Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:28 (50.9 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:32 (107.0 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:36 (21.7 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:40 (149.2 KB)

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:09 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:18 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:22 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:27 (146.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

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

This summary details the hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Aaron Solen and Anh Jung (Petitioners) vs. Power Ranch Community Association (Respondent)* (No. 24F-H036-REL).

Key Facts and Background

The dispute centered on the installation of an unapproved planter in the Petitioners' front yard. Following a courtesy notice on March 9, 2023, Petitioners submitted a Design Review Committee (DRC) Application, which was denied on April 10, 2023, for not aligning with community aesthetics and being "too large". Petitioners subsequently modified the planter but refused to submit a formal modification application, arguing that the governing documents (CC&Rs) only required modification or new information, not another form, to be granted an appeal.

The Association (Respondent) argued that a formal written application was essential for maintaining accurate written records, especially given the community's size (15,000 members). Although the violation was first noted in March 2023, the Association delayed imposing $100 fines until October 2023, attempting to work with Petitioners to resolve the issue.

Main Issues and Arguments

  1. Violation of Hearing Rights: Petitioners argued they were fined without being provided a proper opportunity to appeal or be heard by the Board of Directors, violating A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association's bylaws.
  2. Appeal Procedure: The Board failed to address Petitioners' appeal at the May 22, 2023 meeting because it intended to give Petitioners time to cure the violation and avoid a "final decision".
  3. Executive Session as Hearing: The Association claimed that the invitation to the June 26, 2023 Executive Session was intended to serve as the appeal hearing. Petitioners did not attend, believing executive sessions were closed to homeowners.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone granted the Petition.

The ALJ made the following key legal conclusions:

  • Standing: The ALJ confirmed that Petitioners (as members residing at the property) were the proper parties to the action, rejecting the Respondent's argument that only the LLC (the title owner) had standing.
  • Due Process Violation: The tribunal found Petitioners met their burden of proof that the opportunity to have a hearing was not granted.
  • The May meeting delay, though a "noble gesture," still denied Petitioners their statutory right to a hearing.
  • The June Executive Session was found insufficient as a "hearing" due to the confusion its terminology caused, denying the "opportunity to be heard".
  • Final Ruling: The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) (requiring notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing penalties) and CC&R's section 5.2.3.

Remedies

While granting the Petition, the ALJ noted he lacked statutory authority to grant several requested remedies:

  • The ALJ could not erase the fines imposed.
  • The ALJ could not force the Association to approve the planters without Petitioners following the proper DRC procedures.
  • The ALJ denied the request to force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s.

The only monetary relief ordered was that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fee.

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition, finding that the HOA's CC&Rs (Section 4.1) prohibited nonresidential use, including short-term renting (deemed a business by the tribunal), unless the lot was rented or leased for month-to-month or longer terms. Therefore, rentals shorter than a month were prohibited.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:40 (47.3 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:50 (59.0 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:00 (117.7 KB)

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

Case Summary: Jennifer J. Sullivan vs. The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc.

This matter (No. 23F-H043-REL) was a contested case before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), heard on July 24, 2023, by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone. Petitioner Jennifer J. Sullivan, a homeowner in The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association, Inc. (Respondent), challenged a violation notice she received for operating a short-term rental (Airbnb).

Key Facts and Background

Petitioner Sullivan had owned her townhome since 2006 and began renting it on a short-term basis (minimum 3 days) through Airbnb in September 2021. She testified that she had registered for a Transaction Privilege Tax number and was pursuing a license under new city rules, acknowledging that the rental was a business. The Association issued a Courtesy Violation Notice on November 22, 2022, citing a violation of Article 4, Section 4.1 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) due to the short-term rental operation.

Main Issues and Arguments

The core legal issue centered on the interpretation of CC&R Section 4.1, titled "Residential Use":

> "All Lots shall be used, improved and devoted exclusively to Single family Residential Use. No gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use shall be conducted on any Lot. This Section shall not preclude the Residential Leasing or Renting of a Lot for Month to Month or Longer Terms".

