Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

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 partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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






Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


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






Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


{ “case”: { “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 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.

Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-03-27
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Miera Phx LLC Counsel —
Respondent Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 17, 6.1, 6.2, 5; Bylaws Articles I, Section 3; Article VI, Section 3(b); Article IX, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated the cited documents or statutes, as the ALJ determined the complaint was fundamentally a dispute regarding violations committed by individual unit owners (a homeowner vs. homeowner argument).

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes, particularly noting that the Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions cited, only a homeowner can. The statute regarding monetary penalties uses 'may' (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), indicating discretion, not a mandatory duty enforceable as a violation against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's failure to enforce CC&Rs prohibiting transient/short-term rentals and managing parking/common areas misuse

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce restrictions prohibiting short-term rentals (under 30 days) and misused parking/common areas by transient guests, citing conflicts of interest among Board members operating STRs.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Dartmouth Trace CC&Rs Section 17
  • Dartmouth Trace Bylaws Article VI Section 3(b)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1264772.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:25 (66.0 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275713.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:30 (49.9 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1275762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:34 (8.3 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1287568.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:38 (182.8 KB)

25F-H022-REL Decision – 1318865.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:42 (56.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H022-REL


Briefing Document: Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc. (No. 25F-H022-REL). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Homeowners Association (HOA) failed to enforce its governing documents, specifically the prohibition against short-term rentals (STRs) of less than 30 days.

The Petitioner, represented by homeowner Angel Miera, argued that the HOA’s inaction allowed STRs to proliferate, leading to safety concerns, nuisance issues, and a degradation of the community’s residential character. A central claim was that a conflict of interest existed, alleging the HOA Board President himself operated an STR. The Petitioner sought mandated enforcement, board reorganization, and financial compensation for HOA fees.

The Respondent HOA, represented by its management company and a board member, countered that enforcing the STR prohibition was practically impossible without “hard proof,” such as an exterior photo with a unit number, which is difficult to obtain. They cited financial constraints, other pressing maintenance priorities, and limitations imposed by state law on collecting fines as significant hurdles. The board also highlighted its own instability, with only two members remaining—both of whom were in the process of selling their properties—and a severe lack of community volunteers.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the petition. The decision concluded that the Petitioner had not met the burden of proof. The ALJ reasoned that the underlying issue was a “homeowner versus homeowner argument,” as the HOA itself cannot violate the rental restrictions, only individual owners can. Furthermore, the governing statute is permissive, stating an association may impose penalties, not that it must. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to compel board stability.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H022-REL

Petitioner

Miera Phx LLC

Petitioner Representatives

Angel Miera (Manager), Bill Miera (Witness)

Respondent

Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.

Respondent Representatives

Gladis Hernandez (Community Manager, Ogden & Co.), Fernanda Lopez (Board VP)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Hearing Date

February 19, 2025

ALJ Decision Date

March 27, 2025

Central Dispute: Failure to Enforce Short-Term Rental Prohibitions

The foundational issue of the case was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Dartmouth Trace HOA was in violation of its own governing documents by failing to enforce the prohibition on short-term rentals.

The primary governing rule cited is Section 17 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which states:

“No Owner shall permit his Unit to be used for transient or hotel purposes or shall enter into any Lease for less than the entire Unit or for a term of less than thirty (30) days.”

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s failure to act on violations of this rule undermined the community’s residential character, stability, and property values.

——————————————————————————–

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Miera Phx LLC)

The Petitioner, Angel Miera, a resident of 11 years and an owner for three, built her case on several key arguments supported by extensive documentation submitted to the court.

Pervasive and Unenforced STR Activity

• Core Complaint: The community, located near the Chicago Cubs Spring Training facility, has been “overrun” with illegal STRs, transforming it into a “transient hotel.”

• Evidence Provided: Miera submitted numerous online listings from platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, dating from 2022 to the week before the hearing, which she alleged were units within Dartmouth Trace.

• Community Impact: The influx of transient guests has allegedly led to numerous disturbances, including noise complaints, police calls, and overuse of common amenities like the pool and parking. Miera noted her car had been dinged by vehicles in the adjacent STR unit’s parking space and that oversized vehicles often made it difficult for her to exit her own car.

• History of Complaints: Miera documented a three-year history of reporting suspected STRs to the HOA and its management company, Ogden & Company, Inc., which she claimed resulted in no meaningful enforcement action.

Conflict of Interest on the HOA Board

• Central Allegation: The failure to enforce the rules stems from a direct conflict of interest, as key board members have allegedly operated STRs themselves.

• Board President Rod Proce: Miera submitted a listing she claims was for Board President Rod Proce’s unit (Unit 29), which advertised it as a vacation rental. She also submitted his recent MLS listing for the sale of the unit, in which the description states, “This condo has been a great vacation rental.”

• Former Board Member: Allegations were also made against former board member Tiffany Barentine, who reportedly operated STRs and resigned from the board after Miera raised the issue.

Retaliation and Lack of Homeowner Engagement

• Perceived Retaliation: Miera testified that since she began raising the STR issue, her requests for essential landscaping maintenance for her unit have been ignored for three years, while common areas advertised in STR listings (e.g., the pool area) remain “impeccable.”

• Suppressed Engagement: The HOA moved from monthly meetings to a single annual meeting, which Miera argued made it “nearly impossible for homeowners to effectively raise concerns.” She also testified that her attempt to run for a board position was accepted and then blocked without explanation.

Requested Remedies

1. Mandated Enforcement: An order compelling the HOA to take “meaningful corrective action,” including issuing fines, notices, and liens against illegal STR owners.

2. Oversight and Transparency: Creation of a tracking system for STRs, installation of prohibitive signage, and mandatory disclosures to new buyers about STR restrictions.

3. Board Reorganization: The removal of the two current board members (Rod Proce and Fernanda Lopez) due to alleged mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and the fact that both had their units listed for sale.

4. Financial Compensation: Reimbursement for the $500 case filing fee and over $8,000 in HOA fees paid over the last three years, during which her safety and property concerns were allegedly ignored.

——————————————————————————–

Respondent’s Position and Rebuttal (Dartmouth Trace HOA)

The HOA and its representatives acknowledged the existence of STRs as a problem but argued that their ability to act was severely constrained by practical, legal, and financial limitations.

The Challenge of “Hard Proof”

• Enforcement Standard: Community Manager Gladis Hernandez stated that the HOA cannot issue fines without “hard proof” that would withstand a legal challenge. Based on legal advice, this means obtaining an online ad that includes an exterior photo showing the building and a specific unit number.

• Impracticality of Investigation: Hernandez argued it would be an improper use of association funds to book suspected STRs simply to obtain their addresses. She stated, “we don’t hunt them down.” The HOA does not have the resources or software to run license plates to identify owners.

• Action on Confirmed Units: Regarding Miera’s neighboring unit (Unit 26), Hernandez testified that upon confirmation, she contacted the owner. The owner asserted that her rental listing is for a 30-day minimum, which complies with the CC&Rs.

Resource and Legislative Constraints

• Volunteer Board: Board VP Fernanda Lopez emphasized that board members are unpaid volunteers. She herself joined the board as a “disgruntled resident” but was met with the reality of limited budgets and significant responsibilities. The board has only two members, both of whom are selling their units, and no other homeowners are willing to volunteer.

• Financial Priorities: The HOA faces significant expenses for larger projects like roofing ($35,000 for parking lot repairs) and rising water bills, leaving limited funds for other issues like comprehensive landscaping or legal battles over STRs.

• Limited Power of Fines: Hernandez testified that recent changes in state legislation prevent HOAs from pursuing foreclosure based on unpaid fines. This weakens the power of fines as a deterrent, as homeowners can choose to pay their assessments but ignore fines without severe consequence.

Response to Specific Allegations

• Board President’s Actions: Hernandez confirmed that Rod Proce admitted to a past STR listing from around 2022 but stated it was no longer active.

• Retaliation Claim: Lopez countered the landscaping claim by stating that Miera’s unit is in the same section as Rod Proce’s unit, and “he’s looking at bare dirt as well.” She asserted that she gave Miera’s unit “preferential treatment” with the new landscaping company to address her long-standing complaints.

——————————————————————————–

Key Testimonies

Angel Miera, Petitioner: “For the governing documents to have any real meaning, they must be enforced. This court has the authority to require the HOA to fulfill its obligations, and I ask that it does so today.”

Gladis Hernandez, Community Manager: “It is not proper to go spend association money to see if this unit… is being Airbnbed out to go and spend association money just to find out if it’s a unit within that community itself. … I believe that every homeowner that pays their assessments would also agree that it’s not proper use of funds.”

Fernanda Lopez, Board Vice President: “I highly recommend that you change your LLC to your name so that you can be part of that board and have those conversations and figure out solutions because it’s not just easy. You can complain every single day, but to find solutions is the difficult part.”

Bill Miera, Petitioner’s Witness, on the Board President’s attitude: “[He said] ‘well, you know, we don’t want to be the meanies and you know, give out violations.’ That was his response.”

——————————————————————————–

Final Judgment and Rationale

On March 27, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ’s decision was based on the following key legal conclusions:

1. Homeowner vs. Homeowner Dispute: The judge determined that the core issue was a dispute between homeowners, not a direct violation by the HOA itself. The decision states, “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”

2. HOA Cannot Violate Occupancy Rules: The Association itself cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by the Petitioner; only a homeowner can.

3. Enforcement is Permissive, Not Mandatory: The judge cited Arizona statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(11)), which states that an “Association MAY… impose reasonable monetary penalties.” The use of the word “may” makes the action discretionary, not mandatory. Therefore, the HOA’s failure to issue fines was not a violation of the law or its governing documents.

4. Lack of Jurisdiction for Requested Remedies: The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to order the reimbursement of HOA dues or to intervene in the internal stability of the HOA board.

Final Order

• The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

• The Respondent HOA was not ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

• The decision noted that the Petitioner is not barred from seeking further legal recourse outside the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Real Estate.






Study Guide – 25F-H022-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H022-REL”, “case_title”: “Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-27”, “alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce rules against my neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no. The tribunal views disputes about rule enforcement against other residents as ‘homeowner versus homeowner’ arguments, which are outside its forum.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that while a petitioner may be diligent in reporting neighbors (such as those violating short-term rental or parking rules), the underlying complaint is fundamentally between homeowners. The administrative hearing process is designed for disputes between an owner and the association regarding the association’s specific violations, not to compel the association to police other owners in specific ways.”, “alj_quote”: “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA legally required to fine homeowners who violate the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No. State statute provides that an association ‘may’ impose penalties, implying it is discretionary rather than mandatory.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision highlights that Arizona Revised Statutes grant the association the power to impose penalties but do not mandate it. Therefore, an HOA failing to issue fines is not necessarily violating the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1242(A)(11) which states in pertinent part that the ‘Association MAY. . . . impose reasonable monetary penalties.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “penalties”, “statutory interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal order the HOA to reimburse my assessment fees if they fail to manage the property well?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to mandate the reimbursement of HOA dues.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner feels the HOA has failed in its duties or that services (like landscaping) have declined, the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the return of assessments paid.”, “alj_quote”: “In addition, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to mandate that the Association reimburse Petitioner’s HOA dues which is out of the purview per this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “reimbursement”, “dues” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This standard means the homeowner must show that their contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the amount of evidence or number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA itself be found guilty of violating use and occupancy restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Use and occupancy restrictions apply to the conduct of homeowners, not the corporate entity of the HOA.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that an Association cannot violate restrictions designed for residents (like short-term rental bans); only the individual homeowners can violate those specific rules.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by Petitioner in her complaint; a homeowner can but not the HOA.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “occupancy restrictions”, “liability” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge force the HOA to fill vacant board seats if no one wants to volunteer?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal cannot compel individuals to run for election or remain in board positions.”, “detailed_answer”: “While a lack of participation or board vacancies may cause instability, the administrative law judge has no jurisdiction to force homeowners to serve on the board or to create stability in governance.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal heard testimony regarding the lack of participation of homeowners to become Board Directors, however, individuals cannot be forced into an election or made to remain in their positions.”, “legal_basis”: “Governance”, “topic_tags”: [ “board of directors”, “elections”, “volunteers” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have the authority to interpret the contract between a homeowner and the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The OAH has the authority to interpret the contract (CC&Rs and Bylaws) between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the OAH is an independent agency authorized to decide contested cases and interpret the governing documents (contract) between the association and the owner.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “OAH authority” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H022-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H022-REL”, “case_title”: “Miera Phx LLC v. Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc”, “decision_date”: “2025-03-27”, “alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce rules against my neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no. The tribunal views disputes about rule enforcement against other residents as ‘homeowner versus homeowner’ arguments, which are outside its forum.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ clarified that while a petitioner may be diligent in reporting neighbors (such as those violating short-term rental or parking rules), the underlying complaint is fundamentally between homeowners. The administrative hearing process is designed for disputes between an owner and the association regarding the association’s specific violations, not to compel the association to police other owners in specific ways.”, “alj_quote”: “Ultimately, Petitioner’s underlying complaint is a homeowner versus homeowner argument and that type of complaint is not addressed in this forum.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA legally required to fine homeowners who violate the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No. State statute provides that an association ‘may’ impose penalties, implying it is discretionary rather than mandatory.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision highlights that Arizona Revised Statutes grant the association the power to impose penalties but do not mandate it. Therefore, an HOA failing to issue fines is not necessarily violating the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1242(A)(11) which states in pertinent part that the ‘Association MAY. . . . impose reasonable monetary penalties.'”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fines”, “penalties”, “statutory interpretation” ] }, { “question”: “Can the administrative tribunal order the HOA to reimburse my assessment fees if they fail to manage the property well?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to mandate the reimbursement of HOA dues.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if a homeowner feels the HOA has failed in its duties or that services (like landscaping) have declined, the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to order the return of assessments paid.”, “alj_quote”: “In addition, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to mandate that the Association reimburse Petitioner’s HOA dues which is out of the purview per this Order.”, “legal_basis”: “Jurisdictional Limitations”, “topic_tags”: [ “assessments”, “reimbursement”, “dues” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.'”, “detailed_answer”: “This standard means the homeowner must show that their contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the amount of evidence or number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA itself be found guilty of violating use and occupancy restrictions in the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “Generally, no. Use and occupancy restrictions apply to the conduct of homeowners, not the corporate entity of the HOA.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that an Association cannot violate restrictions designed for residents (like short-term rental bans); only the individual homeowners can violate those specific rules.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association cannot violate the Use & Occupancy restrictions or the Bylaws cited by Petitioner in her complaint; a homeowner can but not the HOA.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “occupancy restrictions”, “liability” ] }, { “question”: “Can the judge force the HOA to fill vacant board seats if no one wants to volunteer?”, “short_answer”: “No. The tribunal cannot compel individuals to run for election or remain in board positions.”, “detailed_answer”: “While a lack of participation or board vacancies may cause instability, the administrative law judge has no jurisdiction to force homeowners to serve on the board or to create stability in governance.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal heard testimony regarding the lack of participation of homeowners to become Board Directors, however, individuals cannot be forced into an election or made to remain in their positions.”, “legal_basis”: “Governance”, “topic_tags”: [ “board of directors”, “elections”, “volunteers” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have the authority to interpret the contract between a homeowner and the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The OAH has the authority to interpret the contract (CC&Rs and Bylaws) between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the OAH is an independent agency authorized to decide contested cases and interpret the governing documents (contract) between the association and the owner.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract interpretation”, “OAH authority” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Angel Miera (petitioner)
    Miera Phx LLC
    Manager of LLC; testified on own behalf.
  • Bill Miera (witness)
    Miera Phx LLC
    Father of Angel Miera.

Respondent Side

  • Gladis Hernandez (community manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Community Manager since October 2023; testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Fernanda Lopez (board member)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer; testified on behalf of Respondent.
  • Rod Proce (board member (President))
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Board President; alleged STR host; did not appear at hearing due to health issues.
  • Lori Percival (Ogden President / Registered Agent)
    Ogden & Company, Incorporated
    Registered Agent for Dartmouth Trace HOA.
  • Tiffany Barentine (former board member)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Alleged STR host; resigned from the board.
  • Erica Proy (STR host)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Wife of Rod Proce; associated with STR listing.
  • Megan Wasik (Ogden staff)
    Ogden Community Management
    Ogden employee who responded to Petitioner's inquiries.

