Michael D. Ludden vs Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Posted on September 23, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H051-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-09-23
Administrative Law Judge	Nicole Robinson
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael D. Ludden	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountain Gate Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 1, Definitions, Area of Association Responsibility

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, concluding that the HOA CC&Rs mandate that the Association is responsible for replacing individual homeowners' roofs, if needed, primarily by interpreting the contractual term 'repair' to encompass 'replacement,' and noting that the roof is explicitly included under the HOA's maintenance and repair duties while items solely the owner's responsibility (windows, doors, interior plumbing) are specifically excluded from Areas of Association Responsibility.

Key Issues & Findings

Areas of Association Responsibility – Association responsibility for roof replacement by the association not clearly specified as to whether or not it’s an association or homeowner responsibility.

Petitioner sought clarification on whether the HOA's CC&Rs mandate roof replacement as part of 'Areas of Association Responsibility.' The ALJ concluded that the term 'repair' includes 'replacement,' and based on the CC&Rs language regarding maintenance and repair of the roof and the specific exclusion of windows and doors, the HOA is responsible for roof replacement if needed.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
CC&Rs Article 1
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Merriam-Webster dictionary

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Responsibility, Roof Replacement, CC&R Interpretation, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
CC&Rs Article 1
CC&Rs Article 5.18
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1323178.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:58 (68.2 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1328240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:04 (71.7 KB)

25F-H051-REL Decision – 1353423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:24:09 (167.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H051-REL

Briefing Document: Ludden v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between petitioner Michael D. Ludden and the Mountain Gate Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the responsibility for roof replacement. On September 23, 2025, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings issued a final decision, ruling conclusively in favor of the petitioner.

The central finding is that the Mountain Gate HOA is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs when necessary, in addition to its acknowledged duties of maintenance and repair. The ruling was based on a close interpretation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The ALJ determined that the CC&Rs’ definition of an “Improvement” (which includes any building or structure) combined with the Association’s explicit obligation to “maintain, repair and replace” such improvements, established the HOA’s liability for roof replacement.

The dispute arose from ambiguous language within the CC&Rs, which was compounded by conflicting verbal and written promises made by both the original and subsequent developers during home sales. The HOA argued that financial impracticality and a 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance shifted replacement liability to the owners. However, the ALJ’s decision rejected these arguments, finding the language of the governing documents to be controlling. As a direct result of the ruling, the Mountain Gate HOA must reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee and is legally bound to comply with this interpretation of its responsibilities moving forward.

Case Overview

Legal Proceedings

Case Name

In the Matter of: Michael D. Ludden, Petitioner, v. Mountain Gate Homeowners Association, Respondent.

Case Number

25F-H051-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Nicole Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 3, 2025

Decision Date

September 23, 2025

Parties Involved

Title/Position

Petitioner

Michael D. Ludden

Homeowner and HOA President

Petitioner’s Witness

Brenda Anderson

HOA Secretary Treasurer

Respondent Representative

James “Jim” Pieper

HOA Board Member at Large

Respondent’s Witness

Pablo Martinez

HOA Director at Large

Central Issue

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of the Mountain Gate HOA’s CC&Rs to determine whether the Association is financially responsible for the full replacement of homeowner roofs at the end of their service life, or if its obligation is limited solely to maintenance and repair.

Background and Community History

The dispute is rooted in the development history of the Mountain Gate community, which consists of 42 townhome units in Lakeside, Arizona.

• 2006: The community is established and the association is incorporated as a condominium association.

• 2007: Construction begins on the first 12 units under the original developer.

• 2010: The development is re-platted from condominiums to townhomes, becoming a planned community. The CC&Rs are amended (Article 5.18) to require individual owners to obtain comprehensive insurance for the full replacement cost of their dwelling unit.

• c. 2014: The original developer goes bankrupt. Petitioner Michael Ludden purchases his unit from the developer’s sales agent, Gary Laframboise, who verbally stated that roof maintenance and replacement were the HOA’s responsibility.

• 2016: A new developer, Maebee Mountaingate LLC, purchases the remaining lots and resumes construction.

• 2018: The new developer utilizes sales brochures that explicitly promise roof replacement coverage. One document states, “Roofs last 20 years, replacement can cost $9500. In Mountain Gate part of your homeowner’s dues will be there to replace your roof if it is needed.”

• 2021: The new developer commissions a reserve study which includes line items for roof replacement.

• July 2022: With all 42 units completed, control of the HOA is transitioned from the developer to the homeowners. The Association’s reserve fund has a zero balance at the time of turnover.

• 2024: A homeowner demands the HOA replace his roof, prompting the board to seek a legal opinion and bringing the ambiguity in the CC&Rs to the forefront.

• February 28, 2025: Michael Ludden files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate to seek a formal ruling on the matter.

• September 3, 2025: An evidentiary hearing is conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Arguments Presented at Hearing

Petitioner’s Position (Michael D. Ludden)

The petitioner argued that the HOA is, and has always been represented as being, responsible for roof replacement.

• Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The primary argument centered on Article 1 of the CC&Rs. It defines “Improvements” as “any building, wall or structure” and states the Association “is obligated to maintain, repair and replace” these improvements. The petitioner asserted that a dwelling unit is an “Improvement,” and therefore its roof is subject to replacement by the HOA.

• Developer Representations: Evidence was presented showing consistent promises from both developers.

◦ A text message from the original developer’s agent, Gary Laframboise, dated October 8, 2024, confirmed, “roof maintenance and replacement is HOA responsibility.”

◦ Sales brochures from the second developer, dated 2018, were used to attract buyers with the explicit promise that HOA dues would cover roof replacement.

• Practical Concerns: It was argued that HOA control over replacement is necessary to maintain aesthetic uniformity and structural standards across the community, preventing homeowners from using substandard materials or unapproved colors (a “purple shingle” scenario was cited).

Respondent’s Position (Mountain Gate HOA)

The respondent, represented by board members, argued that roof replacement is the financial responsibility of the individual homeowner.

• Governing Documents (CC&Rs): The respondent focused on a more specific clause within Article 1 that states the Areas of Association Responsibility “shall include the maintenance and repair of: all exterior walls and the roof of any Dwelling Unit.” They contended that the absence of the word “replace” in this specific clause meant the duty did not exist, superseding the more general language.

• Shift in Liability (2010 Amendment): A key argument was that the 2010 re-platting of the community from condominiums to townhomes fundamentally shifted liability. The accompanying amendment requiring owners to carry their own insurance for the “full replacement cost of the Dwelling Unit” was presented as evidence that the replacement responsibility was transferred to the homeowner and their insurer.

• Financial Impracticality: The board stressed the severe financial burden. With annual dues already at $3,318 with no amenities (e.g., pool, clubhouse), adding the cost of roof replacement would require a further increase estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 per year, which would negatively impact property values and make homes difficult to sell.

• Extraneous Documents: The respondent’s position was that sales brochures and verbal promises are not legally binding and cannot override the language of the recorded CC&Rs.

Final Decision and Legal Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petitioner’s request, finding that the HOA is responsible for replacing homeowner roofs when necessary.

Outcome: PETITION GRANTED.

Judge’s Rationale

The decision was based primarily on an interpretation of the plain language of the CC&Rs.

1. Controlling Language of the CC&Rs: The judge found the broader definition in Article 1 to be controlling. Because an “Improvement” is defined as a “building,” and the Association is obligated to “maintain, repair and replace” such Improvements, the responsibility for roof replacement was established.

2. Definition of “Repair”: The judge cited the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “repair” as “to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken.” From this, she concluded that “a repair could come through replacement,” further blurring the distinction the respondent tried to make.

3. The Window Hypothetical: The judge used a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the legal reasoning. The CC&Rs state that owners are solely responsible for the “maintenance and repair” of their windows. If a window needed to be replaced, the responsibility would clearly fall on the owner, even though the word “replace” is absent. The judge reasoned the inverse is true for the roof: since the roof is explicitly listed as an Area of Association Responsibility, that responsibility logically includes replacement when a simple repair is insufficient.

4. Rejection of Respondent’s Arguments: The judge determined that the 2010 amendment requiring individual homeowner insurance “still does not relieve the HOA from repairing and maintaining the roof” and, by extension, replacing it under its CC&R-defined duties. The developer’s promises were noted as supportive but were not the primary basis for the decision.

Direct Orders Issued

Based on the findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be GRANTED.

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

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth comply with the provisions of the governing documents as interpreted in the decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael D. Ludden (petitioner)
Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
HOA President and Property Owner
Brenda Anderson (witness)
Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
HOA Secretary-Treasurer

Respondent Side

James Pieper (respondent)
Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
HOA Director-at-Large
Pablo Martinez (witness)
Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
HOA Director-at-Large
Fzen (board member)
Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
Newest board member, observed hearing

Neutral Parties

Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (ADRE commissioner)
ADRE
Miranda (OAH staff)
OAH
Mentioned by Petitioner regarding document submission
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission
mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission
gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official transmission

Other Participants

Gary Laframboise (former developer agent)
Original Developer
Provided external statements cited in hearing
Karen Johnson (sales agent)
Navy Construction/Homes Smart
Represented developer Maebee Mountaingate LLC

Jeremy R Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on August 8, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H045-REL; 25F-H054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-08-08
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,000.00
Civil Penalties	$1,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jeremy R. Whittaker	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted both consolidated petitions (25F-H045-REL and 25F-H054-REL), finding that Respondent, The Val Vista Lakes Community Association, violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by wrongfully withholding requested documents and failing to respond to records requests. Respondent was ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for all pending and future requests, reimburse the Petitioner the total filing fees of $1000.00, and pay a total civil penalty of $1000.00.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation regarding failure to provide association records (Policies/Legal)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested records (including those regarding records policy and attorney fee information) within the ten-business-day deadline, and by conditioning production on an unenforceable ‘Records Request Form’. The tribunal found Val Vista wrongfully withheld the documents and violated the statute.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $500 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Violation regarding failure to provide financial records (Bank Statements)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide requested operating and reserve bank statements. Val Vista failed to respond to the request. The tribunal found the failure to respond unacceptable and in violation of the statute.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $500 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Failure to Produce Documents, Statutory Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Refund, Consolidated Cases