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Sullivan contended that the CC&Rs do not contain an explicit minimum rental period, and therefore, rentals shorter than 30 days are permissible. She argued that Arizona law (ARS 33-1806.01) requires HOAs to list a minimum rental period if they intend to restrict short-term leasing, which the Elk Run CC&Rs failed to do. She asserted that renting a home is considered a residential use.
  1. Respondent's Argument: The Association, represented by Michael McLeran, argued that Section 4.1 must be read in its entirety to uphold the community's character. They asserted that operating a short-term rental for profit (as evidenced by Petitioner's tax licensing) constitutes a "gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use," which is prohibited. The final sentence of Section 4.1 allowing "Month to Month or Longer Terms" clarifies the *only* exception where renting for profit is permitted, thereby implicitly prohibiting shorter-term rentals. Testimony from the original CC&R signatory, John Vail, supported the intent for a minimum 30-day rental period.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued a Decision on August 8, 2023, denying the Petitioner's petition.

The ALJ found that Petitioner Sullivan failed to meet her burden of proving that the Association violated relevant statutes or documents. The tribunal concluded that Sullivan was "clearly running a business out of the home".

The ALJ adopted the Respondent's interpretation of Section 4.1: nonresidential use (i.e., operating a rental business for gainful occupation) is *only* permitted if the lots are rented or leased for month to month or longer terms. Thus, the ALJ ruled that, as currently written, any renting or leasing shorter than a month was prohibited.

The Petitioner's request for reimbursement of her $500 filing fee was also denied.

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Even if the CC&Rs do not explicitly state 'no short-term rentals', a clause permitting 'month to month or longer' terms generally implies that shorter terms are not permitted under the restrictions against non-residential use.

Alj Quote

Rather the tribunal reads the section to mean that nonresidential use is only permitted if the lots were rented or leased for month to month or longer terms. … Thus, as currently written, any renting or leasing shorted than a month was prohibited.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

  • short-term rentals
  • CC&R interpretation
  • Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that applying for a municipal business license and paying transaction taxes (which are typical for rentals) demonstrated that the homeowner was using the property for a gainful occupation or business, rather than simple residential use.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • business use
  • taxes
  • commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that short-term rentals were allowed simply because the CC&Rs didn't explicitly name and ban them. The restrictions on non-residential use and specific permissions for monthly rentals were sufficient to create the ban.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • implicit restrictions
  • rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Even if the CC&Rs do not explicitly state 'no short-term rentals', a clause permitting 'month to month or longer' terms generally implies that shorter terms are not permitted under the restrictions against non-residential use.

Alj Quote

Rather the tribunal reads the section to mean that nonresidential use is only permitted if the lots were rented or leased for month to month or longer terms. … Thus, as currently written, any renting or leasing shorted than a month was prohibited.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

  • short-term rentals
  • CC&R interpretation
  • Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that applying for a municipal business license and paying transaction taxes (which are typical for rentals) demonstrated that the homeowner was using the property for a gainful occupation or business, rather than simple residential use.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • business use
  • taxes
  • commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that short-term rentals were allowed simply because the CC&Rs didn't explicitly name and ban them. The restrictions on non-residential use and specific permissions for monthly rentals were sufficient to create the ban.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • implicit restrictions
  • rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Felicia Woodward v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H054-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-28
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the single-issue petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D). The ALJ found that the gathering was a 'workshop' and not necessarily a formal 'meeting of the board of directors,' and further found that the Petitioner had received sufficient notice regardless.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:44 (54.7 KB)

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:47 (113.6 KB)

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

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

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

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

This summary addresses the legal case hearing held on July 14, 2023, concerning the matter of Felicia Woodward (Petitioner) versus The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Respondent). The hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to properly notice a community event—the Courthome Improvement Workshop—held on March 14, 2023. Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1804(D) mandates that notice for board meetings must be given at least 48 hours in advance by newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means, and must state the date, time, and place of the meeting.

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Felicia Woodward argued that the notice was improper because the Association failed to follow customary notice methods (community-wide email, portal calendar, and sandwich boards). Although she received an email survey more than 48 hours prior to the meeting, she alleged that the link provided the date and time, but did not include the location (the Zoom link). She presented evidence suggesting the meeting was not listed on the community calendar 24 hours prior. Woodward also noted that a board member questioned the adequacy of the notice at the meeting.

Respondent’s Case:

The Association, represented by Jonathan D. Ebertshauser and Marcus R. Martinez, argued that the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1804, noting that the statute does not require consistent notice methods. The General Manager, Erin Busey, testified that the March 14th event was a workshop, not a regular monthly board meeting, explaining why costly sandwich boards were not used. Busey stated that the meeting information, including the date, time, and location (the Zoom link), was entered into the system and sent via email survey on March 7, 2023, exceeding the 48-hour requirement. Furthermore, evidence showed the Petitioner actually opened the survey email and clicked the link. Counsel emphasized the legal point that the failure of any member to receive *actual* notice does not affect the validity of actions taken, provided notice was issued.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner did not meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) by a preponderance of the evidence.

