The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 9.2 by forcing the removal of a previously approved security light. The HOA was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Respondent required permanent removal of pre-approved security light in violation of CC&Rs Section 9.2.
Petitioner had Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval from 2010 to install a security light on the shed fascia (a common area). Respondent HOA later required its removal, arguing their fiduciary duty and a new roofing warranty (2023) voided the prior approval. The ALJ found the HOA failed to perform due diligence regarding the pre-existing ARC approval before contracting the new work and violated CC&Rs Section 9.2, which allows rebuilding in accordance with previously approved plans.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
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. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:57 (51.9 KB)
23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:02 (110.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Can an HOA revoke a previous architectural approval because of a new maintenance policy or warranty?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot simply revoke a prior approval to satisfy a new fiduciary duty or warranty if they failed to consider existing approvals first.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot claim that its fiduciary duty to protect common area warranties overrides a homeowner's valid, prior architectural authorization. The HOA is responsible for performing due diligence regarding existing approvals before entering into contracts that might conflict with them.
Alj Quote
While it may be true Respondent had a fiduciary duty to all the homeowners to protect their investment in maintenance of the common area roofs, this does not entitle Respondent to fail to do their due diligence and disavow prior agreements.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence
Topic Tags
architectural approval
fiduciary duty
maintenance
Question
If I have to remove an approved improvement for HOA repairs, do I need permission to reinstall it?
Short Answer
No, if the CC&Rs state that rebuilding according to previously approved plans does not require new approval.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the CC&Rs explicitly stated that no new permission was needed to rebuild improvements that followed plans previously approved by the committee. Therefore, the homeowner was entitled to reinstall the approved item.
Alj Quote
No permission or approval shall be required to rebuild in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Committee.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.2
Topic Tags
architectural approval
repairs
CC&Rs interpretation
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
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.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for the filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to pay back the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the hearing.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Does winning the case automatically mean the HOA will be fined a civil penalty?
Short Answer
No, a judge may rule in favor of the homeowner but still deny a request for a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Although the ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs and ordered them to comply, the specific request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA was denied.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
Question
Can an HOA claim a new contractor's warranty voids my old approval?
Short Answer
Not if the HOA failed to check for existing approvals before signing the contract.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that a new roof warranty (which would be voided by penetrations) should extinguish the prior approval. The judge rejected this, noting the HOA admitted they did no due diligence to check for conflicts before signing the roofing contract.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, Respondent admitted no due diligence was performed regarding the existence of Architectural Review Committee approvals which would conflict with potential roof work before a contract was signed.
Legal Basis
Duty of Care / Contract Awareness
Topic Tags
warranties
contractor
due diligence
Case
Docket No
23F-H056-REL
Case Title
Richard K. Morris v The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an HOA revoke a previous architectural approval because of a new maintenance policy or warranty?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot simply revoke a prior approval to satisfy a new fiduciary duty or warranty if they failed to consider existing approvals first.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot claim that its fiduciary duty to protect common area warranties overrides a homeowner's valid, prior architectural authorization. The HOA is responsible for performing due diligence regarding existing approvals before entering into contracts that might conflict with them.
Alj Quote
While it may be true Respondent had a fiduciary duty to all the homeowners to protect their investment in maintenance of the common area roofs, this does not entitle Respondent to fail to do their due diligence and disavow prior agreements.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence
Topic Tags
architectural approval
fiduciary duty
maintenance
Question
If I have to remove an approved improvement for HOA repairs, do I need permission to reinstall it?
Short Answer
No, if the CC&Rs state that rebuilding according to previously approved plans does not require new approval.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the CC&Rs explicitly stated that no new permission was needed to rebuild improvements that followed plans previously approved by the committee. Therefore, the homeowner was entitled to reinstall the approved item.
Alj Quote
No permission or approval shall be required to rebuild in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Committee.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 9.2
Topic Tags
architectural approval
repairs
CC&Rs interpretation
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
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.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for the filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to pay back the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the hearing.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Does winning the case automatically mean the HOA will be fined a civil penalty?
Short Answer
No, a judge may rule in favor of the homeowner but still deny a request for a civil penalty.
Detailed Answer
Although the ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs and ordered them to comply, the specific request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA was denied.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
Administrative Discretion
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
Question
Can an HOA claim a new contractor's warranty voids my old approval?
Short Answer
Not if the HOA failed to check for existing approvals before signing the contract.
Detailed Answer
The HOA argued that a new roof warranty (which would be voided by penetrations) should extinguish the prior approval. The judge rejected this, noting the HOA admitted they did no due diligence to check for conflicts before signing the roofing contract.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, Respondent admitted no due diligence was performed regarding the existence of Architectural Review Committee approvals which would conflict with potential roof work before a contract was signed.
Legal Basis
Duty of Care / Contract Awareness
Topic Tags
warranties
contractor
due diligence
Case
Docket No
23F-H056-REL
Case Title
Richard K. Morris v The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Richard K. Morris(petitioner) The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Joelle Lever(board member) The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Represented the Respondent and provided testimony
Chelsea Hearn(board member) The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Homeowner who complained about the light
alice.riesterer(management staff) The Management Trust Arizona
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge who signed the Order and Decision
Judge Svio(hearing officer) OAH Administrative Law Judge who opened the hearing
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Deborah L(ARC member) Association Association representative who approved Petitioner's request in 2010
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to fully satisfy sub-requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter, as the documentation provided (specifically from the plumbing company and designer) lacked the necessary professional weight or specificity required by the Association to address structural and plumbing concerns.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of statute regarding denial of interior modification request.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1221 by denying his request to combine two units and add two bathrooms, claiming the denial was unsupported by facts or governing documents. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove the violation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: condominium modification, HOA denial, structural integrity, plumbing concerns, burden of proof, architectural approval
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H060-REL Decision – 1081134.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:25 (189.0 KB)
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Common Law / Legal Standard
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
definitions
Question
Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?
Short Answer
Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.
Alj Quote
After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums
Question
Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation
Question
Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.
Alj Quote
Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.
Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?
Short Answer
Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.
Alj Quote
Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)
Topic Tags
exterior changes
architectural control
common elements
Question
If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?
Short Answer
Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).
Detailed Answer
Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.
Alj Quote
While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.
Legal Basis
Evidence sufficiency
Topic Tags
renovations
compliance
engineering reports
Case
Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Common Law / Legal Standard
Topic Tags
legal standards
evidence
definitions
Question
Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?
Short Answer
Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.
Alj Quote
After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums
Question
Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?
Short Answer
Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation
Question
Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.
Detailed Answer
If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.
Alj Quote
Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.
Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?
Short Answer
Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.
Detailed Answer
State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.
Alj Quote
Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)
Topic Tags
exterior changes
architectural control
common elements
Question
If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?
Short Answer
Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).
Detailed Answer
Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.
Alj Quote
While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.
Legal Basis
Evidence sufficiency
Topic Tags
renovations
compliance
engineering reports
Case
Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Ryan McMahon(petitioner) Full name: Ryan Christopher McMahon
Christina Samaras(witness) Petitioner's fiance and observer. Also referred to as Christina Cincer.
Robert A. Young(engineer/consultant) Structural Engineer (PE) providing documentation for Petitioner
Scott Olsson(plumber/consultant) Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. Licensed plumber/Qualifying Party providing statements for Petitioner
Gary Devol(designer/consultant) Designs by Devol LLC Designer who created the modification plans
Respondent Side
Mike Yohler(attorney) Farmers Insurance Counsel of record for Respondent
Kent William Groseth(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association Board President and witness
Emma(property manager representative) AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc. Exchanged correspondence with Petitioner regarding denial
Mia(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association HOA president at the time of initial request
Jim Nelson(board member) Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association Co-vice president
Robin(property manager representative) AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc. Vice President involved in email correspondence
Miss Morgan(attorney) Previous counsel replaced by Mike Yohler
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner’s petition because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the HOA violated ARS § 33-1804 by failing to hold a properly noticed open board meeting prior to the March 2, 2023, special assessment vote. Evidence suggested issues were discussed in prior committee and board meetings, and Petitioner did not prove informal discussions constituted a violation requiring a finding against the Respondent.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's conduct violated ARS § 33-1804.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold open board meeting prior to special assessment meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting law (ARS § 33-1804) by failing to hold an open board meeting prior to the March 2, 2023, special meeting where members voted on a special assessment, arguing that preliminary discussions and decisions were made unilaterally in supposed closed-door meetings or through email/informal discussions.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meeting Law, Special Assessment, Board Meetings, HOA Governance, Committee Meeting
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
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.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071114.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:11 (5884.7 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071115.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:14 (7935.6 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071120.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:19 (1989.0 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071121.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:23 (4055.1 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071122.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:27 (676.0 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071126.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:31 (3343.5 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071127.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:36 (3328.5 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1071503.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:39 (49.2 KB)
23F-H057-REL Decision – 1079574.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:42 (114.8 KB)
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging a violation against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence."
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the burden is on the homeowner to prove their case. The standard used is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show that their claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Do informal discussions or emails between board members automatically violate open meeting laws?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. To constitute a violation, there must be proof that a quorum was present and that board business was actually conducted.
Detailed Answer
While informal discussions or emails might technically constitute a meeting, the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that a quorum of board members was involved and that they were conducting actual board business to prove a violation of the open meeting statute.
Alj Quote
The informal discussions and emails between board members may have constituted board meetings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, however, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence the number of board members meeting constituted a quorum which would thereby require notice to homeowners.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
open meetings
emails
board communication
Question
What evidence is required to prove the board held a 'secret' meeting?
Short Answer
The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that a quorum met and that specific board business was conducted.
Detailed Answer
Allegations of closed-door meetings fail if the homeowner cannot prove that enough board members were present to form a quorum and that they engaged in board business during that time.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence the number of board members meeting constituted a quorum which would thereby require notice to homeowners. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence board business was conducted during these putative board meetings.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
evidence
secret meetings
quorum
Question
Can a special assessment vote be based on recommendations from a committee meeting held months earlier?
Short Answer
Yes, if the committee meeting was valid, its recommendations can serve as the basis for a later vote.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the ALJ found that a special assessment vote in March 2023 was validly based on maintenance recommendations generated during an architectural committee meeting held the previous August.
Alj Quote
The special assessment which was voted on during the March 2, 2023, special meeting were maintenance recommendations from the architectural committee meeting on August 18, 2022.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
special assessments
committees
voting
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all reasonable doubt.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Question
Which HOA meetings are required by law to be open to all members?
Short Answer
Meetings of the members, the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings must be open.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly requires that meetings of the members' association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committee meetings be open to all association members, notwithstanding contrary bylaws.
Alj Quote
Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
open meetings
homeowner rights
statutes
Case
Docket No
23F-H057-REL
Case Title
Wanda Swartling v Val Vista Park Townhome Association of Mesa
Decision Date
2023-08-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging a violation against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a "preponderance of the evidence."
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the burden is on the homeowner to prove their case. The standard used is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the homeowner must show that their claim is more likely true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedure
Question
Do informal discussions or emails between board members automatically violate open meeting laws?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. To constitute a violation, there must be proof that a quorum was present and that board business was actually conducted.
Detailed Answer
While informal discussions or emails might technically constitute a meeting, the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that a quorum of board members was involved and that they were conducting actual board business to prove a violation of the open meeting statute.
Alj Quote
The informal discussions and emails between board members may have constituted board meetings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, however, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence the number of board members meeting constituted a quorum which would thereby require notice to homeowners.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
open meetings
emails
board communication
Question
What evidence is required to prove the board held a 'secret' meeting?
Short Answer
The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that a quorum met and that specific board business was conducted.
Detailed Answer
Allegations of closed-door meetings fail if the homeowner cannot prove that enough board members were present to form a quorum and that they engaged in board business during that time.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence the number of board members meeting constituted a quorum which would thereby require notice to homeowners. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence board business was conducted during these putative board meetings.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
evidence
secret meetings
quorum
Question
Can a special assessment vote be based on recommendations from a committee meeting held months earlier?
Short Answer
Yes, if the committee meeting was valid, its recommendations can serve as the basis for a later vote.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the ALJ found that a special assessment vote in March 2023 was validly based on maintenance recommendations generated during an architectural committee meeting held the previous August.
Alj Quote
The special assessment which was voted on during the March 2, 2023, special meeting were maintenance recommendations from the architectural committee meeting on August 18, 2022.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
Topic Tags
special assessments
committees
voting
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires evidence that has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all reasonable doubt.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Question
Which HOA meetings are required by law to be open to all members?
Short Answer
Meetings of the members, the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings must be open.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute explicitly requires that meetings of the members' association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committee meetings be open to all association members, notwithstanding contrary bylaws.
Alj Quote
Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
Topic Tags
open meetings
homeowner rights
statutes
Case
Docket No
23F-H057-REL
Case Title
Wanda Swartling v Val Vista Park Townhome Association of Mesa
Decision Date
2023-08-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wanda Swartling(petitioner) Val Vista Park Townhome Association Homeowner, VVP Unit 82
Respondent Side
Chad Gallacher(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Steve Cheff(property manager / witness) Heywood Community Management Also community manager
Patti Locks(board member) Val Vista Park HOA Also listed as candidate/incumbent
Stephanie Hamrock(board member / witness) Val Vista Park HOA
Troy Goudeau(board member) Val Vista Park HOA Elected director
Paul Wilcox(board member) Val Vista Park HOA Elected director
Bettie Smiley(board member) Val Vista Park HOA
Carlee Collins(administrative assistant) Heywood Community Management
Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello
Alleged Violations
Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws
The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:32 (115.3 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deborah Masear(petitioner) Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II HOA Member Also referred to as Deborah Maer
Respondent Side
Ashley Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Carl Westlund(witness) Management Trust Community Manager for the HOA
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Also referred to as Judge Delio
The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide association financial records upon member request.
The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to comply with her request for financial records dated December 15, 2022, pursuant to ARS § 33-1805. The Association provided only Profit & Loss statements on January 12, 2023, but failed to provide other requisite financial documents, such as balance sheets, statements of cash flows, or statements of income, as defined by ARS § 32-701. The failure to fulfill the request for financial statements constituted a violation.
Orders: The petition was affirmed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Respondent was ordered to provide financial statements, as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, for the months of August 2022 through December 2022 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Statutory Compliance, Record Request Delay, Filing Fee Reimbursement, HOA Board Member
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
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.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:27 (149.9 KB)
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association 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
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those 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. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association 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
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those 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. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deanna Smith(petitioner, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Respondent Side
Christina Morgan(HOA attorney) Vingham
George Minter(President, board member, witness) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Linda Dieball(Treasurer, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
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.
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.
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
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
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
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
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
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
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. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
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
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
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
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
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
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
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
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. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
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
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
The Administrative Law Judge denied Petitioner Michael H. Jahr's petition, concluding that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816, because a clothesline is not a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, and ARS § 33-439(a) was inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816. The Tribunal determined that a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1816 regarding denial of utilizing solar means to reduce energy consumption.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1816 by refusing him the ability to utilize solar means (a clothesline) to reduce energy consumption, arguing the clothesline met the definition of a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, which the HOA cannot prohibit.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent was ordered not to owe Petitioner any reimbursement for fees incurred.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Solar Energy Device, Clothesline, Planned Community, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
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. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1041743.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:59 (161.1 KB)
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1057366.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:04 (55.7 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
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 Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
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 Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael H. Jahr(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Daniel Clark Collier(assistant community manager) Leisure World Community Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent and testified as a witness
Regis Salazar(witness) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE Recipient of recommended decision
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
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. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Matthew E Thompson(petitioner) Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
Charles Dean Otto(Board President; witness) Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Other Participants
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Constituent Services Manager
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Transmitted electronic order
c. serrano(OAH staff) OAH Transmitted Minute Entry
Sam Muza(Contractor President) Verde Valley Landscape Services Signed contract with HOA
Charlene Frost(homeowner) Filed Request for Exterior Change application
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
AHansen(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
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of records request statute (failure to timely provide materials lists/specifications related to roof replacement/repairs).
Petitioner requested materials lists and specifications regarding recent (Sept 2021) and past (since 1986) roof work on February 27, 2022. The Association provided a scope of work document from the vendor on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed. The ALJ determined the requested documents were not established to be 'financial and other records of the association' as contemplated by the statute, and TMT was not in possession of them at the time of the request.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for a civil penalty were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02 A
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA records request, Planned Community Act, Roof Repair/Replacement, Condominium, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
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. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 1003691.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:15 (160.6 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979940.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:17 (49.4 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979959.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:18 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 985762.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:20 (52.8 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 986375.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:22 (52.8 KB)
Study Guide – 22F-H2222048-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 22F-H2222048-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “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.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert C. Ochs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Appeared on behalf of respondent
Carl Westlund(witness) The Management Trust Division Vice President of Community Management at TMT
Shauna Carr(property manager) The Management Trust Former executive community manager for Camel View Greens
Dameon Cons(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Sent response letter to Petitioner
Mark A. Holmgren(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Counsel for Respondent listed on transmittals
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH Transmitted orders/minute entries
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
vnunez(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
labril(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
Other Participants
Jeff Centers(vendor/project manager) Vendor Contractor hired by the community