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1315733.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (58.2 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316066.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (61.5 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316100.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (58.7 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1316101.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (9.5 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1318153.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (46.4 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324339.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (50.1 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324343.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:34 (43.8 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1324372.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (44.6 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1328416.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (38.0 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1337742.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (129.7 KB)

25F-H045-REL Decision – 1342973.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:45:35 (47.1 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H045-REL

Briefing Document: Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final judgment in the consolidated cases of Jeremy R. Whittaker v. The Val Vista Lake Community Association. The core of the dispute centered on the association’s failure to comply with member records requests, a direct violation of Arizona state law. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, Jeremy R. Whittaker, finding that The Val Vista Lake Community Association (Val Vista) wrongfully withheld documents and failed to respond to legitimate requests within the statutory timeframe.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected Val Vista’s defense, which included claims that the relevant statute was outdated and that the association’s internal “Records Policy” justified its non-compliance. The judge’s decision labeled the association’s failure to respond as “simply unacceptable.” Consequently, the OAH ordered Val Vista to comply with the law for all current and future requests, reimburse the Petitioner for $1,000 in filing fees, and pay an additional $1,000 in civil penalties. A subsequent clarification order explicitly extended the compliance mandate to “all pending and future requests,” solidifying the prospective impact of the ruling.

Case Overview

The matter involves two separate petitions filed by a homeowner against a homeowners’ association, which were later consolidated by the OAH for judicial economy.

Entity / Individual

Petitioner

Jeremy R. Whittaker (Appeared on his own behalf)

Respondent

The Val Vista Lake Community Association (Val Vista)

Respondent’s Counsel

Joshua M. Bolen, Esq., CHDB Law LLP

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding ALJs

Velva Moses-Thompson (pre-hearing motions), Adam D. Stone (hearing and final decision)

Overseeing Agency

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Consolidated Dockets

25F-H045-REL and 25F-H054-REL

Procedural History and Key Rulings

The case progressed through a series of motions and orders leading to a final evidentiary hearing and decision.

• Case Consolidation (June 10, 2025): Petitioner’s motion to consolidate docket No. 25F-H054-REL with No. 25F-H045-REL was granted. The hearing for the consolidated matter was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on July 15, 2025.

• Motions Denied (June 10, 2025): In the same order, a motion for summary judgment was denied, and a motion to quash a subpoena for Bryan Patterson was denied as moot, allowing the Petitioner to file a new subpoena for the revised hearing date.

• Virtual Appearance (June 10, 2025): The Respondent’s motion for a virtual appearance at the hearing via Google Meet was granted.

• Subpoena Rulings:

◦ Bryan Patterson (June 17 & July 1, 2025): The OAH granted a subpoena requiring the appearance of Bryan Patterson but denied the request for the production of documents listed as 2a through 2d. A subsequent motion to quash a new subpoena (dated June 25, 2025) was partially granted; Patterson was still required to appear but not to produce the specified documents.

◦ Tamara Swanson (July 1, 2025): A June 5, 2025 subpoena was partially quashed. Tamara Swanson was ordered to appear at the hearing but was not required to produce documents listed as 2a through 2d.

• Disqualification of Counsel Denied (July 1, 2025): Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify CHDB Law, LLP as counsel for the Respondent, which the OAH denied.

• Evidentiary Hearing (July 15, 2025): The consolidated hearing was held before ALJ Adam D. Stone. The record was held open until July 24, 2025, to allow both parties to submit written closing arguments.

• Final Decision (August 8, 2025): ALJ Adam D. Stone issued a final decision in favor of the Petitioner.

• Order Clarification (August 26, 2025): Upon the Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification, the ALJ modified the decision’s language to ensure future compliance from the Respondent.

Analysis of Records Requests and Disputes

The dispute originated from three separate, comprehensive records requests made by the Petitioner to which the Respondent, Val Vista, failed to provide documents or a substantive response.

Case 25F-H045-REL: Records Policy and Legal Fees

This case encompassed two records requests made on February 27, 2025. The official dispute was summarized in the Notice of Hearing:

“Petitioner alleges Respondent of violating, ‘A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the requested records with the ten-business-day statutory deadline, conditioning production on a legally unenforceable ‘Records Request Form’, and withholding critical attorney fee information-particularly troubling given its counsel’s documented disciplinary history for inflated or misleading HOA fee practices.'”

Requested Documents (February 27, 2025):

1. Records Retention and Request Policy: The final, fully executed version of the policy adopted around February 25, 2025, including all exhibits and attachments.

2. Meeting Minutes: Draft or final minutes from the February 25, 2025, Board meeting discussing the adoption of the policy.

3. Legal Services Records:

◦ Current and past legal services agreements and retainers.

◦ Attorney rate schedules and fee structures.

◦ Invoices, billing statements, and payment records (with legally permitted redactions).

◦ Board meeting minutes discussing attorney engagement or retention.

◦ RFPs or other bid solicitations related to retaining legal counsel.

◦ Conflict-of-interest disclosures or waivers concerning the law firm.

◦ Any other records detailing the contractual or advisory relationship.

Case 25F-H054-REL: Financial Records

This case stemmed from a request made on March 21, 2025. The Notice of Hearing defined the dispute:

“Petitioner alleges Respondent of violating, A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), ‘by failing to provide the requested bank statements and FSR-related communications, and is operating in ongoing breach or its statutory obligations.’”

Requested Documents (March 21, 2025):

1. Operating Bank Statements: Complete monthly statements for all operating/checking accounts from January 1, 2024, to the present.

2. Reserve Account Statements: All monthly or quarterly statements for reserve accounts from January 1, 2024, to the present.

For both cases, the final decision confirmed that “No documents have been turned over by Val Vista.”

Final Administrative Law Judge Decision

The ALJ’s final decision on August 8, 2025, provided a clear resolution to the disputes, finding definitively against Val Vista.

Summary of Arguments

• Petitioner’s Position: Argued that Val Vista failed to produce the requested records within the statutory timeline and had no authority to compel the use of a specific records request form or to ignore a request not submitted on that form.

• Respondent’s Position: Argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805 was “outdated and misunderstood” and that it only had ten days to provide copies after an examination of records occurred. Val Vista claimed it created its Records Policy to streamline previously broad requests from members and that some requested documents were privileged.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ found that the Petitioner met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Val Vista violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.

• Wrongful Withholding: The central conclusion was that “Val Vista wrongfully withheld the requested documents.”

• Failure to Respond: The decision stated that Val Vista’s lack of any response was unacceptable. Even if documents were privileged, they “could have properly been withheld and/or redacted.”

• Invalid Justification: The fact that the second request was not made on Val Vista’s preferred form “does not excuse Val Vista from at a minimum responding.” The Petitioner’s written request complied with the statute.

• Unacceptable Conduct: The ALJ concluded, “No response by Val Vista was simply unacceptable, and in violation of the statute.”

Final Order and Penalties

The OAH granted both of the Petitioner’s petitions and imposed the following orders and penalties:

Case Docket

Filing Fee Reimbursement

Civil Penalty

25F-H045-REL

Granted; Respondent must follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

$500.00

25F-H054-REL

Granted; Respondent must follow A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

$500.00

$1,000.00

The total financial judgment against The Val Vista Lake Community Association was $2,000.00.

Post-Decision Clarification

On August 26, 2025, in response to a Motion for Clarification from the Petitioner, ALJ Adam D. Stone issued a modifying order. The order strengthened the original decision by stating:

“IT IS ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge Decision shall be modified to read, ‘Respondent shall follow the A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) for all pending and future requests.'”

This clarification ensures that the ruling is not limited to the specific past violations but establishes a clear, forward-looking mandate for the association’s compliance with state law regarding member access to records.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jeremy R. Whittaker (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Josh Bolen (attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Also referred to as Joshua M. Bolen, Esq.; Represented Respondent
Vicki Goslin (staff)
CHDB Law LLP
Listed as a recipient for transmission

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Signed orders dated June 10 and July 1
Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Signed Order Holding Record Open and Administrative Law Judge Decision/Modification
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
vnunez (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE
djones (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE
labril (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE
mneat (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE
lrecchia (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE
gosborn (ADRE staff/recipient)
ADRE

Other Participants

Bryan Patterson (witness)
Subject of motions to quash subpoena
Tamara Swanson (witness)
Subject of motion to quash subpoena

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest

Posted on June 8, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H036-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge	Kay Abramsohn
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust	Counsel	—
Respondent	Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 5.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
CC&R 5.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1294268.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:22 (45.3 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1295556.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:26 (40.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1314961.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:30 (144.4 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323845.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:34 (44.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323922.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:38 (7.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H036-REL

Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. 25F-H036-REL, held before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved an allegation by the Petitioner that the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Article 5.3 of its Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which mandates that its Architectural Committee (ARC) “shall consist of three (3) regular members.”

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, asserting that the ARC was operating with only two members, thereby violating the governing documents. The Petitioner argued that this violation had persisted for an extended period and that the HOA Board had ignored his own application to fill the vacancy, constituting punitive behavior that warranted civil penalties.

The Respondent, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, contended that the governing documents allow for flexibility and that no violation occurred while the Board was actively recruiting a third member. The HOA argued that its interpretation was practical, in the best interest of the homeowners, and consistent with the practices of previous boards.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay A. Abramsohn, ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision, issued on June 8, 2025, found that the HOA was in violation of CC&R 5.3 at the time the petition was filed. The ruling was narrowly focused on the number of ARC members and explicitly declined to address secondary arguments about the validity of member appointments, as those were outside the scope of the single-issue petition. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H036-REL

Petitioner

John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Hearing Date

May 14, 2025

Decision Date

June 8, 2025

Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3

The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).

Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:

“After such time as the rights of Declarant to appoint the members of the Architectural Committee expire or are relinquished by the Declarant, the Architectural Committee shall consist of three (3) regular members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Board. In the event the Board does not appoint an Architectural Committee for any reason, the Board shall exercise the authority granted to the Architectural Committee under this Declaration…”

The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.

Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:

• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.

• Prolonged Non-Compliance: The ARC operated with only two members for approximately 17 months, from at least October 2023 until March 17, 2025. Krahn further argued the period of non-compliance was potentially 42 months, claiming ARC member Mike Ackerly was never lawfully appointed by a formal Board vote in an open meeting.

• Failure to Correct: The HOA Board acknowledged the vacancy at a November 19, 2024 meeting and called for volunteers. Krahn submitted his resume the next day but his application was never discussed or voted upon. He contended this was a missed opportunity to bring the ARC into compliance.

• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.

• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.

Key Testimony (Krahn): “This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It’s a binary question of fact and by respondent’s own admission are operating for many months with other than three members.”

Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments

The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:

• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.

• Active Recruitment: The Board was actively recruiting for the vacant position, as evidenced by the public call for volunteers. During this recruitment period, the two-member committee’s continued function was reasonable and in the community’s best interest.

• Board Authority: The Board has the authority under CC&R 12.5 to interpret the governing documents. Its interpretation that the committee could function with two members during a vacancy was a valid exercise of that authority.

• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.

• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.

Key Testimony (Jolivette): “Our position is that two members is not not necessarily a violation of 5.3 if and when you’re actively recruiting for another member… Nothing in the governing document states that an appointment is equivalent to a vote.”

Hearing and Procedural Timeline

Nov 19, 2024

The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.

Nov 20, 2024

Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.

Jan 22, 2025

The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.

Feb 5, 2025

The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar 17, 2025

The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.

May 14, 2025

An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

June 8, 2025

The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

June 29, 2025

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.

• Violation Confirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner met the burden of proof to demonstrate that as of the petition’s filing date (February 5, 2025), the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the ARC. This constituted a violation of CC&R 5.3.

• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.

• Limitation of Scope: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of Mike Ackerly’s appointment process were not addressed. The ruling was confined to the single issue presented in the original petition: whether the ARC had the required number of members. The decision stated, “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the appointment process are not addressed.”

The ALJ issued a three-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H036-REL was granted on the grounds that the HOA had not appointed a third member to the ARC to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursed: The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc was later issued on June 29, 2025, to correct a clerical error in the original decision, changing the record of admitted evidence from “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 22” to “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 26.” This correction was retroactive to the date of the original decision.

Study Guide – 25F-H036-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H036-REL”, “case_title”: “John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-06-08”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the CC&Rs state a committee ‘shall’ have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of ‘shall consist’ in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R 5.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “Committee Requirements”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Compliance”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.”, “detailed_answer”: “Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner’s $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Filing Fees”, “Remedies”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.”, “alj_quote”: “Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Architectural Committee”, “Board of Directors”, “Statutory Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Civil Penalty” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… ‘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”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?”, “short_answer”: “30 days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Rehearing”, “Procedure” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H036-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John R. Krahn (petitioner/representative)
John R Krahn Living Trust
Appeared on Petitioners’ behalf; former ARC Chairman and Board Secretary.
Janet Krahn (petitioner)
Janet Krahn Living Trust
Named party in the case title.

Respondent Side

Dwight Jolivette (board president/HOA representative)
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Appeared on Respondent's behalf.
Barbara Bonilla (property manager)
Ogden & Company
Community Manager for the HOA.
Steve Gauer (board treasurer/ARC member)
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Became Board Treasurer in November 2024; served on ARC.
Mike Ackerly (ARC member)
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Joined the ARC in February 2022.
Alan Damon (ARC member)
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Appointed to the ARC on March 17, 2025.
Kenneth Riley (ARC member (former))
Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
Indicated as an ARC member between July and November 2024.

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Other Participants

Joe Burns (attendee)
Attended the hearing virtually; did not give testimony.
John Fris (ARC member (former))
Mentioned as a former ARC member appointed in February 2021.
Brett (ARC member (former))
Mentioned as a former ARC member whom John (Fris) replaced.

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on June 8, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H036-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge	Kay Abramsohn
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust	Counsel	—
Respondent	Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 5.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
CC&R 5.3

Briefing Doc – 25F-H036-REL

Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)

Executive Summary

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H036-REL

Petitioner

John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Hearing Date

May 14, 2025

Decision Date

June 8, 2025

Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3

The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).

Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:

The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.

Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:

• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.

• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.

• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.

Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments

The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:

• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.

• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.

• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.

Hearing and Procedural Timeline

Nov 19, 2024

The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.

Nov 20, 2024

Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.

Jan 22, 2025

The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.

Feb 5, 2025

The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar 17, 2025

The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.

May 14, 2025

An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

June 8, 2025

The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

June 29, 2025

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.

• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.

The ALJ issued a three-part order:

2. Filing Fee Reimbursed: The Respondent (HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.

Appeals
Rehearing
Procedure

Case

Docket No

25F-H036-REL

Case Title

John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Decision Date

2025-06-08

Alj Name

Kay A. Abramsohn

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs state a committee 'shall' have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?

Short Answer

Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R 5.3

Topic Tags

CC&Rs
Committee Requirements
Governance

Question

If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Administrative Law Standards

Topic Tags

Procedural
Compliance
Dispute Resolution

Question

Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.

Detailed Answer

Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Filing Fees
Remedies
Costs

Question

Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?

Short Answer

Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.

Detailed Answer

Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Topic Tags

Architectural Committee
Board of Directors
Statutory Requirements

Question

Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?

Short Answer

No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

Penalties
Remedies
Civil Penalty

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

Burden of Proof
Legal Standards
Evidence

Question

How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

Appeals
Rehearing
Procedure

Case

Docket No

25F-H036-REL

Case Title

John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Decision Date

2025-06-08

Alj Name

Kay A. Abramsohn

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on May 22, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H032-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Anne F. Segal	Counsel	—
Respondent	Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
CC&Rs Article VII
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R Amendment, Written Consent, Executive Session, Statutory Interpretation, Planned Community, Filing Fee

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
CC&Rs Article VII
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:43 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:47 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:51 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:55 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:01 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:08 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:15 (206.1 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H032-REL

Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.

The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.

Case Overview

The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.

The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Name / Entity

Key Contributions

Anne F. Segal

Petitioner, Homeowner

Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.

Prince Court Homeowners Association

Respondent

Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.

Mary Beth Snyder

President, HOA Board

Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.

Susan Matheson

Vice President, HOA Board

Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.

David Zinfeld

Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court

Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.

Dr. Robert Segal

Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager

Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.

Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.

——————————————————————————–

Central Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Core Allegations

The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.

• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”

• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.

• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.

• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.

• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.

• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”

• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”

• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”

• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.

——————————————————————————–

Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision

On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.

Findings of Fact

The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:

• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.

• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.

• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.

• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.

• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.

• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.

• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:

1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.

2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.

3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.

4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.

5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.

Study Guide – 25F-H032-REL

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H032-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Anne F. Segal (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf.
David Zeinfeld (witness)
Original developer and declarant of the subdivision.
Robert J. Seagull (witness)
Petitioner's husband and property manager.

Respondent Side

Wendy Ehrlich (HOA attorney)
Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mary Beth Snyder (board member)
Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
President of the Association and witness.
Susan Matheson (board member)
Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Vice President of the Association and witness.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
ADRE
Dianna Tidle (observer)
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on March 31, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Barrs	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:21 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:25 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:30 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:36 (149.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.

Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

Michael Olley (HOA President)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
mneat (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
lrecchia (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
gosborn (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

Brian Schoeffler (observer)
Observed the hearing.
Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on July 5, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H036-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Aaron Solen and Anh Jung	Counsel	—
Respondent	Power Ranch Community Association	Counsel	Charles H. Oldham

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws

Outcome Summary

The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.

Why this result: The tribunal lacks statutory authority to erase fines imposed, force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s, or force the Association to accept the planters without Petitioners going through the proper Design Review Committee processes.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner was issued fines as a result of a Design Review Committee decision and petitioner was not provided an opportunity to appeal to or be heard by the board of directors as required by A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5, specifically Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws.

Petitioners were fined for an unapproved modification (planter) without being granted a proper opportunity to be heard by the Board, as required by statute and bylaws, leading to a violation finding against the Association. The May 2023 meeting did not include the hearing, and the June 2023 Executive Session was not deemed a proper 'hearing' due to confusion over the closed session terminology.

Orders: The petition alleging violation of hearing rights was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Requests for reimbursement of fines incurred ($400.00), approval of the planters, imposition of a civil penalty, and rewriting CC&R’s procedures were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
Article 5.2.4
CC&R Section 5.2.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: DRC denial, hearing rights, monetary penalty, unapproved modification, executive session, CC&R violation

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
Article 5.2.4
CC&R Section 5.2.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:30 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:33 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:37 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:42 (146.0 KB)

Study Guide – 24F-H036-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H036-REL”,
“case_title”: “Aaron Solen & Anh Jung vs Power Ranch Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-07-05”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to provide a hearing before imposing fines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, state law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision cites Arizona Revised Statutes, which mandate that a board of directors may only impose reasonable monetary penalties after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation.”,
“alj_quote”: “After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“hearings”,
“due process”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to remove fines from my account?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal stated it lacks the statutory authority to erase fines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if the homeowner prevails on the procedural issue (like lack of a hearing), the ALJ in this case ruled that they do not have the power to order the fines be removed or erased.”,
“alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal has no statutory authority to erase the fines imposed nor force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“remedies”,
“jurisdiction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ force the HOA to approve my architectural modification (e.g., planters)?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal cannot force the HOA to accept improvements that haven’t gone through the proper design review process.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ denied the request to force approval of the unapproved planters, noting that the homeowners must still go through the association’s Design Review Committee (DRC) processes.”,
“alj_quote”: “nor can it force the Association to accept the planters as is without Petitioners going through the property DRC processes.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural review”,
“landscaping”,
“remedies”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is an invitation to an ‘Executive Session’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the terminology is confusing and leads homeowners to believe they cannot attend.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that inviting homeowners to an Executive Session—which is generally understood to be closed to the public—was confusing. Because the homeowners believed they couldn’t attend, the session did not count as a valid opportunity to be heard.”,
“alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds that the June 2023 Executive Session was not a “hearing” for purposes of the CC&R’s, and it was not an opportunity to be heard based upon the confusion the Executive Session terminology caused.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“executive session”,
“meetings”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I own my home through an LLC, can I still file a petition against the HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, provided you are the member residing at the property and the HOA has treated you as the owner.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued the petition was deficient because the title was held by an LLC. The ALJ rejected this, finding the residents were the proper parties because they were members of the association and the HOA sent mail to them individually.”,
“alj_quote”: “At the outset, the tribunal finds that Petitioners are the proper parties to the action. They are the members of the Association, and all mail went directly to Petitioners individually, and not as a member/manager of the LLC.”,
“legal_basis”: “Standing”,
“topic_tags”: [
“LLC ownership”,
“standing”,
“membership”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to Arizona statutes.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“reimbursement”,
“costs”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Board delay my hearing to give me time to fix a violation instead of hearing my appeal?”,
“short_answer”: “No, if you requested a hearing, the Board should address it rather than delaying it indefinitely.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Board delayed the hearing to avoid issuing a final denial, hoping the homeowner would fix the issue. The ALJ ruled that while well-intentioned (“noble gesture”), this delay violated the homeowner’s right to be heard when the matter was not addressed at the monthly meetings.”,
“alj_quote”: “Therefore, although the Board was most generous in delaying the “hearing” to avoid a final decision, the matter should have been addressed in May and June at the monthly meetings and it was not.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“delays”,
“board conduct”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ impose civil penalties on the HOA for their actions?”,
“short_answer”: “It is possible but was denied in this specific case.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowners requested civil penalties against the HOA. The ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioners’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty…”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”,
“topic_tags”: [
“civil penalties”,
“sanctions”
]
}
]
}

Blog Post – 24F-H036-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Aaron Solen (petitioner)
ACRE Holdings, LLC
Anh Jung (petitioner)
ACRE Holdings, LLC
Also known as Ann Young

Respondent Side

Charles H. Oldham (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Jennifer Partridge (property manager/witness)
CCMC
Also known as Jennifer Campbell; Executive Director for Power Ranch
Nick Ferre (property manager)
CCMC
Jennifer Partridge's supervisor
Allison Sanchez (property manager)
CCMC
Chris Ecknar (board member)
Power Ranch Community Association
Listed attendee in contested board minutes exhibit
Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Marcus R. Martinez (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazlewood
Listed in early transmission list with Respondent's counsel
Curtis Mark (HOA attorney)
Power Ranch Community Association
Association attorney

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
ADRE

Other Participants

Sherikillo (witness)
Neighbor
Confirmed petitioner's topic was raised at May 2023 board meeting

Jennifer J Sullivan v. The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association,

Posted on August 8, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H043-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-08
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jennifer J Sullivan	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Community’s CC&Rs; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition, finding that the HOA's CC&Rs (Section 4.1) prohibited nonresidential use, including short-term renting (deemed a business by the tribunal), unless the lot was rented or leased for month-to-month or longer terms. Therefore, rentals shorter than a month were prohibited.

Why this result: The tribunal determined the Petitioner failed to meet her burden, as her short-term rental operation constituted a prohibited nonresidential use/business under Section 4.1 of the CC&Rs, which only permits leasing for Month to Month or Longer Terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

Petitioner challenged the Courtesy Violation Notice issued by the HOA for operating a short-term rental (Airbnb) with a minimum rental period less than month-to-month, arguing the CC&Rs did not explicitly prohibit such rentals. The HOA maintained that Section 4.1 prohibited nonresidential use, unless leased for month-to-month or longer terms, thereby prohibiting short-term rentals/business use.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, short-term rental, CC&R interpretation, business use, 30-day minimum

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
PAL versus Washburn 211 Arizona 553 2006
Burke versus Voiceream Wireless Corporation 2 2007 Arizona 393 quarter of appeal 2004
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/32WfGJkSa7XHp9ynvDHnHF

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:20 (47.3 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:23 (59.0 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:27 (117.7 KB)

Case

Docket No: 23F-H043-REL
Case Title: Jennifer J Sullivan vs The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-08-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If my CC&Rs allow leasing for 'month to month or longer terms', does that automatically prohibit short-term rentals like Airbnb?

Short Answer

Yes. The tribunal interprets 'month to month or longer' as an exclusive permission, meaning any rental term shorter than a month is prohibited.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

short-term rentals
CC&R interpretation
Airbnb

Question

Can listing a home on Airbnb be legally considered 'running a business' or 'non-residential use'?

Short Answer

Yes. Applying for a business license and remitting transaction privilege taxes can establish that a homeowner is conducting a business from the home.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner was clearly running a business out of the home, as she has applied for a business license with Flagstaff, and was remitting Transaction Privilege Tax.

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

business use
taxes
commercial activity

Question

Does an HOA have to explicitly use the phrase 'no short-term rentals' in the CC&Rs to ban them?