  1. Nature of the Meeting: The tribunal was not convinced the workshop was a formal “meeting of the board of directors” under the statute, as it was intended for discussion and review of survey results, with no expectation of voting or decisions.
  2. Sufficiency of Notice: Even if the event were considered a board meeting, the Petitioner was found to have had sufficient notice, having opened the email containing the survey and link on March 7, 2023, a week before the workshop.

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner’s petition. Furthermore, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • workshops
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?

Short Answer

No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.

Alj Quote

The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • validity
  • homeowner rights

Question

How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?

Short Answer

Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.

Alj Quote

notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?

Short Answer

Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.

Detailed Answer

The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.

Alj Quote

Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • notice
  • technology

Question

If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • outcomes

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • email
  • digital communication

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that an event advertised as a 'workshop,' where comments and survey results were discussed but no items were voted on or decisions made, did not qualify as a 'meeting of the board of directors' requiring statutory notice.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • workshops
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner must convince the trier of fact that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Does a member's failure to see a meeting notice invalidate the actions taken at that meeting?

Short Answer

No. The validity of actions taken at a meeting is not affected if a member fails to receive actual notice.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that if a member does not receive actual notice, it does not void the meeting's actions, provided the notice was properly issued.

Alj Quote

The failure of any member to receive actual notice of a meeting of the board of directors does not affect the validity of any action taken at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • validity
  • homeowner rights

Question

How far in advance must an HOA provide notice for a board meeting?

Short Answer

Notice must be given at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

Detailed Answer

Unless emergency circumstances exist, the board must provide notice to members via newsletter, conspicuous posting, or other reasonable means at least 48 hours prior.

Alj Quote

notice to members of meetings of the board of directors shall be given at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can a Zoom link be considered the 'location' of a meeting for notice purposes?

Short Answer

Yes, providing a Zoom link can satisfy the requirement for a meeting location.

Detailed Answer

The decision accepted testimony that a reminder notice containing a Zoom link was considered the location of the meeting, contributing to sufficient notice.

Alj Quote

Ms. Busey testified that a reminder notice was sent out the day of the workshop with the Zoom link, which was considered the 'location' of the meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • notice
  • technology

Question

If I lose my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the filing fee is generally not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The order specifically stated that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • outcomes

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

Petitioner opened the email regarding the survey and clicked on the link on March 7, 2023, a week prior to the workshop. Therefore, even if this were considered a 'board meeting' Petitioner would have had sufficient notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • email
  • digital communication

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:25 (219.4 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

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

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

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

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning the Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. (Petitioner) versus Randall and Gisela White (Respondents) regarding compliance with community documents, held remotely before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on April 27, 2023, under Docket No. 23F-H042-REL.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Respondents violated Section 3(j) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by installing permanent tile on their front porch entryway without prior written approval from the Association's Board of Directors. The Petitioner sought an order confirming the violation, requiring compliance, and imposing a civil penalty.

The key facts were largely undisputed:

  1. Respondents installed large, permanent tile squares in their entryway around May/June 2022.
  2. The Association’s management (Cadden Community Management) advised Mr. White in May 2022 that an Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) form was required for any exterior modifications.
  3. The Association has a duty to maintain the structural integrity of the concrete, which the Board contended the permanent tile placement compromised, increasing maintenance costs and creating a potential trip hazard.
  4. The Association provided multiple violation notices and extended the compliance deadline from August 2022 to January 31, 2023.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments (HOA):

Petitioner argued that the Respondents acted in knowing disregard of their obligation to seek approval for exterior modifications, thereby violating the CC&Rs. They asserted that the recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to all purchasers as a matter of Arizona law, regardless of any perceived defect in the documents provided at closing.

Respondents' Defense (Owners):

Mr. White acknowledged installing the tile but maintained an affirmative defense that the CC&Rs set provided during his closing was "flawed," missing pages 4 and 6, which included the foundational Section 3(j). He claimed that he had no duty to comply with documents he had not received. Mr. White also argued that the tile was not visible (covered by a rug) and that its removal, based on his engineering knowledge, would cause severe damage to the underlying post-tension concrete slab, making enforcement punitive.

Final Decision and Legal Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioner established a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Focus on Legal Points:

The ALJ concluded that the Respondents’ defense regarding the missing CC&Rs pages was insufficient because the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions, and the CC&Rs constitute a contract binding upon the owners. Furthermore, Mr. White’s own communications referenced Section 3(j) prior to the permanent installation, confirming actual knowledge of the approval requirement. The ALJ found that allowing the tile to remain would violate the CC&Rs requirements for architectural approval and compatibility/uniformity within the Villas Property.

Outcome and Order:

The ALJ Decision, dated May 9, 2023, granted the petition. The final order mandates that Respondents:

  1. Abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j) henceforth.
  2. Reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for its filing fee.
  3. Pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

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

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

Victoria J Whitaker v. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victoria J Whitaker Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Sunland Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirement of sending a response via certified mail (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to follow due process when enforcing community documents regarding damage to a semi-common element (carport) before her purchase, leading to a violation notice and subsequent enforcement.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Association, Due Process, Violation Enforcement, Carport Damage, Statutory Compliance, Filing Fee Denial
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260(A)(3)(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Declaration Article 5.3
  • Declaration Article 5.1
  • Declaration Article 5.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T11:03:57 (224.9 KB)

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:06 (224.9 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Victoria Whitaker (Petitioner) versus Villas at Sunland Condominium Association (Respondent). The hearing took place on February 3, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The case centered on a dispute over damage to a semi-common element: a carport shared by Petitioner's unit (Unit 16) and an adjacent unit. The damage was observed prior to the Petitioner's purchase of the unit on June 13, 2022. Although the Petitioner received a $20,000 reduction in the purchase price due to the outstanding issue, she denied accepting responsibility for the repair.

On July 18, 2022, after the sale, the Association issued a Notice of Violation to the Petitioner, requiring her to repair the carport ceiling.

A key procedural point addressed at the start of the hearing was the deficient Notice of Hearing, which incorrectly cited the Planned Communities Act (ARS § 33-1803) instead of the correct statute for condominiums. All parties stipulated to amend the governing statute for the dispute to ARS § 33-1242(D), which regulates due process in condominium enforcement actions.

Main Issues and Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to follow due process under ARS § 33-1242. She argued that the violation should not have been enforced against her, as the damage occurred before her purchase and the violation was not properly investigated by management. The Association's claim that the damage was caused by the prior owner's tenant relied solely on "hearsay" (a neighbor's phone call), and no further investigation or expert assessment was conducted. She also claimed that the subsequent hearing held by the Board on October 5, 2022, was unfair because the Board had already made its decision.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association contended that they fully complied with ARS § 33-1242, providing notice and affording the Petitioner a hearing before the Board prior to taking any enforcement action (such as imposing fines). The core legal argument focused on the Petitioner’s failure to adhere to statutory requirements: ARS § 33-1242(B) requires a unit owner to provide a written response to a violation notice by certified mail within 21 days to "trigger" the subsequent due process provisions. The Petitioner admitted sending her contestation via email, not certified mail. The Association argued that because the Petitioner did not follow the statutory procedure, they cannot be found in violation of the statute's subsequent timing requirements.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ concluded that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was narrowly limited to determining whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1242, not to decide who was responsible for the damage or whether the Board's determination was correct.

The ALJ found that Petitioner bore the burden of proving the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The record established that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARS § 33-1242 (certified mail) necessary to "trigger" any protected due process rights. Despite this procedural failure, the Association still apprised her of her rights and afforded her a hearing.

Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that no violation of ARS § 33-1242 was established.

Outcome: Petitioner’s petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Victoria Whitaker (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf without counsel
  • Kimball Whitaker (observer)
    Observed hearing; potential witness for petitioner
  • Realtor (realtor)
    Petitioner's realtor (name not provided)

Respondent Side

  • Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Joseph Milin (board member)
    Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
    Board President; Witness
  • Steven Cheff (property manager)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Community Manager and Compliance Inspector; Witness
  • Carly Collins (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Admin responsible for correspondence
  • Harvey Colin (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Signed resale disclosure statement
  • Neighbor (Unit 15) (witness)
    Unit 15 resident
    Provided alleged eyewitness testimony regarding the damage