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued decision on March 27, 2025; Amended hearing date via Nunc Pro Tunc Order on June 19, 2025.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case documents.

Other Participants

  • Bethany Willis (homeowner/STR host)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Unit 26 owner and Petitioner's neighbor.
  • Sharon Woods (former community manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Managed Dartmouth Trace prior to Gladis Hernandez.
  • Chris Lindberg (former community manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Former manager who enacted fine resolution for STRs.
  • Julie (former board member)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Former board member who resigned.
  • Jennifer Salazar (STR co-owner)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Co-owner/operator of listings associated with Tiffany Barentine (also mentioned as Callie Salazar).
  • Nah Holani Cutting (homeowner/STR host)
    Dartmouth Trace Homeowner Associations, Inc.
    Unit owner identified in STR listing.

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer Counsel Patrick T. Nackley
Respondent Heritage Village III Homeowners Association Counsel Tessa Knueppel and Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4 and Heritage Village III HO CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.

Why this result: Respondent failed to take the required vote regarding the special assessment for the Landscape Improvement Project, in violation of the controlling CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by approving a Landscape Improvement Project and potential special assessment for a capital improvement without the required 2/3 membership vote.

The Association violated its CC&Rs by failing to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&R provision requiring the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners for a Special Assessment intended for construction, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of a capital improvement (the Landscape Improvement Project).

Orders: The petitions were granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners' filing fees pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4
  • Association CC&R Article VII, Section 1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Special Assessment, Capital Improvement, Membership Vote, CC&R Violation, Consolidation, Master Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 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
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:55 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:03 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:08 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:12 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:14 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:07:16 (39.7 KB)

Questions

Question

Can I petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate for a hearing if my HOA violates the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, owners may petition the department for hearings regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations. An owner can petition for a hearing concerning violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state statutes, provided they file the petition and pay the required fee.

Alj Quote

regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association, the owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • homeowner rights
  • petition process

Question

What is the standard of proof I must meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The burden of proof lies with the petitioner (the homeowner). They must demonstrate that the violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, which is defined as evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

If my specific subdivision's CC&Rs are silent on a rule, but the Master Association's CC&Rs address it, which rules apply?

Short Answer

The Master Association's rules likely apply if your subdivision's CC&Rs reference or incorporate the Master documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs did not explicitly require a vote for capital improvements, but the Master Association's CC&Rs did. Because the sub-association's documents contained language incorporating the Master provisions ('including but not limited to'), the Master Association's requirement for a homeowner vote applied.

Alj Quote

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioners met their burdens of proof in demonstrating that the Association was in violation the CC&R’s as it would be inconsistent to assume that only part of Article III of the McCormick Ranch’s CC&R’s would apply to the Association while Section 4 would somehow be excluded.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • master association
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA need a homeowner vote to pass a special assessment for a capital improvement?

Short Answer

Yes, if the controlling CC&Rs require it. In this case, a 2/3 vote of voting owners was required.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirmed that the Association violated the governing documents by failing to hold a vote. The controlling Master CC&Rs specifically required approval by two-thirds of the voting owners for special assessments related to the construction, repair, or replacement of capital improvements.

Alj Quote

provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for such purpose

Legal Basis

Master CC&R Article III, Section 4

Topic Tags

  • special assessments
  • voting rights
  • capital improvements

Question

If I successfully prove my HOA violated the rules, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Detailed Answer

Upon finding that the Association violated the CC&Rs, the judge ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the filing fees paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse both Petitioner’s filing fees as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement
  • fees

Case

Docket No
24F-H037-REL, 24F-H039-REL
Case Title
Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-08-23
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate for a hearing if my HOA violates the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, owners may petition the department for hearings regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations. An owner can petition for a hearing concerning violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state statutes, provided they file the petition and pay the required fee.

Alj Quote

regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association, the owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • homeowner rights
  • petition process

Question

What is the standard of proof I must meet to win a hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

The burden of proof lies with the petitioner (the homeowner). They must demonstrate that the violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, which is defined as evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

If my specific subdivision's CC&Rs are silent on a rule, but the Master Association's CC&Rs address it, which rules apply?

Short Answer

The Master Association's rules likely apply if your subdivision's CC&Rs reference or incorporate the Master documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the sub-association's CC&Rs did not explicitly require a vote for capital improvements, but the Master Association's CC&Rs did. Because the sub-association's documents contained language incorporating the Master provisions ('including but not limited to'), the Master Association's requirement for a homeowner vote applied.

Alj Quote

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioners met their burdens of proof in demonstrating that the Association was in violation the CC&R’s as it would be inconsistent to assume that only part of Article III of the McCormick Ranch’s CC&R’s would apply to the Association while Section 4 would somehow be excluded.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • master association
  • governing documents

Question

Does the HOA need a homeowner vote to pass a special assessment for a capital improvement?

Short Answer

Yes, if the controlling CC&Rs require it. In this case, a 2/3 vote of voting owners was required.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirmed that the Association violated the governing documents by failing to hold a vote. The controlling Master CC&Rs specifically required approval by two-thirds of the voting owners for special assessments related to the construction, repair, or replacement of capital improvements.

Alj Quote

provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for such purpose

Legal Basis

Master CC&R Article III, Section 4

Topic Tags

  • special assessments
  • voting rights
  • capital improvements

Question

If I successfully prove my HOA violated the rules, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Detailed Answer

Upon finding that the Association violated the CC&Rs, the judge ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the filing fees paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

Respondent shall reimburse both Petitioner’s filing fees as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement
  • fees

Case

Docket No
24F-H037-REL, 24F-H039-REL
Case Title
Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-08-23
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Taylor Kidd (petitioner)
  • Jerome L. Glazer (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Patrick T. Nackley (petitioner attorney)
    MEDALIST LEGAL PLC
    Represented Petitioner Taylor Kidd
  • Brandon P. Bodea (petitioner attorney)
    MEDALIST LEGAL PLC
  • Jack Sales (homeowner)
    Co-authored a letter to the Board with Petitioner Glazer

Respondent Side

  • Jennifer Hutsko (board member/witness)
    Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
    Director and member of the Community Planning Committee
  • Glenn Martyr (board member)
    Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
    Seconded motion in meeting minutes
  • Steve Wolf (board member)
    Heritage Village III Homeowners Association
    Seconded motion in meeting minutes
  • Tessa Knueppel (respondent attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Represented Respondent at hearing
  • Charles H. Oldham (respondent attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Josh Bolen (respondent attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Conducted hearing and issued Decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed consolidation order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

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 partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

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





Study Guide – 24F-H036-REL


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






Blog Post – 24F-H036-REL


{
“case”: {
“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

Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb Counsel Jeffrey Brie, Esq.
Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association Counsel Phillip Brown, Esq. and Kelly Oetinger, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

Respondent failed to produce documents requested by Petitioner, specifically meeting minutes discussing the investigative report, within the statutory timeframe, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Declaration Section F. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Declaration Section F

Analytics Highlights

Topics: setback enforcement, document request, HOA governance, filing fee refund, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • 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. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • Declaration Section F

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:19 (53.9 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:23 (50.5 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:26 (148.2 KB)





Study Guide – 24F-H015-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “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”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning 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 the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “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”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H015-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “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”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning 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 the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “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”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Teri S. Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner, testified
  • J. Ted Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner
  • Jeffrey T. Brei (petitioner attorney)
  • Tracy Allen Bogardis (witness)
    Civil Engineer
    Testified regarding drainage/hydrology

Respondent Side

  • Phillip Brown (HOA attorney)
  • Kelly Oetinger (HOA attorney)
  • Robert Leuen (board president)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Testified
  • Marcella Bernadette Aguilar (witness)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, testified
  • Abel Sodto (lot owner)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, former Board/ARC member, subject of violation
  • Clint Stoddard (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator
  • Benny Medina (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator, former president
  • Joseph D. Martino (ARC member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former Architectural Committee Head
  • Chris Stler (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Vice President of HOA
  • Yvon Posche (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Secretary of HOA
  • Steve Brockam (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Board Director
  • Perry Terren (ARC chair)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    ARC Chairman and Board Director
  • Jeremy Thompson (law clerk)
    HOA Attorney's office
  • Mike Shupe (former HOA attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tim Ross (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former board/investigator, criticized current board actions
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v. Sycamore Springs

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-01
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kevin W. Schafer & Patricia A. Lawton Counsel Craig L. Cline
Respondent Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel Edith I. Rudder & Eden G. Cohen

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B) & CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)
CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioners prevailed on both filed issues: the Respondent's conditional approval of the flagpole violated CC&Rs and statute, and the Violation Notice regarding the building envelope was improper as Petitioners were found to be in compliance (17,451 sq ft vs. 22,000 sq ft maximum). Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000 filing fee. Request for civil penalties was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Conditional approval of portable flagpole

Respondent conditionally approved Petitioners' DMR for a portable flagpole, but the conditions placed (limiting height, restricting mobility, and requiring placement on the side of the house) were outside the authority granted by the CC&Rs and violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which protects the display of the American flag in front or back yards. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Respondent must abide by the statute; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(B)
  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section II(O)

Violation Notice regarding Building Envelope compliance

Respondent sent a Violation Notice claiming Petitioners' building envelope was 38,000 square feet, exceeding the 22,000 square foot maximum limit defined in DG § III(A). The evidence established Petitioners' actual building envelope was 17,451 square feet, based on a superior 'boots on the ground' survey, proving no violation occurred. Petitioner sustained burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioners' building envelope did not violate the CC&Rs maximum limit; civil penalty denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Design Guidelines Section III(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, flagpole, building envelope, selective enforcement allegation, CC&R violation, statute violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1117050.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:47 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:50 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:53 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:57 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:02 (149.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

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
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA prohibit me from displaying the American flag in my front or back yard?

Short Answer

No. Arizona law prevents HOAs from prohibiting the outdoor display of the American flag in front or back yards, regardless of what community documents say.

Detailed Answer

The decision affirms that notwithstanding community documents, an association cannot prohibit the display of the American flag in the front or backyard. In this case, the HOA's attempt to restrict the flag to the side of the house was found to violate state statute.

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an association shall not prohibit the outdoor front yard or backyard display of . . . [t]he American flag.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(A)

Topic Tags

  • flags
  • federal/state rights
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA restrict the height or mobility of my flagpole if the CC&Rs don't specifically allow them to?

Short Answer

No. If the CC&Rs do not grant the authority to restrict flagpole height or mobility, the HOA cannot impose those conditions.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs by placing conditions on a flagpole approval—specifically height limits and mobility restrictions—that were not authorized by the governing documents.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rawlette admitted the flag pole height and mobility restrictions were inappropriate because the CC&Rs do not grant Respondent authority to restrict flag poles in this manner.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • CC&Rs
  • flags

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails in the hearing, the judge is required to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision explicitly states that if a petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent (HOA) to pay the petitioner the filing fee required by statute.

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
  • reimbursement
  • prevailing party

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found to have violated the rules?

Short Answer

No. Civil penalties may be denied if the violation was due to miscommunication or lack of malicious intent rather than ongoing harassment.

Detailed Answer

Even though the HOA violated the statute regarding flags, the judge denied civil penalties because the violation resulted from a miscommunication by the management company rather than a malicious harassment campaign.

Alj Quote

Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties. The flag pole issue was not an ongoing repetitive harassment campaign, rather, it was miscommunication between the Management Company and Respondent.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • harassment

Question

In a dispute over land measurements (like a building envelope), is an aerial survey or an in-person survey better?

Short Answer

An in-person ('boots on the ground') survey is considered superior to an aerial-only survey.

Detailed Answer

When determining if a homeowner exceeded a building envelope, the ALJ found that an in-person survey was more reliable than an analysis based solely on aerial imagery.

Alj Quote

Mr. McLain and Mr. Teague agreed Mr. McLain’s “boots on the ground” survey is superior to an aerial only survey.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standards

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • property disputes
  • surveys

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove the HOA violated the statute or documents by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the party bringing the case bears the burden of proof. This means the homeowner must show that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

What types of disputes can the Arizona Department of Real Estate hear?

Short Answer

Disputes between owners and associations concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Detailed Answer

The Department has jurisdiction to hear petitions from owners or associations regarding violations of CC&Rs or state statutes, provided the proper filing procedures are followed.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE authority

Case

Docket No
24F-H019-REL
Case Title
Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
Decision Date
2024-01-01
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Schafer, Kevin W. (petitioner)
  • Lawton, Patricia A. (petitioner/witness)
  • Cline, Craig L. (petitioner attorney)
    Udall Law
  • Mlan, Steven Wallace (witness/surveyor)
    Tucson Surveying and Mapping
    Expert witness for Petitioners

Respondent Side

  • Rudder, Edith I. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Cohen, Eden G. (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen
  • Rowlette, Kristen (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA President
  • Leech, Herbert (board member/witness)
    Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC.
    HOA Vice President
  • Teague, J.O. (witness/surveyor)
    Southern Arizona Land Survey Associates
    Expert witness for Respondent
  • Jennifer (property manager)
    Mission Management
    Sent conditional flag approval letter

Neutral Parties

  • Del Vecchio, Brian (ALJ)
    OAH
    ALJ for December 7 & 12 hearings and final decision
  • Eigenheer, Tammy L. (ALJ)
    OAH
    Signed November 27, 2023 Order
  • Jacio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Identified as ALJ on December 7, 2023
  • Nicolson, Susan (ADRE commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Hansen, A. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Nunez, V. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Jones, D. (ADRE official)
    ADRE
  • Abril, L. (ADRE official)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Andrews, Tom (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes and testimony regarding past ACC actions
  • Tantis, Pam (former board member)
    Mentioned in board minutes
  • Bloodcot, GMA (resident)
    Recipient of email regarding flag rules

John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent's actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association financial records (check registers) within 10 business days

Respondent failed to provide the requested check registers within the ten business day statutory requirement for requests made on December 1, 2022, and July 26, 2023. The first request was fulfilled on April 6, 2023, and the second on November 21, 2023.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, concluded Respondent violated ARS § 33-1805, and ordered Respondent to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Financial Records, Check Register, Timeliness Violation, Civil Penalties Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:05 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:10 (127.1 KB)





Study Guide – 24F-H013-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… 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”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “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”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H013-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… 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”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “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”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust
    Trustee and Hearing Representative for Petitioner
  • Janet Krahn (petitioner)
    John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust

Respondent Side

  • Steve Gower (HOA president)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Respondent representative at hearing
  • Kurt Meister (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former Board President who filed initial response
  • Melissa Jordan (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Former Community Manager who handled early communication (also referred to as 'Melissa')
  • Dan Francom (HOA attorney)
    Attorney for HOA (Tonto Forest Estates)
  • Barbara (property manager)
    Ogden Community Management
    Current Community Manager (referred to by first name only)
  • Ken (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Todd (board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Board member (referred to by first name only)
  • Jean (former board member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Former board member (referred to by first name only)

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who signed the initial Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • Diane Mahowski (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent
  • Lang (ALJ)
    OAH
    Referenced in prior ALJ ruling cited as precedent (last name only)

Other Participants

  • Michael Holland (party)
    Referenced as a party in a prior ADR dispute regarding records
  • Dennis Lair (HOA law advocate)
    Arizona Homeowners Coalition
    Referenced expert/advocate

Megan E Gardner v. Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Megan E Gardner Counsel —
Respondent Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Kyle A. von Johnson and Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase

The HOA increased annual dues from $200.00 to $240.00 effective 1/1/2023 due to a financial crisis caused by embezzlement, but failed to provide the required 30-day written notice as mandated by the CC&Rs. Although the increase was later refunded, the ALJ affirmed the petition finding the HOA failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dues Increase, Notice Violation, CC&R Violation, Embezzlement, Filing Fee Refund, Assessment Timing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • 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. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:31 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:34 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:37 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:42 (110.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Megan E Gardner (petitioner)
    Property owner of Parcel 222

Respondent Side

  • Kyle A. von Johnson (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Ronald Carter (Treasurer/Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Treasurer since June 2022. Referred to as 'Ronald Cotter' in the ALJ Decision Findings of Fact.
  • David Goodman (Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared remotely; recruited to serve as President after previous board members resigned.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal

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 loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

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

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

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