Short Answer

No. The absence of a specific exclusion for short-term rentals does not mean they are permitted if other language restricts leasing terms.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Further, tribunal was not convinced that simply because it does not mention the exclusion for short-term rentals that the same was permitted.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

CC&R interpretation
implicit restrictions
rental rules

Question

Who has to prove their case in a hearing regarding an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When a homeowner petitions for a hearing alleging the HOA violated statutes or documents, it is the homeowner's responsibility to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D).

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal procedure
evidence

Question

If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee reimbursed?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is typically denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the filing fee paid by the homeowner.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

fees
penalties
costs

Case

Docket No: 23F-H043-REL
Case Title: Jennifer J Sullivan vs The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-08-08
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jennifer J Sullivan (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf
David Sheffield (petitioner attorney)
Provided legal opinion to Petitioner in 2020

Respondent Side

Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Represented Respondent
Teresa Bale (board member)
The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Board President; Witness for Respondent
John R. Bale (developer/witness)
The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Original developer who drafted/signed CC&Rs; Witness for Respondent
Jason Miller (attorney)
Provided opinion letter regarding CC&Rs to the Board
Beth Moly (attorney)
Issued formal opinion letter regarding Section 4.1
Melanie Lashley (property manager)
Homeco Rent
Contacted by Petitioner regarding rental rules
Betsy Snow (board member)
The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.
Won board election against Petitioner

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission
AHansen (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission
vnunez (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission
djones (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission
labril (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission

Felicia Woodward v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association

Posted on July 28, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-07-28
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Felicia Woodward	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association	Counsel	Jonathan D. Ebertshauser

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by a preponderance of the evidence for the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The tribunal determined the meeting was advertised as a workshop and not a statutory board meeting, and the Petitioner had timely opened the notice email a week prior.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleges the Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a meeting that 'had not been properly noticed…'

Petitioner alleged that the March 14, 2023 meeting was not properly noticed because customary channels (email, calendar, sandwich boards) were not used, and the notice provided did not include the meeting location. Respondent argued notice was given through email survey and the community calendar, meeting the statutory requirements, and that the event was a workshop.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Notice Requirements, HOA Board Meeting, Workshop, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:36 (54.7 KB)

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:40 (113.6 KB)

notice
email
digital communication

Case

Docket No: 23F-H054-REL
Case Title: Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date: 2023-07-28
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Does an HOA workshop count as a 'board meeting' that requires formal legal notice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If no votes are taken or decisions made, it may not be considered a meeting of the board of directors under the statute.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The tribunal was not convinced that this was a 'meeting of the board of directors' under the statute. … There was no expectation that items would be voted on or decisions made.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

meetings
workshops
definitions

Question

Can opening an email with a survey link constitute receiving notice of a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that a homeowner opened an email/link about the event in advance can establish sufficient notice.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that because the Petitioner clicked a survey link related to the workshop a week prior, they had sufficient notice of the event.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

notice
email
digital communication

Case

Docket No: 23F-H054-REL
Case Title: Felicia Woodward vs The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Decision Date: 2023-07-28
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Felicia Woodward (petitioner)
Property owner/Association member
Full name is Felicia Anne Woodward; Appeared via Google Meet.

Respondent Side

Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen
Represented Respondent.
Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado, & Bolen
Represented Respondent.
Erin Busey (witness/general manager)
First Service Residential (The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association)
Called as a witness by Respondent; Identified herself as Aaron Ducy during testimony.

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmission.

Other Participants

Debbie Robinson (witness)
Referenced by Petitioner as the person who took a screenshot exhibit; Presence/testimony not confirmed in hearing record.

Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. v. Randall & Gisela White

Posted on May 9, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-05-09
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$100.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.	Counsel	Michael Shupe, Esq.
Respondent	Randall & Gisela White	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.

Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $100.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R violation, Architectural Review Committee (ALC), exterior modification, tile installation, constructive notice, affirmative defense, HOA maintenance

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. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3itaPyCAGEsVerqaxDXPRZ

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:11 (219.4 KB)

conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors

Case

Docket No: 23F-H042-REL
Case Title: Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date: 2023-05-09
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?

Short Answer

No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

CC&Rs
disclosure
compliance

Question

Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?

Short Answer

Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Contractual Obligations

Topic Tags

architectural control
maintenance
visibility

Question

Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?

Short Answer

No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.

Legal Basis

Remedy of Violation

Topic Tags

violations
remedies
architectural control

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

procedural
burden of proof
evidence

Question

If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

fees
costs
penalties

Question

Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

civil penalty
fines
ADRE

Question

Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?

Short Answer

Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.

Alj Quote

Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.

Legal Basis

Judicial Discretion

Topic Tags

conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors

Case

Docket No: 23F-H042-REL
Case Title: Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date: 2023-05-09
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael Shupe (HOA attorney)
Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Appeared as counsel for Petitioner
Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Legal counsel for the Association; communication contact listed
Lori Don Woullet (Property Manager/Witness)
Cadden Community Management
Senior Community Association Manager
Diane Patricia Weber (Former Board Member/Witness)
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
Former Board Treasurer
Lynn Birleffi (Witness)
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
Called as a witness for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Randall White (Respondent)
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
Appeared pro se and testified
Gisela White (Respondent)
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc.
Appearance waived

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate