL
Case Title
James Iannuzo vs. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association
Decision Date
2021-12-30
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • James Iannuzo (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Jason E. Smith (respondent attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Counsel for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
    Transmitted Decision
  • c. serrano (clerk)
    Transmitted Advisements
  • AHansen (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • djones (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • DGardner (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)
  • vnunez (staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (Attn)

Clifford Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221010-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-09
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill records request

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to fulfill his request for copies of records within the statutory 10-day period because the Association improperly required him to inspect the documents first. The ALJ found the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, as the statute does not permit an HOA to mandate prior inspection before providing requested copies.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and ordered to henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Records Request, ARS 33-1805, Records Inspection, Timeliness, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:34 (139.0 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • inspection
  • homeowner rights

Question

How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?

Short Answer

The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.

Alj Quote

On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • records request
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • costs

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records review
  • homeowner rights

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • penalties
  • legal costs

Question

Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, if you designate them in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.

Detailed Answer

The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.

Alj Quote

Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • excuses
  • mailing
  • HOA obligations

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • inspection
  • homeowner rights

Question

How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?

Short Answer

The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.

Alj Quote

On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • records request
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records request
  • costs

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • records review
  • homeowner rights

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • penalties
  • legal costs

Question

Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?

Short Answer

Yes, if you designate them in writing.

Detailed Answer

The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.

Alj Quote

…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • representation
  • records request
  • homeowner rights

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.

Detailed Answer

The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.

Alj Quote

Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • excuses
  • mailing
  • HOA obligations

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford Burnes (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; also identified as Clifford (Norm) Burnes or Norm Burnes,,,.

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (respondent attorney)
    Farley, Choate & Wood
    Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,,.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Listed as Administrative Law Judge.
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Signed the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission of the Decision.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).

Other Participants

  • Joseph Martinez (unknown)
    Petitioner verbally notified him regarding the undelivered certified mail package.

Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan L Jarzabek Counsel —
Respondent Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 Counsel Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:13 (93.9 KB)





Study Guide – 22F-H2221008-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 22F-H2221008-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susan L Jarzabek (petitioner, witness)

Respondent Side

  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Cody (board president, witness)
    Hillcrest Improvement Association #2
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
    Transmitter of Decision

Other Participants

  • John Jarzabek (spouse)
    Petitioner's husband, named on certified letter sent by Association

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard J Jones Counsel —
Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association Counsel Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:52 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:57 (94.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121038-REL


Briefing Document: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of Richard J. Jones versus the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association (Case No. 21F-H2121038-REL). The dispute centered on a concrete driveway extension installed by Mr. Jones without the prior approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Mr. Jones contested the Association’s denial of his post-installation application, alleging that the Design Guidelines were misinterpreted and selectively enforced.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jones’s petition. The decision rested on three key determinations:

1. Clear Violation: Mr. Jones was in direct violation of the Design Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for the modification and by not adhering to a mandatory 12-inch setback from the common block wall, a fact he acknowledged.

2. Reasonable Interpretation: The Association’s interpretation that the 12-inch setback requirement applied to the entire property line—not just the block wall—was deemed “not unreasonable,” particularly since the common wall is part of the property line.

3. Failure to Prove Selective Enforcement: Mr. Jones did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to prove his claim of selective enforcement. The Association provided credible evidence demonstrating consistent application of the setback rule to other homeowners.

The final order upholds the Association’s enforcement actions and dismisses the petitioner’s claims.

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdictional Details

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Richard J. Jones

On his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Troy Stratman, Esq.

Adjudicator

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Case No.

21F-H2121038-REL

Hearing Date

November 2, 2021

Decision Date

November 15, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict arose from a concrete driveway extension installed by Richard J. Jones on his property on May 11, 2020. The installation was performed without submitting a request for prior approval to the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. Following the installation, the ARC denied Mr. Jones’s retroactive application, citing its failure to meet a required 12-inch setback from the property line. This led to a notice of non-compliance and a fine, prompting Mr. Jones to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Chronology of Events

• April 2020: Mr. Jones contacted AAM, LLC, the Association’s property management company, to inquire about adding concrete strips. He was informed this was not allowed but that an employee could assist with an approval process for a paver driveway extension.

