Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on March 31, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Records Request
Membership List
Homeowner Rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

Privacy
Records Request
Personal Records

Question

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

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

Timelines
Procedural Requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

Fees
Records Request

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

Fees
Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

Exceptions
Records Request
Privacy

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Penalties
Enforcement
Timelines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Costs
Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Alj Quote

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

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Penalties
Enforcement
Timelines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

Costs
Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

Legal Standards
Procedure

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on August 23, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H037-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	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.
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

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:43 (62.8 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:48 (13.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:51 (50.0 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:55 (49.3 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:58 (123.4 KB)

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:23:01 (39.7 KB)

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)

This summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the consolidated matters of *Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer vs. Heritage Village III Homeowners Association* (Nos. 24F-H037-REL and 24F-H039-REL).

Key Facts and Procedural History

The Petitioners, Taylor Kidd and Jerome L. Glazer, who are members of the Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (Association), filed separate petitions objecting to the Association's approval of a Landscape Improvement Project (LIP). The Association requested, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted, consolidation of the two matters due to them involving substantially similar factual or legal issues and for purposes of administrative efficiency. The hearings were continued several times and ultimately held on August 9, 2024.

The LIP involved an estimated cost of $1,557,950.00 (potentially up to $2 million) for the replacement of a 40-year-old irrigation system, grass removal, and replacement with decomposed granite and native plants. The Association communicated in December 2023 that this cost would result in a special assessment of $9,385.24 per homeowner. A request by Petitioner Glazer for a Cease and Desist Order to prevent the expenditure of funds related to the LIP was denied by the ALJ due to a lack of authority in that venue.

Main Issues and Key Arguments

The central legal dispute was whether the Association could approve the LIP and levy the special assessment solely through a Board vote, or if a membership vote was required under the governing documents.

Petitioners' Argument:

Petitioners argued that the LIP was a capital improvement project. They contended that the Association's CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) required it to follow the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs (Master Association). The McCormick Ranch CC&Rs (Article III, Section 4) mandate that a special assessment for a capital improvement requires the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by Voting Owners. Petitioners asserted the Board refused to hold this vote.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association argued the Board has the duty and authority to maintain the common area (which included addressing dead/dying grass and a damaged irrigation system), and that the LIP fell under this authority. They claimed the special assessment had not yet been levied. Legally, the Association argued that the requirement for a 2/3 membership vote in the McCormick Ranch documents applied only to the Master Association itself (referenced by the capitalized word "Association") and did not govern subsidiary associations like Heritage Village III, whose own documents were silent on requiring a member vote for such projects.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ, Adam D. Stone, issued a decision on August 23, 2024.

Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found that the Petitioners met their burden of proof. The decision hinged on the interpretation of Article VII, Section 1 of the Association’s CC&Rs, which states that McCormick Ranch provisions apply, "including but not limited to" the assessment, lien, and collection of dues.

The ALJ ruled it would be inconsistent to assume that the section requiring a 2/3 vote for capital improvements (McCormick Ranch CC&R Article III, Section 4) would be excluded.

Outcome:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petitions in these matters are granted. The Association was found to have violated McCormick Ranch CC&R’s Article III, Section 4, and its own CC&R’s Article VII, Section 1, by failing to take the required vote. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse both Petitioners’ filing fees.

A Motion for Rehearing filed by a party was later noted by the ALJ as not being considered, directing that such requests must be made directly to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

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

Alj Quote

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

Alj Quote

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

Alj Quote

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

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 July 5, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

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

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Background

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

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

Main Issues and Arguments

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

Outcome and Legal Decision

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

The ALJ made the following key legal conclusions:

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

Remedies

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

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

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

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

Case 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

MARGARET LEWIS v. FLORENCE GARDENS MOBILE HOME ASSOCIATION

Posted on February 9, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H018-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-02-09
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L) because the newsletter did not constitute an assembly using common areas as required by the statute.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	MARGARET LEWIS	Counsel	—
Respondent	FLORENCE GARDENS MOBILE HOME ASSOCIATION	Counsel	Marcus Martinez, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L) because the newsletter did not constitute an assembly using common areas as required by the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, specifically because the tribunal found the newsletter did not constitute “peacefully assemble and use common areas” as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1808(L) regarding the right to peacefully assemble and use common areas due to the issuance of a cease and desist letter concerning a newsletter.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS § 33-1808(L) by sending a cease and desist letter regarding statements in her community newsletter. Petitioner argued the newsletter constituted a 'meeting' or 'assembly' protected by the statute, while Respondent argued the statute requires physical assembly and use of common areas. The tribunal ultimately found that the newsletter did not satisfy the statutory requirement for assembly in common areas.

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
McCoy versus Johnson 1 CAD 2167

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Homeowner Dispute, Free Speech, Assembly Rights, Cease and Desist Letter, ARS 33-1808(L), Newsletter

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
McCoy versus Johnson 1 CAD 2167

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1117204.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:49 (47.3 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1117206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:53 (5.6 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1130156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:56 (50.9 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1142847.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:59 (114.9 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1117204.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:30 (47.3 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1117206.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:33 (5.6 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1130156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:37 (50.9 KB)

24F-H018-REL Decision – 1142847.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:40 (114.9 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Margaret Lewis (Petitioner) v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association (Respondent), Case No. 24F-H018-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on January 24, 2024.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Margaret Lewis, a property owner and member of the Association, publishes and distributes a newsletter about community matters. The central dispute arose when the Association sent Lewis a cease and desist letter on July 28, 2023. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(L) by sending this letter, claiming it limited her ability to write and distribute her newsletter.

Summary of Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

Ms. Lewis argued that the cease and desist letter, which warned her to refrain from making false statements and threatened a lawsuit, constituted an intimidating threat intended to silence dissent. While acknowledging that her newsletter was not distributed in a physical common area, she contended that the newsletter should be interpreted as a "meeting" under the intent of the relevant statute, noting that other statutes define meetings to include technological devices. The Petitioner called Dennis Legere, a lobbyist who helped draft ARS § 33-1808, who testified that the statute's purpose was to codify and protect fundamental rights of free speech and assembly (Article 2, Sections 5 and 6 of the Arizona Constitution) against HOA interference.

Respondent's Argument:

The Respondent, Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association, argued that no violation of ARS § 33-1808(L) occurred because the statute is explicitly designed to protect a member’s right to peacefully assemble and use common areas. The Association contended that a violation requires a physical occupation of the common area and a restriction of speech. The Association maintained that the cease and desist letter was sent solely to address concerns regarding the accuracy and misrepresentations in Lewis's content. Community Manager Yasmin Rodriguez testified that the Association supports freedom of expression and had never restricted members from using common areas for assembly. Crucially, the Association noted that Lewis continued to produce and circulate her newsletter after receiving the letter, indicating that the letter did not constitute a prohibition.

Legal Focus and Outcome

The core legal issue was whether a community newsletter, circulated electronically and outside designated common areas, satisfied the requirement of ARS § 33-1808(L) to "peacefully assemble and use common areas of the planned community". Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued a decision denying the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof in demonstrating a violation of ARS § 33-1808(L). The ALJ specifically disagreed that the newsletter constituted a fulfillment of the "peacefully assemble and use common areas" requirement. The decision reasoned that if the legislature had intended to include newsletters or social media posts, it would have done so during the statute's drafting process (2020–2022).

The ALJ ordered that Petitioner’s petition be denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee. The decision was signed and transmitted on February 9, 2024.

Questions

Question

Does publishing a community newsletter count as 'peaceful assembly' protected by Arizona HOA laws?

Short Answer

No. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a written newsletter does not satisfy the statutory definition of assembling in common areas.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that A.R.S. § 33-1808(L), which protects the right to assemble in common areas, does not extend to written publications like newsletters. The judge noted that if the legislature intended to protect such mediums, they would have explicitly included them in the statute.

Alj Quote

Further, the tribunal disagrees that the newsletter can be read as satisfying the 'peacefully assemble and use common areas' of the community. If the legislature had intended to include newsletters or social media posts, it had at least three opportunities, since the legislation was drafted every year from 2020 until it ultimately passed and was signed into law in 2022.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

newsletters
freedom of assembly
legislative intent

Question

Can my HOA send me a 'cease and desist' letter regarding the content of my newsletter without violating my rights?

Short Answer

Yes, if the letter is a warning regarding specific content (like defamation) rather than a total prohibition on publishing.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation where an HOA sent a letter warning a homeowner about potential defamation claims regarding specific comments. Because the homeowner was not actually stopped from publishing future newsletters, the HOA did not 'prohibit or unreasonably restrict' the member's rights.

Alj Quote

Respondent sent the cease and desist letter as a warning to Petitioner that a claim may be made for defamation should those specific comments continue. There was no evidence presented that a court case was filed or that Petitioner had been fined as a result of her newsletter.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

cease and desist
defamation
HOA correspondence

Question

Does A.R.S. § 33-1808(L) protect social media posts or online communications?

Short Answer

No. The ruling explicitly states that this statute was not intended to cover social media posts.

Detailed Answer

The decision interprets the 'peaceful assembly' statute strictly. The judge reasoned that the legislature had multiple opportunities to include digital communications or social media in the text of the law but chose not to do so.

Alj Quote

If the legislature had intended to include newsletters or social media posts, it had at least three opportunities, since the legislation was drafted every year from 2020 until it ultimately passed and was signed into law in 2022.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

social media
electronic communication
statutory interpretation

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that their claims are 'more probably true than not'—a standard known as the 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. § 33-1808(L). … '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. § 33-1808(L); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the HOA is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the Petitioner's petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.

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

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

filing fees
costs
penalties

Case

Docket No: 24F-H018-REL
Case Title: Lewis v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association
Decision Date: 2024-02-09
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Does publishing a community newsletter count as 'peaceful assembly' protected by Arizona HOA laws?

Short Answer

No. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a written newsletter does not satisfy the statutory definition of assembling in common areas.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

newsletters
freedom of assembly
legislative intent

Question

Can my HOA send me a 'cease and desist' letter regarding the content of my newsletter without violating my rights?

Short Answer

Yes, if the letter is a warning regarding specific content (like defamation) rather than a total prohibition on publishing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

cease and desist
defamation
HOA correspondence

Question

Does A.R.S. § 33-1808(L) protect social media posts or online communications?

Short Answer

No. The ruling explicitly states that this statute was not intended to cover social media posts.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L)

Topic Tags

social media
electronic communication
statutory interpretation

Question

What standard of proof must a homeowner meet to win a hearing against their HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that their claims are 'more probably true than not'—a standard known as the preponderance of the evidence.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1808(L); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the HOA is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the Petitioner's petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.

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

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

filing fees
costs
penalties

Case

Docket No: 24F-H018-REL
Case Title: Lewis v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association
Decision Date: 2024-02-09
Alj Name: Adam D. Stone
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Margaret Lewis (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf
Dennis Legere (witness)
Testified regarding legislative intent; stated he is a lobbyist and volunteer

Respondent Side

Marcus Martinez (HOA attorney)
Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association
Yasmin Rodriguez (community manager)
Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association
Testified as a witness for Respondent
Nicholas Nagami (HOA attorney)
Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association
Appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on January 3, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H015-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	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.
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)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing (No. 24F-H015-REL) involving Petitioners Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb and Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on November 22 and December 20, 2023, concerning alleged violations of the community's governing documents and Arizona statutes.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

Setback Enforcement: Violation of the Declaration of Restrictions (specifically Item F of the Second Declaration) by the HOA "not enforcing the 25ft setback provision".
Document Disclosure: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing "to provide documents" requested by the Petitioners.

The central factual dispute revolved around Lot 9 (owned by Marcella Aguilar and Abel Sodto), which shares a property line with the Petitioners' Lot 8. Petitioners alleged that the Lot 9 owners made unapproved improvements—including grading, removal of native vegetation, and placement of large boulders—within the mandatory 25-foot setback. The Declaration requires Architectural Committee (ARC) approval for all improvements and any removal of native growth. An HOA investigation in September 2020 concluded that the Lot 9 improvements were neither submitted nor approved by the ARC, and Lot 9 was directed to submit plans within 30 days. Petitioners testified that Lot 9 failed to comply.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: The Association failed its mandatory duty to enforce the CC&Rs for over three years, particularly since the Lot 9 owner (Mr. Sodto) held influential positions (Director, President, ARC member) during the relevant period. Petitioners sought an order requiring the HOA to remedy the violation (remove boulders, revegetate). Petitioners' civil engineer, Tracy Bogardus, testified that Lot 8 did not cause Lot 9's drainage issues, invalidating the Lot 9 owners’ justification for the grading.
Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA denied the claims, arguing that Lot 9’s modification (referred to as a "driveway turnaround") was necessary for safety due to the steep lot configuration. The HOA asserted that the board has discretion to grant variances. The HOA also argued that selective enforcement against Lot 9 was inconsistent, as six of the seven built-out lots had similar unapproved turnarounds or improvements in setbacks. The HOA later approved the Lot 9 turnaround retroactively during the hearing proceedings.
Document Disclosure: HOA President Robert Lewin testified he did not provide the specific documents (Lot 9 submissions) because they did not exist. However, he admitted he failed to provide the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioners met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued the following key conclusions:

Setback Violation: Lot 9 failed to submit the required improvement request, violating the Declaration. However, the ALJ emphasized that the relevant section of the Declaration (Section H) states the ARC "shall have the right to clear such lot," meaning the ultimate action to remedy the lot remains within the HOA’s discretion, not an obligation.
Document Disclosure Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1805): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report. Although no Lot 9 application documents existed, the minutes did.

Order: Petitioner's petition was granted. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent HOA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

{ “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 January 1, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-01-01
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	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.
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 2026-04-30T10:19:44 (47.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1121577.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:48 (52.0 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1122554.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:52 (46.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128513.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:19:57 (40.1 KB)

24F-H019-REL Decision – 1128831.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-30T10:20:04 (149.8 KB)

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)

This summary pertains to the administrative hearing in the matter of Schafer, Kevin W. & Lawton, Patricia A. v Sycamore Springs Homeowners Association, INC. (Case No. 24F-H019-REL), held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on December 7 and December 12, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners (Schafer and Lawton), who are property owners and members of the Association, challenged the Respondent HOA on two issues raised in a September 8, 2023, petition:

Flagpole Conditional Approval: Petitioners challenged the conditional approval of their portable flagpole Design Modification Request (DMR), arguing the conditions violated the community documents (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1808(B).
Building Envelope Violation: Petitioners challenged the HOA's Notice of Violation, which alleged their building envelope exceeded the 22,000 square foot maximum limit by measuring approximately 38,000 square feet. Petitioners contended the enforcement action was retaliatory due to an ongoing Superior Court lawsuit they filed against the HOA.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Building Envelope Dispute:

The core disagreement centered on the methodology and findings of two land surveyors regarding the 22,000 square foot building envelope maximum.

Petitioners' Evidence: Licensed land surveyor Stephen McLain, who conducted a "boots on the ground" survey in 2020, testified that the Petitioners' building envelope was 17,451 square feet, which is well below the maximum limit.
Respondent's Evidence: Licensed land surveyor J.O. Teague, hired by the HOA, calculated the area including the house and the "yard to the east" to be approximately 38,000 square feet, based primarily on aerial imagery.
Key Legal Point: During testimony, Mr. Teague admitted he did not make a determination as to whether the building envelope had been exceeded. He clarified his role was only to establish the area measurements, not to determine compliance, particularly given potential exemptions under the 4th Amendment to the Design Guidelines concerning maintenance (e.g., removing pack rat nests or excessive weeds). Both surveyors agreed that a "boots on the ground" assessment (like McLain’s) is superior to an aerial-only survey.

Flagpole Dispute:

Petitioners challenged conditional approval stipulations that limited the flag's height, restricted placement to the "side of the house," and prohibited moving it.

Key Legal Point: The HOA President, Kristen Rawlette, admitted that the Management Company erred in drafting the conditional approval letter. She conceded that the restrictions on height and mobility were inappropriate, as the CC&Rs did not grant the HOA authority for such limits. Crucially, she admitted that restricting the American flag's placement to the side yard violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808, which guarantees the right to display the flag in the outdoor front or back yard.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, issued January 1, 2024, affirmed Petitioners’ petition.

Building Envelope Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. Based on the consistent expert testimony that Petitioners’ building envelope (17,451 square feet) was below the 22,000 square foot maximum, the ALJ concluded that Petitioners did not violate the CC&Rs.
Flagpole Ruling: The ALJ found Petitioners sustained their burden of proof, concluding that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808.
Civil Penalties: Petitioners' request to levy civil penalties against the Respondent was denied. The ALJ determined the flag pole issue was a "miscommunication" and the building envelope letter was sent for the purpose of defense in the Superior Court lawsuit, not intentional retaliation.
Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to **reimburse

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

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

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

Alj Quote

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 December 19, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H013-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-12-19
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	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.
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 2026-04-26T10:04:33 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:41 (127.1 KB)

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)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing in the matter of John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA), Docket No. 24F-H013-REL, held on November 29, 2023.

Key Facts and Legal Issue

The case addressed whether the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide association financial records, specifically check registers, within the required ten business days. The Petitioner, represented by John Krahn, filed a petition alleging violations stemming from two requests:

December 1, 2022, Request: For the November 2022 check register, which was not fulfilled until April 13, 2023.
July 26, 2023, Request: For January through July 2023 check registers, which was not fulfilled until November 21, 2023.

The HOA initially denied the claim, asserting that "all documents are available on the portal".

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner (Krahn) argued:

The check register is a recognized financial record that must be provided upon request.
The Respondent repeatedly missed the 10-business-day statutory deadline.
The HOA made false claims regarding the documents' availability on the online portal and imposed unwarranted restrictions, such as requiring future requests to be sent solely via US mail, indicating bad faith and punitive action.
Petitioner presented evidence of prior rulings against the HOA to establish a pattern of recurrent misconduct, justifying a request for a civil penalty.

Respondent (Gauer) argued:

The HOA President, Steve Gauer, admitted under oath that the association was "remiss in responding in the ten days".
Mr. Gauer testified that the Board was now attempting to correct past mistakes and ensure compliance, noting that the check registers were uploaded to the portal on November 21, 2023 (eight days before the hearing).
The Respondent did not present evidence to counter the core accusation of statutory non-compliance.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio issued a decision on December 19, 2023:

Violation of Statute Affirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proof, finding that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because both document requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement.
Civil Penalty Denied: The Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty was denied, as the ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of penalties.
Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
Compliance Order: The Petitioner's petition was affirmed. The ALJ may order a party to abide by the statute at issue.

{ “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 October 16, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H061-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	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.
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 2026-04-24T12:12:40 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:45 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:51 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:57 (110.9 KB)

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)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of *Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.* (No. 23F-H061-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on October 2, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Association’s increase of the annual assessment from $200.00 to $240.00 for the 2023 calendar year.

Petitioner's Claim: Megan E. Gardner alleged the Association violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Article 3, Section G, which requires the regular assessment amount to be fixed and noticed at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the calendar year (i.e., by December 1st). The Board voted on the increase on December 16, 2022, missing the required deadline.

Association's Defense (Respondent): The Association, represented by counsel, argued the violation was necessary due to extraordinary circumstances. The former property manager had embezzled nearly $500,000.00 of the Association’s funds in late 2022, leading to financial collapse. Facing an urgent $110,000.00 debt to the road maintenance contractor (crucial for maintaining 200 miles of necessary roadways), the Board had "no choice" but to raise rates to secure immediate funds. The Association asserted that the CCRs did not contemplate such a crisis.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Respondent's Argument for Mootness: The Association testified that by April 2023, they recovered $387,000.00 in insurance proceeds. Consequently, they paid the debt and issued a $40.00 credit (refund) to all members around May 25, 2023. The Association argued that since the challenged assessment increase was refunded, the petition was moot.

Petitioner's Counter-Argument (Focus on Correction): Gardner received the refund but contended that the issue was not moot. She argued that a refund is not a correction. Gardner sought corrective action requiring the Board to create a formal written record and ensure transparency. She noted that the member portal still incorrectly displayed the $240.00 assessment amount, demonstrating a failure to correct the records and potentially confusing new homeowners. She emphasized that the Board must conduct business according to the CCRs going forward.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision on October 16, 2023, concluding that the Petitioner met her burden of proving the CCR violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Finding: The ALJ affirmed that while he sympathized with the "untenable and horrible position" the Association faced, the Board failed to comply with the CCR’s mandatory 30-day notice provision for the 2023 Assessment.

Order:

Petitioner’s petition was affirmed.
The Association was ORDERED to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee ($500.00) pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), despite Gardner testifying that she was not seeking reimbursement.
No civil penalty was awarded, as the Petitioner did not request one.

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

Alj Quote

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

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

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

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

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 August 8, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

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

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

Key Facts and Background

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

Main Issues and Arguments

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

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

Petitioner's Argument: Sullivan contended that the CC&Rs do not contain an explicit minimum rental period, and therefore, rentals shorter than 30 days are permissible. She argued that Arizona law (ARS 33-1806.01) requires HOAs to list a minimum rental period if they intend to restrict short-term leasing, which the Elk Run CC&Rs failed to do. She asserted that renting a home is considered a residential use.

Respondent's Argument: The Association, represented by Michael McLeran, argued that Section 4.1 must be read in its entirety to uphold the community's character. They asserted that operating a short-term rental for profit (as evidenced by Petitioner's tax licensing) constitutes a "gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use," which is prohibited. The final sentence of Section 4.1 allowing "Month to Month or Longer Terms" clarifies the *only* exception where renting for profit is permitted, thereby implicitly prohibiting shorter-term rentals. Testimony from the original CC&R signatory, John Vail, supported the intent for a minimum 30-day rental period.

Outcome and Legal Decision

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

short-term rentals
CC&R interpretation
Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

business use
taxes
commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

CC&R interpretation
implicit restrictions
rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal procedure
evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

fees
penalties
costs

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

short-term rentals
CC&R interpretation
Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

business use
taxes
commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

CC&R interpretation
implicit restrictions
rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal procedure
evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

fees
penalties
costs

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Richard K. Morris v. The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings

Posted on August 7, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H056-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 9.2 by forcing the removal of a previously approved security light. The HOA was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard K. Morris	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner's claim that the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 9.2 by forcing the removal of a previously approved security light. The HOA was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Respondent required permanent removal of pre-approved security light in violation of CC&Rs Section 9.2.

Petitioner had Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval from 2010 to install a security light on the shed fascia (a common area). Respondent HOA later required its removal, arguing their fiduciary duty and a new roofing warranty (2023) voided the prior approval. The ALJ found the HOA failed to perform due diligence regarding the pre-existing ARC approval before contracting the new work and violated CC&Rs Section 9.2, which allows rebuilding in accordance with previously approved plans.

Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: ARC Approval, CC&R Violation, Fiduciary Duty, Homeowner Victory, Warranty Voidance

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:10:08 (51.9 KB)

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:10:16 (110.3 KB)

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:57 (51.9 KB)

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:58:02 (110.3 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision following a contested case hearing regarding a homeowners' association dispute.

Case Summary: Richard K. Morris v. The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings

Key Facts and Background

The Petitioner, Richard K. Morris, is a townhome owner and member of The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings Association (Respondent). The dispute centers on a security light that Petitioner installed on the shed fascia of his property.

Prior Approval: On June 25, 2010, Petitioner received Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval to install the motion-sensing security light on the shed fascia board. This approval was granted without any stated conditions or restrictions. The light remained installed for approximately 12 years.
Removal and Violation: In February 2023, the Respondent contracted a roofer to remove and replace fascia and shed roofs, warranting the work for five years. In April 2023, Respondent notified all homeowners to remove items, including security lights, from the fascia. Petitioner complied and removed the light. The Respondent later attempted to fine the Petitioner for the light, although those fines were eventually reversed.
Core Legal Provision: The petition alleged a violation of Section 9.2 of the Association’s CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions). Section 9.2 states that "No permission or approval shall be required to rebuild in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Committee".

Main Issues and Arguments

The core legal issue was whether the Association was required to permanently remove the pre-approved security light, violating Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs.

Petitioner's Argument (Estoppel/Prior Approval): Petitioner argued the case rested on the principle of estoppel, asserting that the Association granted approval (an exception or easement) that Petitioner relied upon by incurring the expense of installation. Since the 2010 approval was granted without a sunset provision, the Association could not unilaterally renege on it.
Respondent's Argument (Fiduciary Duty/Warranty): Respondent argued the Board had a fiduciary duty to all homeowners to maintain common elements and protect their financial investment. Respondent asserted that circumstances had changed since 2010, and installing the light would compromise the overall integrity of the new lumber and, critically, void the 5-year warranty provided by the roofing contractor.

Legal Conclusion and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Petitioner met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

Due Diligence Failure: The ALJ noted that the ARC approval granted Petitioner an exception to the CC&R restriction against alterations of common areas. Crucially, the Respondent admitted that no due diligence was performed regarding the existence of prior ARC approvals which might conflict with the roof work *before* the contract was signed.
Fiduciary Duty Limitation: While acknowledging the Respondent's fiduciary duty to protect investments, the ALJ concluded that this duty "does not entitle Respondent to fail to do their due diligence and disavow prior agreements".
Final Decision: The ALJ determined that the Respondent's actions constituted a violation of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs.

Order

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed.

Respondent is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs.
Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty was denied.
Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00.

Questions

Question

Can an HOA revoke a previous architectural approval because of a new maintenance policy or warranty?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot simply revoke a prior approval to satisfy a new fiduciary duty or warranty if they failed to consider existing approvals first.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot claim that its fiduciary duty to protect common area warranties overrides a homeowner's valid, prior architectural authorization. The HOA is responsible for performing due diligence regarding existing approvals before entering into contracts that might conflict with them.

Alj Quote

While it may be true Respondent had a fiduciary duty to all the homeowners to protect their investment in maintenance of the common area roofs, this does not entitle Respondent to fail to do their due diligence and disavow prior agreements.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence

Topic Tags

architectural approval
fiduciary duty
maintenance

Question

If I have to remove an approved improvement for HOA repairs, do I need permission to reinstall it?

Short Answer

No, if the CC&Rs state that rebuilding according to previously approved plans does not require new approval.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the CC&Rs explicitly stated that no new permission was needed to rebuild improvements that followed plans previously approved by the committee. Therefore, the homeowner was entitled to reinstall the approved item.

Alj Quote

No permission or approval shall be required to rebuild in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Committee.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.2

Topic Tags

architectural approval
repairs
CC&Rs interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the statutes or documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal procedure

Question

Can I be reimbursed for the filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to pay back the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the hearing.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

fees
reimbursement
penalties

Question

Does winning the case automatically mean the HOA will be fined a civil penalty?

Short Answer

No, a judge may rule in favor of the homeowner but still deny a request for a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Although the ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs and ordered them to comply, the specific request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA was denied.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

civil penalty
fines

Question

Can an HOA claim a new contractor's warranty voids my old approval?

Short Answer

Not if the HOA failed to check for existing approvals before signing the contract.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued that a new roof warranty (which would be voided by penetrations) should extinguish the prior approval. The judge rejected this, noting the HOA admitted they did no due diligence to check for conflicts before signing the roofing contract.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, Respondent admitted no due diligence was performed regarding the existence of Architectural Review Committee approvals which would conflict with potential roof work before a contract was signed.

Legal Basis

Duty of Care / Contract Awareness

Topic Tags

warranties
contractor
due diligence

Case

Docket No: 23F-H056-REL
Case Title: Richard K. Morris v The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Decision Date: 2023-08-07
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA revoke a previous architectural approval because of a new maintenance policy or warranty?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot simply revoke a prior approval to satisfy a new fiduciary duty or warranty if they failed to consider existing approvals first.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence

Topic Tags

architectural approval
fiduciary duty
maintenance

Question

If I have to remove an approved improvement for HOA repairs, do I need permission to reinstall it?

Short Answer

No, if the CC&Rs state that rebuilding according to previously approved plans does not require new approval.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

No permission or approval shall be required to rebuild in accordance with plans and specifications previously approved by the Committee.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.2

Topic Tags

architectural approval
repairs
CC&Rs interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

The petitioner (the person filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal procedure

Question

Can I be reimbursed for the filing fee if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

Upon ruling in favor of the homeowner, the judge ordered the HOA to pay back the $500.00 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the hearing.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

fees
reimbursement
penalties

Question

Does winning the case automatically mean the HOA will be fined a civil penalty?

Short Answer

No, a judge may rule in favor of the homeowner but still deny a request for a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Although the ALJ found that the HOA violated the CC&Rs and ordered them to comply, the specific request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA was denied.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

civil penalty
fines

Question

Can an HOA claim a new contractor's warranty voids my old approval?

Short Answer

Not if the HOA failed to check for existing approvals before signing the contract.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Duty of Care / Contract Awareness

Topic Tags

warranties
contractor
due diligence

Case

Docket No: 23F-H056-REL
Case Title: Richard K. Morris v The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Decision Date: 2023-08-07
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard K. Morris (petitioner)
The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Joelle Lever (board member)
The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Represented the Respondent and provided testimony
Chelsea Hearn (board member)
The Townes at Paradise Valley Landings
Homeowner who complained about the light
alice.riesterer (management staff)
The Management Trust Arizona

Neutral Parties

Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge who signed the Order and Decision
Judge Svio (hearing officer)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge who opened the hearing
Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Deborah L (ARC member)
Association
Association representative who approved Petitioner's request in 2010
AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of transmission