Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristeen L. Herron Counsel —
Respondent The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)

This matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 25, 2023, concerning a dispute between homeowner Kristeen L. Herron (Petitioner) and The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent HOA). The Petitioner, appearing on her own behalf, bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated a community document.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The sole issue for determination was whether the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by "turning off the lap pool heater" for approximately one month (mid-April to mid-May 2023), which Petitioner alleged constituted discrimination against senior residents. Petitioner, a "snowbird" residing at the property from October to May, uses the lap pool for exercise therapy due to health issues.

The HOA's governing rules (Rule 3.5.7(e)) stipulate that when the main community pool is closed for the winter season (late-October through April), the lap pool water "shall be heated and maintained at a temperature… which shall be between 78°F and 82°F". The HOA Board adopted a resolution on March 29, 2023, to shut off the lap pool heater simultaneously with opening the large pool, which occurred once the large pool reached 82°F.

Key Legal Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that turning off the heater around April 15, 2023, was premature, leaving the water too cold for senior residents who required warmer temperatures (preferably 84°F or higher) for health and exercise. Petitioner contended this action, along with the refusal to amend the pool rule (3.5.7(e)), violated CC&R 4.4, which prohibits rules that "discriminate among Owners". Petitioner's witness testified that the 78°F–82°F range was falsely attributed to the Arizona Department of Health.
  2. Respondent's Argument: The HOA asserted its authority under CC&Rs Article 4.4 and 8.2(c)(12) to adopt and enforce rules governing common areas, including setting pool temperatures. The HOA maintained that the 78°F–82°F range was reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and followed the established rules for the winter season. Respondent argued that Petitioner's preference for a higher temperature did not establish a violation of the rule or amount to discrimination. Testimony confirmed the lap pool is not intended for medicinal purposes.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) took the matter under advisement and issued a decision on October 16, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The material facts established that the HOA was obligated to heat the pool between 78°F and 82°F during the winter season (through April 2023).

The critical legal finding was that there was no evidence in the record to support the contention that the HOA failed to maintain temperatures within the required range through April 2023. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her personal preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.

Based on these conclusions, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “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”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “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”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kristeen L. Herron (petitioner)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Property owner and member of the Association
  • Karen Ellis (witness)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
  • LouAnne Schmidt (observer)
    Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • Eden Cohen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • April Lord (witness)
    City Property Management
    Vice President of Management Services
  • Christiano Monteiro (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board President; Testified as witness for Respondent
  • John Deck (maintenance technician)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Director of Maintenance
  • Mark (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board member mentioned making a motion
  • Heather Tiveres (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Former managing agent employee whose name was clarified in testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

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 – 940829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:22 (47.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 950132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:29 (41.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:33 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:36 (124.9 KB)

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)

This summary details the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 22, 2021, concerning a dispute between homeowners and their association.

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioners, Rodney and Patricia Kirby, are property owners and members of the Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (HOA/Respondent). The Petitioners, who are retired and use their pool daily for exercise, filed a petition alleging the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on the Association's refusal to remove two sissoo trees, approximately 35 feet high, located on Common Area property just behind the Petitioners’ residence.

The Petitioners testified that since around 2017, the trees caused substantial problems: debris, including leaves and small dead animals, fell into their pool, clogging the pump, which had to be replaced multiple times. Furthermore, roots from the trees caused damage to their retaining wall and back patio slab.

Main Issue and Arguments

The core issue was whether the Association was in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1 for failing to remove the two sissoo trees. CC&R Article IV required the Association to maintain and keep in good condition and repair the Common Area, including the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all landscaping and structures situated upon it.

The Respondent (HOA) denied the complaint, arguing that its duty of maintenance was fulfilled through its landscaping contractor, ProQual Landscaping. The HOA contended that it reasonably relied on ProQual's expert advice; ProQual had inspected the trees in April 2021 and advised that removal was unnecessary, instead leaving them on a regular trimming schedule.

The Petitioners argued that the Association’s inadequate maintenance endangered their health and welfare due to the debris and financial burdens incurred from pool and pump repairs and increased cleaning costs. They asserted that the Association had not given their request proper consideration.

Legal Points and Outcome

The OAH determined it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and interpret the CC&Rs, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and property owners. Petitioners bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. The decision emphasized that the Association's duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line. The evidence established that *but for* the sissoo trees being situated and maintained in their current state, the degree of debris causing damage or harm to Petitioners’ property would not exist.

Final Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Association had violated Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is granted. The Respondent was FURTHER ORDERED to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days. The OAH clarified that while it lacked statutory authority to grant declaratory or injunctive relief, the decision acts to "Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified".

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

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

Posted on by

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 Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:09 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:17 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:20 (167.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Entity

Details

Case Number

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Central Allegation

Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Final Order Date

February 2, 2022

Outcome

Petition Denied.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.

• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.

• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.

• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.

• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.

• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.

• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.

• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.

• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.

• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.

Petitioners’ Position

• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.

• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.

• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”

Respondent’s Position

• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.

• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.

Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.

2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.

4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.

5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.

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

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

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

2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?

4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?

5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?

7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.

2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.

4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.

5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.

6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.

7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.

8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.

2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?

4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.

5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in the Context of the Document

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.

Association / Respondent

The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Department

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

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.

Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.

Introduction: The Fight for Transparency

As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”

1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”

The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.

Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.

This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.

2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense

The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.

This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:

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.

This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.

3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole

The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.

• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.

• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.

In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.

Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story

This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.

In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

  • Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
  • Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
  • Patricia Ahler (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Amanda Stewart (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Jennifer Amundson (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Vision Community Management, LLC
    Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during initial decision phase
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,

Werner A Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

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 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Werner A Reis Counsel —
Respondent Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Counsel Edward O’Brien, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article III, section 1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the undisputed material facts supported the finding that the Association's actions were authorized by the governing documents (CC&Rs Articles II and VI) and did not deny or impede member access or use of the Common Areas.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.

Petitioner alleged that the Board's decision to paint pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players, thereby violating CC&Rs Article III section 1.

Orders: The ALJ denied the petition (on rehearing), concluding that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The Association was authorized to manage and maintain Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not violated.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_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. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, CC&Rs Interpretation, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
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(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.05(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1061(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 792741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:49 (47.0 KB)

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – 806920.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:53 (175.9 KB)

20F-H2019026-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2019026-REL/770924.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:30:56 (153.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner Werner A. Reis (Petitioner) and the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Respondent) concerning the modification of a common area tennis court. The core of the dispute, adjudicated under case numbers 20F-H2019026-REL and 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG, was the Association’s decision in June 2019 to paint pickleball lines on one of its two community tennis courts. The Petitioner alleged this action violated Article III, section 1 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), infringing upon his nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment. The Association contended that its Board of Directors acted within its authority, as granted by the CC&Rs, to manage, maintain, and improve common areas for the benefit of all members.

Following an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled decisively in favor of the Association. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Key findings established that the Board was fully authorized to make the modification without a member vote, that tennis play was not restricted, and that the Petitioner’s easement rights were not violated. The Petitioner’s arguments, based on a potential future conflict rather than an actual experienced impediment, were deemed “unfounded” and “without merit.” The final order, issued on July 14, 2020, denied the petition, affirming the Association’s right to manage the recreational facilities in this manner.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

This matter involves a formal complaint by a homeowner against his townhouse association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Detail

Information

Case Numbers

20F-H2019026-REL, 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Petitioner

Werner A. Reis

Respondent

Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

Core Issue

Whether the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents (CC&Rs Article III, section 1) by adding pickleball lines to one of two community tennis courts.

——————————————————————————–

II. Procedural History

The dispute progressed through a formal administrative hearing process, including a petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final order.

• November 18, 2019: Werner Reis files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• December 4, 2019: The Association files its ANSWER, denying all complaint items.

• January 31, 2020: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark.

• February 20, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding he failed to sustain his burden of proof.

• March 26, 2020: The Petitioner submits a REQUEST FOR REHEARING to the Department.

• April 22, 2020: The Department grants the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.

• May 20, 2020: During a prehearing conference, both parties stipulate that no factual dispute exists and agree to adopt the prior hearing record and submit written closing arguments in lieu of a new hearing.

• June 24, 2020: Deadline for written closing arguments. The Association submits a 17-page argument; the OAH receives no closing argument from the Petitioner.

• July 14, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again denying the petition and ordering that the initial decision from February be the final order in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

III. Analysis of the Dispute

The central conflict was the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs regarding the Board’s authority to modify common areas versus a member’s right to their use and enjoyment.

Petitioner’s Position (Werner A. Reis)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise that adding pickleball as a competing use for a tennis court fundamentally diminished the rights of tennis-playing members.

• Core Allegation: The Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants every member a “nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment in and to the Common Areas.”

• Argument on Infringement: The Petitioner argued the Association created a situation where “Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play,” which he claimed “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment.”

• Impediment of Enjoyment: He contended that reducing the number of exclusively available tennis courts from two to one amounts to “an impediment of enjoyment rights.”

• Creation of Competition: He accused the Association of “creating a new class of people” (pickleball players) who could access the courts, creating new competition for members on a first-come, first-served basis.

• Hypothetical Conflict: The “crux” of his complaint was the possible future conflict between his desire to play two singles matches simultaneously and up to sixteen “outsiders playing a raucous game of pickleball on the other designated tennis court.”

• Requested Remedy: The Petitioner requested an order requiring the Association to designate the courts for tennis playing only.

Respondent’s Position (Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association)

The Association defended its decision as a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to manage community property for the benefit of all residents.

• Board Authority: The Board asserted that its decision was permitted by Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants it the authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” without requiring a member vote. Article VI further requires the Board to maintain and manage recreational facilities.

• Benefit to Community: The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests, and was also considered as a potential means to generate revenue.

• No Restriction of Use: The Association maintained that tennis play was not restricted. Both courts remained available seven days a week on a first-come, first-served basis, with no changes to the reservation system. One court remained available exclusively for tennis at all times.

• Nature of Modification: The modification involved painting lines and using portable nets, which must be detached after play. The permanent tennis nets on both courts remained in place.

——————————————————————————–

IV. Summary of Evidence and Testimony

Testimony from the Association’s representatives and the Petitioner established the key undisputed facts of the case.

Testimony for the Association (Charles Mitchell & Arland Averell)

• Board Authority Confirmed: Charles Mitchell, the Board Director, testified that CC&Rs Articles II and VI, along with the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including painting lines on the tennis courts.

• Historical Context: Arland Averell, a 20-year Board member, explained that a taped pickleball court had existed in 2015 but was damaged. The Board decided in April 2019 to reestablish it with painted lines in response to requests from several families.

• Practical Use: Pickleball is generally played only by a few families, typically on Saturday mornings. When pickleball is being played on the modified court, the other tennis court is always available.

• No Denial of Access: Director Mitchell confirmed that the Petitioner had never been denied access to the tennis courts at any time.

Testimony of the Petitioner (Werner A. Reis)

• Recent Homeowner: The Petitioner described himself as a “snowbird” who had purchased his townhouse in November 2019, shortly before filing his complaint.

• Conflict is Hypothetical: He admitted that he “has not played tennis in ‘years'” and, as a result, “has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.”

• No Direct Observation: The Petitioner testified that he had not personally observed contemporaneous tennis and pickleball games being played. His concerns about safety and inconvenience were speculative.

——————————————————————————–

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions consistently found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally and factually unsupported.

Conclusions of Law

• Undisputed Facts: The Judge concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. The Association’s governing documents clearly authorize the Board to maintain, manage, and improve the Common Areas, including the recreational facilities.

• No Violation of Easement Rights: The ruling stated, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner’s easement rights have not been violated by the Association because the Board painted blue pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts.”

• Petitioner’s Arguments Dismissed: The Judge found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “unfounded” and “without merit.” Specifically, the claim that the availability of only one dedicated court was an “impediment of enjoyment rights” was rejected.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: In both the initial decision and the final order, the Judge concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof” by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs.

• Failure to Prosecute Rehearing: The final decision noted that the Petitioner “did not provide OAH with a closing argument in support of his request for rehearing.”

Final Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.

The decision issued on July 14, 2020, affirmed the initial February 24, 2020, decision and was designated as the FINAL ORDER in the matter, binding on both parties.

Study Guide: Reis vs. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, in his petition filed on November 18, 2019?

2. On what grounds did the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association’s Board of Directors justify its decision to add pickleball lines to a tennis court?

3. According to the testimony of Arland Averell, what prompted the Board to reestablish a pickleball court in April 2019, and what was a prior experience with a pickleball court?

4. Describe the central, or “crux,” of the Petitioner’s complaint as summarized in the hearing evidence.

5. What key admissions did the Petitioner make during his testimony regarding his own tennis activity and his personal experience with the alleged conflict?

6. According to Director Charles Mitchell’s testimony, what is the physical setup of the nets on the courts, and how does this differ between tennis and pickleball?

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

8. What was the outcome of the initial evidentiary hearing held on January 31, 2020, and on what basis did the Administrative Law Judge reach this conclusion?

9. Describe the procedural change that occurred for the rehearing after the parties’ prehearing conference on May 20, 2020.

10. What action, or lack thereof, by the Petitioner on June 24, 2020, contributed to the final ruling in the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific violation claimed was the modification of one of the two existing tennis courts for use as a pickleball court.

2. The Association’s Board of Directors justified the decision as an improvement to the Common Areas for the benefit of the Association, which it was permitted to do under Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs. The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests.

3. Arland Averell testified that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish the pickleball court with painted lines after several families requested it, and the Board also saw it as a way to generate additional revenue. A previous pickleball court established in 2015 had lines made of tape which were damaged approximately four months after being applied.

4. The crux of the Petitioner’s complaint was the possible future conflict between his personal desire to play two singles tennis matches on both courts simultaneously and the potential for up to sixteen “outsiders” to be playing a “raucous game of pickleball” on the modified court.

5. The Petitioner admitted that he had not played tennis in “years” and, as a result, had never actually faced the conflict he was complaining about. He also stated he had never been denied access to the courts and had not observed contemporaneous games of tennis and pickleball being played.

6. Director Mitchell testified that both tennis courts have fixed tennis nets. The pickleball court, however, has portable nets which must be attached for use and then detached at the end of play.

7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence.

8. Following the January 31, 2020, hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof and that the evidence showed his easement rights had not been violated, as one tennis court always remained available.

9. During the prehearing conference, the parties stipulated that no factual dispute existed. They agreed to vacate the scheduled rehearing, adopt the evidentiary record from the first hearing without presenting new evidence, and submit written closing arguments instead.

10. On the deadline of June 24, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a 17-page closing argument from the Respondent (the Association). The Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, failed to submit a closing argument, which was noted in the final decision denying his petition again.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Formulate your answers by synthesizing information from across the case documents. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the conflict between the rights granted to members under CC&Rs Article III, section 1 (“easement of use and enjoyment”) and the powers granted to the Board under CC&Rs Article II, section 1 (“manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas”). How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent tension in the final decision?

2. Discuss the concept of the “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain why Werner Reis’s testimony and arguments ultimately failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial petition on November 18, 2019, to the final order on July 14, 2020. Identify the key events and decisions at each stage, including the initial hearing, the request for rehearing, and the final disposition.

4. Evaluate the strength of the Petitioner’s case. Focus specifically on the evidence he presented versus the evidence presented by the Association’s witnesses, Charles Mitchell and Arland Averell.

5. The Petitioner argued that the availability of only one tennis court when pickleball is in play constituted an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” Explain the Association’s counter-arguments and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s argument to be “unfounded” and “without merit.”

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders and decisions.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature that regulate planned communities and govern the administrative hearing process.

Association

The Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association, a non-profit Arizona corporation serving as the property owner’s association for the development. In this case, it is the Respondent.

Board of Directors (Board)

The governing body of the Association, empowered by the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation to manage, maintain, and improve the Common Areas.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce the degree of evidence required to prove their case. The standard required here was “preponderance of the evidence.”

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling property use within the development. The Restated Declaration was recorded on June 8, 2015.

Common Areas

Property within the development, such as the tennis courts, for the mutual benefit of all owners. The Association’s Board is granted authority to manage and improve these areas.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings regarding disputes in planned communities.

Easement of use and enjoyment

A non-exclusive, perpetual right granted to every member of the Association to use and enjoy the Common Areas, as established in CC&Rs Article III, section 1.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers cases for evidentiary hearings.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Werner A. Reis, a townhouse owner and member of the Association.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and representing the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association.

Snowbird

A colloquial term used by the Petitioner to describe himself as an out-of-state retiree who resides in Arizona during the winter months.

5 Surprising Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Lawsuit Over a Pickleball Court

Introduction: The Battle for the Tennis Court

Disputes with a homeowner association (HOA) are a common feature of suburban life, often revolving around landscaping, paint colors, or parking. But when you combine the rigid world of HOA rules with the explosive popularity of pickleball, you get a conflict that is uniquely modern. In a real-life legal case from Sedona, Arizona, one homeowner took his HOA to court over the decision to add pickleball lines to one of the community’s two tennis courts.

What might seem like a minor neighborhood squabble became a formal legal challenge, complete with hearings, testimony, and an official judicial decision. The court documents from this case offer a surprisingly revealing look into community rules, personal grievances, and the peculiar nature of legal battles. More importantly, they reveal several counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living in a planned community.

——————————————————————————–

1. You Can Sue Over a Problem That Doesn’t Exist (But You Probably Won’t Win)

The core of the legal challenge was filed by Werner Reis, a new homeowner in the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association. His complaint was over the modification of one of two community tennis courts to accommodate pickleball. The “crux” of his complaint was a concern over a possible future conflict: a hypothetical scenario where he might want to play two singles tennis matches while a large group of “outsiders” played a “raucous game of pickleball.”

This seems like a specific, if forward-thinking, concern. But the timeline and testimony revealed a truly bizarre situation. According to court records, Reis purchased his townhouse in November 2019 and filed his lawsuit on or about November 18, 2019—meaning he initiated a formal legal action within days or weeks of becoming a member of the community. Even more stunning was this fact from his own testimony:

Petitioner has not played tennis in “years.” As such, Petitioner has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.

The entire legal challenge—filed almost immediately upon moving in—was based on a hypothetical grievance for a sport the petitioner hadn’t even played in years. Unsurprisingly, the Administrative Law Judge found his argument “unfounded.” The lesson is clear: a legal claim based on “what if” is unlikely to succeed without any actual harm.

2. Your HOA’s Governing Documents Are a Legally Binding Contract

Many homeowners view their HOA’s rules as guidelines, but legally, they are a binding contract called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). When you buy a property, you agree to their terms.

In its defense, the HOA pointed directly to its governing documents. Article VI requires the Board to manage all recreational facilities, and Article II, section 1, gives it the explicit authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” for the “general welfare and benefit of the Owners”—all without a member vote. This clause was the legal bedrock of the Board’s defense; in the eyes of the law, painting lines to accommodate a popular new sport is not a degradation of an amenity, but an improvement of it, squarely within the Board’s mandate.

The tennis courts are legally defined as “Common Areas.” This gave the Board the unambiguous right to paint new lines on them. This is an impactful takeaway for all homeowners: while you may feel a sense of personal ownership over shared amenities, the Board has broad, legally-defined powers to manage them for the entire community.

3. A Board’s Duty Is to Adapt to the Community’s Evolving Interests

The HOA Board’s decision wasn’t a whim; it was a response to a persistent community interest with a history. Testimony from a 20-year Board member, Arland Averell, revealed that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish a pickleball court “after several families requested they do so.” As a secondary benefit, the Board also saw it as a way to “generate additional revenue.”

But this wasn’t the community’s first foray into the sport. Court records show that back in 2015, the association had a pickleball court with taped lines, but it was damaged after only four months. This context is crucial. The 2019 decision to paint permanent lines was not just a reaction to new requests but an institutional lesson learned. It shows the Board was responding to a long-term, evolving interest and choosing a more durable solution, fulfilling its duty to adapt common resources to meet new demands.

4. An “Infringement” Requires an Actual Impediment

The petitioner’s legal argument was very specific. He claimed that adding pickleball “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment” and that having only one guaranteed tennis court is an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” He summarized his grievance with the line:

“Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play.”

However, the facts presented in court systematically dismantled this argument. The evidence showed:

• One of the two courts remained exclusively for tennis at all times.

• Both courts were still available for tennis on a first-come, first-served basis.

• The pickleball nets were portable and had to be detached at the end of play, leaving the court ready for tennis.

• Most critically, the petitioner himself testified that he had “never been denied access to the tennis courts at issue at any time.”

The judge determined that no violation occurred because the petitioner’s rights were never actually impeded. This reveals the critical legal distinction between an inconvenience and an infringement. The petitioner’s entire case rested on a hypothetical future inconvenience, but the law requires an actual, demonstrable impediment to rights. Since his own testimony confirmed one had never occurred, his claim was impossible to prove.

5. If You Demand a Rehearing, You Should Probably Show Up with an Argument

In a final, bizarre twist, the story doesn’t end with the initial ruling in February 2020. The petitioner filed a “REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” which the court granted, giving him a second chance to make his case.

To streamline the process, both parties agreed to skip a new evidentiary hearing and instead submit written “Closing Arguments” to the judge. The HOA’s legal team submitted a detailed, 17-page argument. What happened next was documented in the final court order:

OAH did not receive a closing argument from Petitioner.

The petitioner, who had initiated the entire legal process and successfully demanded a second chance, was given the final word. He had the opportunity to submit a closing argument that could have vindicated his entire complaint. Instead, he offered only silence. By ghosting his own rehearing, he left the judge with no choice but to conclude that he had once again “failed to sustain his burden of proof” and make the original ruling against him final.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Court of Community Opinion

This case is a fascinating lesson in the difference between a personal annoyance and an actual legal violation. It demonstrates that in the world of HOAs, feelings and hypothetical concerns carry little weight compared to the cold, hard text of the governing documents. Those documents give boards significant power, but also charge them with the difficult task of balancing the desires of all residents, not just the grievance of one.

As pickleball courts continue to replace shuffleboard courts and community gardens pop up in unused green spaces, this story leaves us with a critical question: As our communities change, how do we balance protecting the familiar traditions we love with making space for the new ones our neighbors are asking for?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Werner A Reis (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Edward O’Brien (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
  • Mark Sall (attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Also cited as Mark Sahl)
  • Charles Mitchell (board member, witness)
    Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
    Current Director of the Association's Board
  • Arland Averell (board member, witness)
    Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
    Served on the Board for the past twenty years

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (department contact)
    ADRE
    Electronic contact for ADRE
  • c. serrano (staff)
    OAH
    Administrative staff/Clerk noted on document transmission