• May 11, 2020: Having not received further guidance from the management company, Mr. Jones proceeded to have the concrete driveway extension installed.

• Post-May 11, 2020: Mr. Jones submitted an application to the ARC for retroactive approval of the already-installed extension.

• December 2, 2020: The ARC formally denied Mr. Jones’s application. The denial letter stated the extension did not meet the 12-inch setback requirement and advised him to reapply after cutting the driveway back from the property line.

• January 12, 2021: The Association issued a Second Notice of Non-compliance/Fine.

• February 12, 2021: Mr. Jones filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association was misinterpreting and selectively enforcing its Design Guidelines.

• November 2, 2021: The administrative hearing was conducted.

• November 15, 2021: The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Richard J. Jones)

Mr. Jones’s case was built on two primary arguments:

• Interpretation of Design Guidelines: He contended that the Guidelines in effect at the time of installation required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent regarding the “property line.” He argued that since the Guidelines explicitly mandated a property line setback for sidewalks, the absence of such language for driveway extensions meant the requirement did not apply.

• Allegation of Selective Enforcement: He asserted that the Association was applying its Guidelines and Rules inconsistently among homeowners.

During testimony, Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway extension did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall and expressed a willingness to correct that specific deficiency. He also testified that his neighbors did not object to the extension as installed.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association)

The Association, represented by counsel, presented a multi-faceted defense:

• Procedural Failure: A core issue was Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval from the ARC before installation, as mandated by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Setback Rule: The Association maintained that the extension violated the required 12-inch setback. The property manager, Paul Favale, testified that this rule is intended to ensure water does not drain onto a neighbor’s property.

• Evidence of Consistent Enforcement: To counter the claim of selective enforcement, the Association submitted an “Architectural Status Report” for the period of August 27, 2020, through April 21, 2021. This report demonstrated that other homeowners’ requests for driveway extensions had also been denied for failing to meet the 12-inch property line setback.

It was also noted that the Design Guidelines have since been modified to explicitly require a 12-inch setback from both the common wall and the property line.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

Key Findings of Fact

• Mr. Jones installed the driveway extension on May 11, 2020, without prior approval from the ARC.

• The extension does not have a 12-inch setback from the common block wall, which is part of the property line.

• The Design Guidelines at the time explicitly required a 12-inch setback from the block wall.

• Mr. Jones acknowledged his non-compliance with the block wall setback requirement.

Conclusions of Law

The Judge concluded that Mr. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, which required demonstrating a violation by the Association by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

1. Petitioner’s Violation: Mr. Jones was found to be in violation of the Guidelines. His acknowledgment that the driveway did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall was a critical factor.

2. Reasonableness of Association’s Interpretation: The Judge determined that the Association’s interpretation of the Guidelines—requiring a 12-inch setback along the entire property line—was “not unreasonable.” This conclusion was supported by two points: the common wall is physically part of the property line, and Mr. Jones had failed to follow the required prior approval process, where such ambiguities would have been clarified.

3. No Evidence of Selective Enforcement: The Association presented “credible evidence” via its Architectural Status Report showing that other members were subject to the same rule. Consequently, Mr. Jones “did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was selectively enforcing the Guidelines.”

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The Judge ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed.

• Legal Standing: The decision is binding on both parties.

• Appeal Process: The order can only be challenged through a request for rehearing, which must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (November 15, 2021).






Study Guide – 21F-H2121038-REL


Study Guide: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 21F-H2121038-REL, involving Petitioner Richard J. Jones and Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided case documents.

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

2. What specific modification did Richard J. Jones make to his property, and on what date did he complete it?

3. What critical step did Mr. Jones fail to take before installing the modification, as required by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs?

4. According to the Design Guidelines in effect at the time of installation, what was the specific rule regarding the placement of driveway extensions that Mr. Jones’s project violated?

5. What was Mr. Jones’s main argument regarding the ambiguity of the Design Guidelines concerning the twelve-inch setback requirement?

6. What justification did the Association’s property manager, Paul Favale, provide for the setback requirement?

7. What were the two primary claims Mr. Jones made against the Association in his petition filed on February 12, 2021?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party carried the burden of meeting that standard?

9. How did the Association counter Mr. Jones’s claim that it was selectively enforcing its rules?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Richard J. Jones, a homeowner who appeared on his own behalf, and the Respondent, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, which was represented by its counsel, Troy Stratman, Esq.

2. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Jones added a concrete driveway running from the street to a side gate on his property. This modification is referred to in the documents as a “driveway extension.”

3. Mr. Jones did not submit a request for prior approval to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installing his driveway extension. This pre-approval is required for such modifications under the Association’s CC&Rs.

4. The driveway extension violated the rule requiring a twelve-inch setback from the common block wall. Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway did not comply with this specific requirement of the Design Guidelines.

5. Mr. Jones argued that since the Design Guidelines explicitly required a twelve-inch setback from the property line for sidewalks but did not explicitly state the same for driveway extensions, the requirement did not apply to his project along the full property line.

6. Mr. Favale testified that the purpose of the setback requirement is functional. It is designed to help ensure that water does not drain from one property onto a neighboring property.

7. Mr. Jones’s petition asserted that the Design Guidelines for driveway extensions did not require a setback from the property line (only the common wall). He also claimed that the Association was selectively enforcing its Guidelines and Rules against him.

8. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner, Mr. Jones, bore the burden of proof to show that the Association had violated its own guidelines.

9. The Association submitted an Architectural Status Report covering August 27, 2020, to April 21, 2021. This report provided credible evidence that other Association members had also been denied requests for driveway extensions due to a failure to meet the twelve-inch setback requirement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that Mr. Jones had not met his burden of proof to show the Association had violated its guidelines or enforced them selectively.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as they were applied in this case. Explain specifically how Mr. Jones failed to meet this burden for both of his primary claims.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to determine that the Association’s interpretation of its Design Guidelines was “not unreasonable.” Consider the judge’s reference to the common wall being part of the property line and Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval.

3. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Jones’s initial inquiry to AAM, LLC in April 2020 to the final order in November 2021. Discuss how Mr. Jones’s decision to proceed with construction without explicit approval ultimately weakened his legal position.

4. Evaluate the claim of “selective enforcement.” What kind of evidence would Mr. Jones have needed to present to successfully prove this claim, and why was the Association’s Architectural Status Report considered more compelling evidence by the court?

5. The “Conclusions of Law” section states that the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the parties. Using the facts of this case, explain the legal and practical implications of this principle for a homeowner living within a master association.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company for the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings and renders decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and granting prior approval for modifications to properties, such as driveway extensions.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Mr. Jones.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules that are part of the contract between homeowners and the association, detailing requirements for property modifications.

Driveway Extension

As defined by the parties, a concrete driveway running from the street to a gate at the side of a house.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Richard J. Jones.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Selective Enforcement

The legal claim that an association is not applying its rules and guidelines uniformly, instead penalizing some members while allowing others to violate the same rules.

Setback

A required distance that a structure must be located away from a property line or other feature, such as a common wall. In this case, the requirement was for a twelve-inch setback.






Blog Post – 21F-H2121038-REL


He Fought the HOA Over 12 Inches of Concrete—and Lost. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons from His Case.

Navigating the rules of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like walking through a minefield of regulations, where a small misstep can lead to notices, fines, and protracted disputes. For one homeowner, Richard J. Jones, a conflict with his HOA, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, over a new driveway extension escalated all the way to a formal hearing. The official legal decision in his case reveals several counter-intuitive truths about how these disputes are won and lost, offering valuable lessons for any homeowner living under HOA governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. “Asking for Forgiveness” is a Losing Strategy.

The first major takeaway is that violating rules first and hoping for retroactive approval is an approach doomed to fail, even when the situation feels complex. The story here is more nuanced than simple defiance. In April 2020, before any work began, Mr. Jones contacted the HOA’s management company about his plans. After being told his initial idea for “two concrete strips” was not allowed, he was directed to another employee for help with an application for a different design. According to the case file, Mr. Jones “did not hear back from her and he had the driveway extension installed” on May 11, 2020.

While his frustration is relatable, this impatient miscalculation was his crucial error. Section 4.1.1 of the community’s CC&Rs requires prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). By proceeding without securing this written approval, Mr. Jones was in immediate violation. His subsequent application, submitted only after the work was done, was predictably denied on December 2, 2020. The lesson is stark: a breakdown in communication does not absolve a homeowner of their responsibility to follow procedure. The moment unapproved work begins, you are in breach of the community’s governing documents, and the merits of the project become secondary to the procedural failure.

——————————————————————————–

2. You Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong—Not the Other Way Around.

Many homeowners assume that in a dispute, the burden is on the HOA to prove the homeowner is wrong. The legal reality is the exact opposite. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision formally stated in Conclusion of Law #2 that Mr. Jones, as the petitioner who brought the case, bore the “burden of proof.”

To win, he had to demonstrate that the Association committed a violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge’s decision cites the formal definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, which essentially means the evidence presented must be convincing enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The reality for homeowners is surprising and crucial: in a formal dispute, the legal scales are not neutral. You must actively build a case and convincingly prove the HOA has violated its own rules. Mr. Jones failed to meet this standard.

——————————————————————————–

3. A Small Loophole Isn’t Enough to Win.

Mr. Jones’s central argument rested on a perceived loophole in the governing documents. He claimed the Design Guidelines required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent about the “property line” as a whole, and therefore the rule didn’t apply to the entirety of his project. This highlights a key aspect of HOA governance: the purpose behind a rule matters. The property manager testified that the setback requirement exists to “ensure that water does not drain to the neighbor’s property,” transforming the rule from an arbitrary measurement into a practical and defensible standard.

Ultimately, the judge was unpersuaded by the loophole argument, and the reason is a masterclass in how these cases are decided. The judge’s decision, articulated in Conclusion of Law #7, pointed out that the common wall is fundamentally part of the property line. More importantly, the decision explicitly connected this conclusion to Mr. Jones’s prior actions: “…considering that Mr. Jones did not obtain prior approval from ARC before constructing his driveway extension, the Association’s interpretation…is not unreasonable.” This is the crucial insight: his procedural failure (Lesson #1) directly weakened his ability to argue about ambiguous wording. An HOA’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules is far more likely to be upheld when the homeowner has already disregarded clear procedural mandates. Tellingly, the Association later modified the guidelines to explicitly close this perceived loophole.

——————————————————————————–

4. Proving “Selective Enforcement” is Harder Than You Think.

A common defense from homeowners is that the HOA is engaging in “selective enforcement”—singling them out while letting others get away with similar violations. Mr. Jones made this exact claim, but the Association came prepared with meticulous documentation to defeat it.

As detailed in Finding of Fact #21, the HOA presented an “Architectural Status Report” covering August 27, 2020 through April 21, 2021. This document provided time-stamped evidence that other homeowners’ requests for similar driveway extensions had also been consistently denied for failing to meet the same 12-inch setback requirement. This report systematically dismantled the selective enforcement argument. For homeowners, this underscores a critical point: the feeling of being singled out is not evidence. To win a selective enforcement claim, you must provide clear proof that other members in the exact same situation were treated differently, a high bar that an HOA with good records can easily overcome.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Contract is a Contract

The overarching theme from this case is that HOA governing documents are not merely suggestions; they are legally binding. As stated in Conclusion of Law #5, the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the homeowner and the association. While HOA rules can often feel arbitrary or frustrating, they carry the weight of a contract. The path to successfully challenging them is narrow and requires a clear, well-documented case that proves the HOA, not the homeowner, has breached its duties.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all community members. How well do you really know the contract you’re living under?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard J Jones (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Paul Favale (property manager)
    Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Angela Pate (property manager employee)
    AAM, LLC
    Contacted by Petitioner regarding installation inquiry

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • Miranda Alvarez (Staff)
    Transmitted decision

Rodney F Kirby v. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:48 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:51 (124.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rodney Kirby (petitioner)
  • Patricia Kirby (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Kaylee Ivy (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Regis Salazar (witness)

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Rodney Kirby v. Dove Cove Estate HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Rodney Kirby v. Dove Cove Estate HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Rodney Kirby v. Dove Cove Estate HOA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)