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Chad and Ida Carpenter (prior owners/sellers)
    Unit 16 (prior owners)
    The sellers of the property at issue
  • Kevin Finley (contractor)
    Signature
    Provided repair estimate

James Iannuzo v. Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-12-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Petitioner prevailed by showing the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243. The Association was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee. Petitioner's requests for voiding election results, assessing a civil penalty, and appointing an administrator were denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 935534.pdf

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

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 945764.pdf

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

22F-H2221014-REL Decision – 949683.pdf

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

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision regarding the Petitioner, James Iannuzo, versus the Respondent, Moonrise at Starr Pass Community Association. The hearing took place on December 13, 2021.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The case centered on the Association's handling of a petition to recall and remove two board members, specifically addressing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243.

The Association received the recall petitions and scheduled a Special Meeting for June 30, 2021. This meeting was required to be "called, noticed and held within thirty days after receipt of the petition" pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c). A quorum required 20% of eligible voters (45 ballots).

The Association required ballots to be received by June 29, 2021. On the morning of June 30, 2021, the Association canceled the meeting, announcing that it had failed to achieve a quorum. Subsequently, on or about July 14, 2021, the Association announced that late-received ballots provided a quorum and scheduled a new meeting for August 19, 2021, solely to count the ballots originally issued for the June 30th meeting.

The single issue pursued by Petitioner Iannuzo was that the tabulation of Special Meeting ballots received after the statutory deadline violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243(H)(4).

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Iannuzo argued that the August 19, 2021, recount results should be voided because the ballots, notice, and voting instructions specifically stated the ballots were valid only for the June 30, 2021, Special Meeting.

Respondent's Argument: The Association argued that it could not hold the June 30th meeting due to lack of a quorum. They contended that merely setting the meeting was sufficient to satisfy the 30-day requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c), and the statute does not specify when votes must be tallied.

Legal Findings and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1243.

  1. Statutory Violation: The Association acknowledged it did not conduct the June 30th special meeting, meaning no meeting was conducted within 30 days of receiving the recall petitions, a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c).
  2. Invalid Ballot Counting: The decision to count the votes at the August 19th meeting was a violation because, under statute (A.R.S. § 33-1250(C)(3)) and by the Association’s own documentation, the ballot was valid only for the specified June 30th election or meeting. The use of these ballots at the August 19th meeting was non-compliant.

Final Decision and Order:

  • James Iannuzo was declared the prevailing party.
  • The Association was ordered to pay Mr. Iannuzo his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.
  • The ALJ declined Iannuzo’s requests to void the election results, assess a civil penalty, or appoint an oversight administrator, concluding these remedies were outside the scope of the tribunal’s authority under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Subsequent Advisement: Following the Order, the Office of Administrative Hearings later advised the parties that OAH's enabling statutes do not provide authority for it to compel the Respondent to comply with the Order (the fee refund).

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)

Topic Tags

  • recall election
  • deadlines
  • board removal

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • meetings

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • legal remedies
  • ALJ authority
  • elections

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(d)

Topic Tags

  • quorum
  • meetings
  • voting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • deadlines

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael E Palacios Counsel —
Respondent El Rio Community Association Counsel Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill a records request

Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:10 (114.1 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association, No. 21F-H2121053-REL. The hearing took place on August 4, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Proceedings

The Petitioner, Michael E. Palacios, is a property owner and member of the El Rio Community Association (Association). After being appointed to the Board on March 24, 2021, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Department of Real Estate on May 10, 2021, asserting that the Association failed to fulfill a records request made on March 30, 2021. The Respondent Association denied all claims. The Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing. OAH has the authority to hear contested cases concerning disputes between an owner and a planned community association regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Main Issue and Legal Points

The central issue addressed was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the Association Bylaws Article 11.3 by failing to fulfill the records request. Under the relevant statute, associations must make financial and other records reasonably available to members, typically within ten business days. The Association Bylaws Article 11.3 further grants every Director (which the Petitioner was) an absolute right to inspect all books and records. Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner’s Arguments: Petitioner Palacios testified that the Association failed to completely fulfill his March 30 request, alleging he received only about 5% of the documents initially. Specifically, he claimed he did not receive the property management contract (D & E Management), attorney contracts, landscaper contracts, Board minutes, cancelled checks, and ledgers. He also asserted that some provided documents might be false or forged because they contained the incorrect association name ("El Rio Estates Homeowners Association").
  1. Respondent’s Arguments: Denise Ferreira, the manager for the Association's management company (D & E), testified that the Association fully complied with the request, though the compliance was untimely regarding copies of checks due to the bank needing time to prepare the large request. Ferreira explained that there were no ongoing contracts with attorneys or landscapers, and payments related to these services were disclosed through the checks and ledgers provided. Regarding the incorrect name, Ferreira attributed it to an ongoing controversy where some Board members attempted to change the name, but instructions were given to cease using the incorrect name until it was formally modified.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the material facts were not in dispute. The ALJ found that the Petitioner had made a proper request, and the Respondent timely responded, informing the Petitioner of potential delays. Crucially, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Therefore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 or Article 11.3 of the Bylaws.

The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition and his request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee. The decision was transmitted on August 13, 2021.

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

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

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

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

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

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

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

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

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael E Palacios (petitioner)
    Property owner and member of the Association; was appointed to the Board,

Respondent Side

  • Quinten T. Cupps (HOA attorney)
    Represented El Rio Community Association
  • Denise Ferreira (property manager, witness)
    D & E Management
    Owns D & E Management and was the manager for the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford Burnes and Maria Burnes Counsel Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 5

Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)

Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
  • CC&Rs Section 5
  • Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:28:59 (239.9 KB)

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 866263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:03 (268.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.

However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.

I. Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.

Procedural Timeline

July 17, 2020

Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 11, 2020

Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.

Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021

An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

March 22, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.

April 28, 2021

Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.

May 21, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

July 20, 2021

The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.

August 09, 2021

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.

Key Parties

Name / Entity

Clifford & Maria Burnes

Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.

Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioners.

Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.

Respondent.

John Crotty, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent.

Norm Burnes

Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.

Raul & Ramona Martinez

Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings

The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.

• Factual Record:

◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.

◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.

◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Design Guidelines Section 4.0 (Construction Deposit)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.

• Factual Record:

◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.

◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.

◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.

Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.

• Factual Record:

◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.

◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”

◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.

Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.

• Factual Record:

◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.

◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.

◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.

◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.

◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”

• Conclusion of Law: Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.

III. Final Order and Directives

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.

• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).

• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.

• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.

• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.

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

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case, and what is their fundamental relationship?

2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.

3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?

4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?

6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.

7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?

8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?

9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?

10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.

2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.

5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.

6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.

7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.

8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.

9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.

10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.

3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.

4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?

5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

Offer of Proof

A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

🧑‍⚖️

21F-H2120002-REL-RHG

1 source

The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
  • Maria Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
  • Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
  • Cynthia F. Burnes (attorney)
  • Debora Brown (witness)

Respondent Side

  • John Crotty (attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
  • Kelsea Dressen (attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
  • Esmerelda Martinez (board president; witness)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    President of the Board
  • Dave Madill (board member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    Vice President of the Board
  • Julie Stevens (board member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
    Treasurer of the Board
  • Raul Martinez (property owner)
    Owner of Lot 7 and 13
    Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
  • Ramona Martinez (property owner)
    Owner of Lot 7

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Sadot Negreté (observer)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (ADRE contact)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Also listed as DGardner
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

  • Jamie Argueta (ARC member; property seller)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
    Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
  • Joseph Martinez (ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
  • Jesus Carranza (substitute ARC member)
    Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
    Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel Counsel —
Respondent Hidden Valley Association Counsel Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request

Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:50 (147.6 KB)

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association

Executive Summary

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.

Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent

Case Number

21F-H2120006-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone

Hearing Date

October 22, 2020

Decision Date

October 30, 2020

Key Parties

Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)

Core Dispute: The Records Request

The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.

Breakdown of the Records Request:

• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.

• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.

• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)

• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.

• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.

• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.

• Requested Relief:

1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)

• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.

• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”

• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.

• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”

• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion

The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.

• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”

• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.

• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.

• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

Outcome

Petitioner’s Petition

Denied

Request for Civil Penalty

Denied

Reimbursement of Filing Fee

Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)

The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

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

2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?

4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?

5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?

6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?

8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?

10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.

3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.

4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.

5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.

6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.

10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.

3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?

4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.

5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)

The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.

Department of Real Estate (“Department”)

The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Hidden Valley Association (HVA)

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

HOAMCO

The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.

Select all sources
834142.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2120006-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.

1 source

What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas E. Kupel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Timothy Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Gary Freed (board member)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Received service of the Order

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision