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

Felicia Woodward v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

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

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

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

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1068018.pdf

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

23F-H054-REL Decision – 1078258.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Main Issues

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

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

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

Respondent’s Case:

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

Final Decision and Outcome

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • workshops
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • validity
  • homeowner rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • notice
  • technology

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • outcomes

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • email
  • digital communication

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • workshops
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • validity
  • homeowner rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • notice
  • technology

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • outcomes

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • notice
  • email
  • digital communication

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-07-10
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deborah L. Masear Counsel —
Respondent Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws

The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

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.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Annual Meeting, Bylaw Violation, Filing Fee Refund
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. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

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

23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:36 (115.3 KB)

23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:32 (115.3 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association (HOA), docket number 23F-H053-REL, which was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio on June 19, 2023. The case was referred by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The main issue was whether the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its governing bylaws by failing to hold its 2023 annual meeting as required. The HOA’s bylaws, as amended in 1996, explicitly mandate that the Annual Meeting of Members "shall be held" on the second Monday in March each year. For 2023, the required date was March 13. The Petitioner, Deborah Masear, filed her complaint around April 10, 2023, after the mandated March date had passed without a meeting being scheduled.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had been out of compliance regarding the annual meeting schedule for both 2022 and 2023, and that the 2023 meeting was only scheduled *after* she filed her complaint.

The Respondent (HOA) admitted that the meeting was not held on the required March date. However, the HOA argued that the petition should be dismissed because they eventually noticed and held a meeting on May 8, 2023. The HOA further argued that while an election was attempted, no business or election could take place because the members failed to meet the required quorum of 25% (35 members needed), as only 29 members participated. The HOA asserted that the failure to conduct business was due to member non-participation, not a failure of the association itself.

Most Important Legal Points

The ALJ’s determination centered on the interpretation of the HOA’s bylaws. The ALJ emphasized that the phrase "shall be held" within the bylaws is not permissive. Therefore, the HOA was obligated to hold the meeting on the designated March date. The ALJ noted that the May 8, 2023, meeting was 56 days late.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner sustained her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Respondent’s conduct violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws.

The ALJ affirmed the Petitioner’s petition. As relief, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. The Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent was denied. The ALJ's recommendation was set to become the final administrative order unless modified or rejected by the Department of Real Estate within 30 days.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deborah Masear (petitioner)
    Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II HOA Member
    Also referred to as Deborah Maer

Respondent Side

  • Ashley Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Carl Westlund (witness)
    Management Trust
    Community Manager for the HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Judge Delio
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision

Deanna Smith v. Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-06-06
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Deanna Smith Counsel —
Respondent Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association Counsel Christina Morgan

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide association financial records upon member request.

The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to comply with her request for financial records dated December 15, 2022, pursuant to ARS § 33-1805. The Association provided only Profit & Loss statements on January 12, 2023, but failed to provide other requisite financial documents, such as balance sheets, statements of cash flows, or statements of income, as defined by ARS § 32-701. The failure to fulfill the request for financial statements constituted a violation.

Orders: The petition was affirmed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Respondent was ordered to provide financial statements, as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, for the months of August 2022 through December 2022 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Financial Records, Statutory Compliance, Record Request Delay, Filing Fee Reimbursement, HOA Board Member
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T11:20:11 (149.9 KB)

23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:27 (149.9 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held on May 17, 2023, regarding *Deanna Smith v Moondance Town Home Association* (Docket No. 23F-H049-RE).

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioner, Deanna Smith, is a property owner, member, and board member of the Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association (HOA), the Respondent. The HOA was represented by Christina Morgan, Esq., with George Minter (President) appearing as a witness. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Main Issues and Legal Points

The central issue was whether the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805, which requires associations to make financial and other records reasonably available to members, typically within ten business days of a request.

Petitioner Smith filed a petition on March 6, 2023, alleging the HOA failed to comply with her December 15, 2022, request for the Association's financial statements for September, October, and November 2022. Smith, who has an accounting background, argued that the financial statements she requested encompassed a balance sheet, statement of cash flows, and statement of income, in addition to the Profit & Loss (P&L) statement. This definition aligns with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, which defines "Financial Statement" broadly to include these comprehensive reports.

The Respondent’s defense focused on miscommunication and substantial compliance. The Respondent acknowledged internal "dysfunction" and delays caused by the transition from their prior accounting firm to self-management using QuickBooks. While the Respondent emailed P&L statements on January 12, 2023, they failed to provide other requisite documents. Furthermore, the Association’s President Minter initially directed Smith to search a Google Drive, claiming the records were available there, but the Treasurer later admitted the financial reports were never available on the drive. The ALJ noted that even after receiving the P&L statements, Smith’s subsequent request on January 18, 2023, went unfulfilled.

Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ found that Petitioner Smith sustained her burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued a decision on June 6, 2023, concluding that the Respondent’s failure to supply the requisite documents—such as balance sheets and statements of cash flows—constituted a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

The ALJ issued the following order:

  1. The Petitioner’s petition is affirmed.
  2. The request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent is denied.
  3. The Respondent shall reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
  4. The Respondent shall provide financial statements (as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701) for the months of August 2022 through December 2022.

Questions

Question

If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?

Short Answer

No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?

Short Answer

The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • accounting

Question

How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • procedural requirements
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?

Short Answer

Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • digital access
  • compliance
  • records request

Question

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

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.

Detailed Answer

The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • homeowner rights
  • costs

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • outcomes
  • filing fees

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?

Short Answer

No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.

Alj Quote

The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • civil penalty
  • judgement

Case

Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?

Short Answer

No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701; ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?

Short Answer

The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.

Alj Quote

In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701

Topic Tags

  • financial records
  • definitions
  • accounting

Question

How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • deadlines
  • procedural requirements
  • homeowner rights

Question

Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?

Short Answer

Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.

Alj Quote

Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • digital access
  • compliance
  • records request

Question

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

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.

Detailed Answer

The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • homeowner rights
  • costs

Question

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

Short Answer

Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • outcomes
  • filing fees

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?

Short Answer

No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.

Alj Quote

The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • civil penalty
  • judgement

Case

Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Deanna Smith (petitioner, board member)
    Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association

Respondent Side

  • Christina Morgan (HOA attorney)
    Vingham
  • George Minter (President, board member, witness)
    Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
  • Linda Dieball (Treasurer, board member)
    Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:11 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:17 (98.4 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:58 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:01 (98.4 KB)

The legal matter of *Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1* (No. 23F-H041-REL) was heard virtually by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson on April 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Petitioner's Allegations:

Petitioner Anthony Payson, a homeowner within the community, alleged that the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) neglected its duty to enforce the Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that a large, outdoor television/movie theater installed by his neighbor violated CC&R Section 5.4 (Nuisances), which prohibits anything kept on a lot that "will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of the surrounding property". Petitioner sought an order compelling the HOA to enforce the CC&Rs and require the neighbor to remove the television.

Respondent's Key Arguments:

The Respondent HOA, represented by Sean K. Mohnihan, orally moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for relief. The HOA argued that the Petitioner was alleging a violation of Section 5.4 by the neighbor, not the Association itself, and the Association neither owns nor operates the TV.

Crucially, the HOA asserted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes among neighbors or to enforce common law duties to enforce CC&Rs. Furthermore, the HOA maintained that the Petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence (such as a log book, police reports, or a noise study) to substantiate a nuisance claim, despite the HOA having requested such documentation before initiating enforcement action.

Hearing Proceedings and Evidence:

The ALJ held the motion to dismiss in abeyance but proceeded with the presentation of evidence. Petitioner Payson testified that the TV had disturbed his peace and quiet on at least one occasion involving a hockey game, and that its mere existence constituted a violation because it *might* cause disturbance. Payson admitted he did not provide the HOA with specific dates, times, decibel readings, or video evidence of the disturbance, as the HOA had requested. The Respondent ultimately elected not to call witnesses, relying instead on the Petitioner's testimony and the jurisdictional arguments.

Outcome and Legal Decision:

In the final decision issued May 1, 2023, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent (The Foothills Homeowners Association #1) violated CC&R Section 5.4.

The ALJ determined that CC&R Section 5.4 addresses use restrictions on Members and Lots. Since the provisions refer to actions of members, any breach of that Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. The OAH’s authority, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), is limited to finding whether the governing document or statute has been violated by the respondent. Because the Petitioner did not contend or provide facts establishing that the HOA stored property that caused noise or disturbed the peace, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof against the Association.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Payson (petitioner)
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Sean K. Mohnihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
  • Jason E Smith (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Listed with counsel
  • Gabron (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Linda Armo (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Philip Brown (former HOA attorney)
    Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barry Callahan (neighbor)
    Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner

Victoria J Whitaker v. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

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

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Procedural History

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

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

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

Main Issues and Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

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

Respondent's Argument:

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

Final Decision and Outcome

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Robert C. Ochs v. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert C. Ochs Counsel —
Respondent The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of records request statute (failure to timely provide materials lists/specifications related to roof replacement/repairs).

Petitioner requested materials lists and specifications regarding recent (Sept 2021) and past (since 1986) roof work on February 27, 2022. The Association provided a scope of work document from the vendor on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed. The ALJ determined the requested documents were not established to be 'financial and other records of the association' as contemplated by the statute, and TMT was not in possession of them at the time of the request.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, Planned Community Act, Roof Repair/Replacement, Condominium, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 1003691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:15 (160.6 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:17 (49.4 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:18 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 985762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:20 (52.8 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 986375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:22 (52.8 KB)

This summary focuses on the hearing held on September 19, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark, regarding Petitioner Robert C. Ochs versus the Camel View Green Homeowners Association (HOA), concerning an alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 subsection A.

Key Facts and Underlying Dispute

The dispute arose after Petitioner Ochs' investment property sustained over $30,000 in interior damage following a severe storm in July 2021, necessitating roof replacement by the HOA's vendor around September/October 2021. When the roof leaked again in February 2022, Petitioner sought documentation regarding the repairs.

On February 27, 2022, Petitioner submitted a two-part records request to the HOA's management company (TMT), seeking: (1) materials lists and specifications for the most recent roof replacement, and (2) materials lists and specifications for all past replacements/repairs since 1986. The HOA manager replied on March 3, 2022, indicating she was "working on" the request. Petitioner filed a petition on or about April 24, 2022, after receiving no further documentation or substantive response. The HOA's legal counsel finally provided a "scope of work" document from the roofing vendor (dated September 7, 2021) on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

The central issue was whether the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805A, which requires an association to make "all financial and other records of the association" reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued the HOA violated the 10-day requirement. He contended that the materials lists and specifications related to the recent repair were "other records of the association" because the HOA (Camel View Greens) would have received and retained this documentation (like the "scope of work") to verify and pay the vendor's invoice by the end of 2021.
  2. Respondent's Argument: The HOA denied the violation. They argued that the materials lists and specifications requested are not "association records" contemplated by the statute, nor are they records the nonprofit corporation keeps in the ordinary course of business (unlike meeting minutes or financial records). These records belong to the vendor, who is not subject to the 10-day statutory requirement. Furthermore, the witness (Carl Westlund) testified that the management company (TMT, which started managing in 2018) did not possess the specific documents requested at the time of the request.

Legal Points and Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof.

  • The ALJ found that the request for 35 years of prior records (since 1986) was unreasonable because the current management company (TMT) confirmed it did not obtain those records from its predecessor.
  • Regarding the records for the recent replacement, the request was not unreasonable, but the documents sought were not records kept in the ordinary course of business.
  • The record did not establish *when* the HOA or TMT received the "scope of work" from the vendor (Ideal Roofing), so it could not be proven that the document should have been supplied within the 10-day statutory window (March 11, 2022).
  • The Petitioner failed to establish that the documents were "financial" or constituted "other records of the association" as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on October 4, 2022, concluding that the Association's conduct was not in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's petition and the request for a civil penalty were denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert C. Ochs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Appeared on behalf of respondent
  • Carl Westlund (witness)
    The Management Trust
    Division Vice President of Community Management at TMT
  • Shauna Carr (property manager)
    The Management Trust
    Former executive community manager for Camel View Greens
  • Dameon Cons (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Sent response letter to Petitioner
  • Mark A. Holmgren (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Counsel for Respondent listed on transmittals

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH
    Transmitted orders/minute entries
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents

Other Participants

  • Jeff Centers (vendor/project manager)
    Vendor
    Contractor hired by the community

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 980535.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:24 (46.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 983516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:27 (38.4 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:30 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:33 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:37 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:40 (124.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:06 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:10 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:13 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:16 (124.7 KB)

This summary focuses on the administrative hearing concerning the reasonableness of the Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's architectural request.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The Petitioner, Marc Archer, sought approval from the Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., for a two-story garage addition to his home. This was the third hearing alleging that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which mandates that the approval of construction plans shall not unreasonably be withheld.

In December 2020, following a previous Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision which found the Association violated its rules by not providing a written basis for denial, the Association issued a written response outlining its reasons. A key issue during the hearing was the confusion and vagueness of this response, as two of the three reasons for denial were also listed in a subsequent section that the Association testified was merely advisory.

Main Issues and Arguments

The core issue before ALJ Thomas Shedden was whether the Association’s denial of preliminary approval for Archer’s two-story design was unreasonable. The burden of proof lay with the Petitioner.

The Association’s three reasons for denial (based on the December 30, 2020, letter) were:

  1. Lack of Harmony/Incorporation: The addition was deemed a "large two-story 'box'" that did not harmonize with the existing structure or enhance the community (AR § 1.1). The Association argued the proposed roof did not blend into the existing roof.
  • *Legal Point:* The ALJ noted that evidence showed the proposed roof matched the existing pitch, and other houses had multiple roof lines. Therefore, there was no substantial evidence that the addition would "dominate and/or sharply contrast" with the community.
  1. Painted Roof Tiles: The Association deemed painted roof tiles unacceptable (AR § 4.4).
  • *Legal Point:* The ALJ found that the Association acted outside its scope of authority, as the Architectural Rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, though they specified required tile types and approved colors. Archer also presented evidence that he had since located sufficient matching tile.
  1. Insufficient Architectural Expression: A need to add more architectural elements (pop-outs, windows, etc.) to break up expanses (AR § 4.2).
  • *Legal Point:* Archer provided credible evidence that his plans already included stucco pop-outs, inset windows, and soffit details that matched the existing structure, thus satisfying the requirement for architectural expression.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision on March 30, 2022, concluding that the Petitioner prevailed.

The ALJ concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were arguably unclear due to the mixed advisory/required language but found that Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons was reasonable.

The Order required that:

  1. The Association should approve Marc Archer's preliminary design.
  2. The Association must pay Archer his $500 filing fee within thirty days.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marc Archer (petitioner)
  • Greg Hancock (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, works in building industry
  • Dr. Victor Zach (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, lives across the street from Petitioner
  • Dan Earlie (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, experienced in homebuilding and HOA boards
  • Thomas Bragg (architect/witness)
    Registered architect hired by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Keith Kauffman (board member/witness)
    PMPE Community Association, Inc.
    President and long-time board member of the Association
  • Gail Zigler (property manager/witness)
    Community manager for the Association
  • Mr. Sasser (committee member/neighbor)
    Mentioned as an opponent to the addition
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Ikenberg (ALJ/Hearing Officer)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ in prior related proceedings (19F-H1919063-REL, 20F-H2020063-REL)
  • Claire Miller (Preserve Park Supervisor)
    City Parks and Recreation

Other Participants

  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • tandert (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records (also Miranda A)
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records
  • Dr. Smith (unknown)
    House used for a meeting location

Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221008-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan L Jarzabek Counsel —
Respondent Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 Counsel Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:50 (93.9 KB)

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:13 (93.9 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Susan L Jarzabek (Petitioner) vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 (Respondent), heard on November 5, 2021.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Susan L. Jarzabek, filed a petition alleging that the Respondent Association violated CC&R Article 1, Section 10 and its Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy") by wrongfully charging her attorney’s fees. The underlying dispute involved a neighbor's complaint regarding a tree on Ms. Jarzabek's property.

Ms. Jarzabek, the sole record owner, argued that the Association’s Policy requires the owner of record to be provided two warning notices and a certified letter before a matter can be escalated to attorney involvement, thus making the assessment of fees improper. She also contended she was denied due process because she did not receive proper notice of the allegations. Although the Association assessed fines and interest related to the violation, these charges were rescinded prior to the hearing.

The Association’s documents grant it the ability to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees (CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1). Crucially, the Association’s Policy provides that if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the standard notice-procedure will no longer apply, and the owner is responsible for the associated fees and costs.

The facts showed that the Association sent a certified letter (January 15, 2019) regarding the tree violation, but it was addressed to Ms. Jarzabek’s husband, John Jarzabek, and was not claimed by either party. Furthermore, this January 15, 2019 letter did not meet all the required elements for a Notice of Violation under the Association’s policy. The Association engaged counsel (The Mulcahy Law Firm) on October 15, 2019, which subsequently sent Notices of Violation to Ms. Jarzabek.

Legal Analysis and Outcome

The matter was governed by the Department of Real Estate's authority concerning alleged violations of community documents. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to show the alleged violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the Policy a contract with which both parties must comply.

The ALJ concluded that Ms. Jarzabek did not meet her burden to prove the Association violated the Policy. The central legal finding was that the Policy, as written, does not require that an owner receive two notices before a matter is escalated to attorney involvement.

Final Decision

Based on this finding, the ALJ ordered that Susan L. Jarzabek’s petition be dismissed. The ALJ noted that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek constituted a valid debt, offering no opinion on that specific debt issue.

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susan L Jarzabek (petitioner, witness)

Respondent Side

  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Cody (board president, witness)
    Hillcrest Improvement Association #2
  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission (via email)
  • Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
    Transmitter of Decision

Other Participants

  • John Jarzabek (spouse)
    Petitioner's husband, named on certified letter sent by Association

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard J Jones Counsel —
Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association Counsel Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
  • Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:04 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:07 (94.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:52 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:57 (94.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of Richard J. Jones versus the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association (Case No. 21F-H2121038-REL). The dispute centered on a concrete driveway extension installed by Mr. Jones without the prior approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Mr. Jones contested the Association’s denial of his post-installation application, alleging that the Design Guidelines were misinterpreted and selectively enforced.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jones’s petition. The decision rested on three key determinations:

1. Clear Violation: Mr. Jones was in direct violation of the Design Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for the modification and by not adhering to a mandatory 12-inch setback from the common block wall, a fact he acknowledged.

2. Reasonable Interpretation: The Association’s interpretation that the 12-inch setback requirement applied to the entire property line—not just the block wall—was deemed “not unreasonable,” particularly since the common wall is part of the property line.

3. Failure to Prove Selective Enforcement: Mr. Jones did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to prove his claim of selective enforcement. The Association provided credible evidence demonstrating consistent application of the setback rule to other homeowners.

The final order upholds the Association’s enforcement actions and dismisses the petitioner’s claims.

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdictional Details

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Richard J. Jones

On his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Troy Stratman, Esq.

Adjudicator

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Case No.

21F-H2121038-REL

Hearing Date

November 2, 2021

Decision Date

November 15, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict arose from a concrete driveway extension installed by Richard J. Jones on his property on May 11, 2020. The installation was performed without submitting a request for prior approval to the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. Following the installation, the ARC denied Mr. Jones’s retroactive application, citing its failure to meet a required 12-inch setback from the property line. This led to a notice of non-compliance and a fine, prompting Mr. Jones to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Chronology of Events

• April 2020: Mr. Jones contacted AAM, LLC, the Association’s property management company, to inquire about adding concrete strips. He was informed this was not allowed but that an employee could assist with an approval process for a paver driveway extension.

• May 11, 2020: Having not received further guidance from the management company, Mr. Jones proceeded to have the concrete driveway extension installed.

• Post-May 11, 2020: Mr. Jones submitted an application to the ARC for retroactive approval of the already-installed extension.

• December 2, 2020: The ARC formally denied Mr. Jones’s application. The denial letter stated the extension did not meet the 12-inch setback requirement and advised him to reapply after cutting the driveway back from the property line.

• January 12, 2021: The Association issued a Second Notice of Non-compliance/Fine.

• February 12, 2021: Mr. Jones filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association was misinterpreting and selectively enforcing its Design Guidelines.

• November 2, 2021: The administrative hearing was conducted.

• November 15, 2021: The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Richard J. Jones)

Mr. Jones’s case was built on two primary arguments:

• Interpretation of Design Guidelines: He contended that the Guidelines in effect at the time of installation required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent regarding the “property line.” He argued that since the Guidelines explicitly mandated a property line setback for sidewalks, the absence of such language for driveway extensions meant the requirement did not apply.

• Allegation of Selective Enforcement: He asserted that the Association was applying its Guidelines and Rules inconsistently among homeowners.

During testimony, Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway extension did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall and expressed a willingness to correct that specific deficiency. He also testified that his neighbors did not object to the extension as installed.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association)

The Association, represented by counsel, presented a multi-faceted defense:

• Procedural Failure: A core issue was Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval from the ARC before installation, as mandated by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Setback Rule: The Association maintained that the extension violated the required 12-inch setback. The property manager, Paul Favale, testified that this rule is intended to ensure water does not drain onto a neighbor’s property.

• Evidence of Consistent Enforcement: To counter the claim of selective enforcement, the Association submitted an “Architectural Status Report” for the period of August 27, 2020, through April 21, 2021. This report demonstrated that other homeowners’ requests for driveway extensions had also been denied for failing to meet the 12-inch property line setback.

It was also noted that the Design Guidelines have since been modified to explicitly require a 12-inch setback from both the common wall and the property line.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

Key Findings of Fact

• Mr. Jones installed the driveway extension on May 11, 2020, without prior approval from the ARC.

• The extension does not have a 12-inch setback from the common block wall, which is part of the property line.

• The Design Guidelines at the time explicitly required a 12-inch setback from the block wall.

• Mr. Jones acknowledged his non-compliance with the block wall setback requirement.

Conclusions of Law

The Judge concluded that Mr. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, which required demonstrating a violation by the Association by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

1. Petitioner’s Violation: Mr. Jones was found to be in violation of the Guidelines. His acknowledgment that the driveway did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall was a critical factor.

2. Reasonableness of Association’s Interpretation: The Judge determined that the Association’s interpretation of the Guidelines—requiring a 12-inch setback along the entire property line—was “not unreasonable.” This conclusion was supported by two points: the common wall is physically part of the property line, and Mr. Jones had failed to follow the required prior approval process, where such ambiguities would have been clarified.

3. No Evidence of Selective Enforcement: The Association presented “credible evidence” via its Architectural Status Report showing that other members were subject to the same rule. Consequently, Mr. Jones “did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was selectively enforcing the Guidelines.”

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The Judge ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed.

• Legal Standing: The decision is binding on both parties.

• Appeal Process: The order can only be challenged through a request for rehearing, which must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (November 15, 2021).

Study Guide: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 21F-H2121038-REL, involving Petitioner Richard J. Jones and Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided case documents.

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

2. What specific modification did Richard J. Jones make to his property, and on what date did he complete it?

3. What critical step did Mr. Jones fail to take before installing the modification, as required by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs?

4. According to the Design Guidelines in effect at the time of installation, what was the specific rule regarding the placement of driveway extensions that Mr. Jones’s project violated?

5. What was Mr. Jones’s main argument regarding the ambiguity of the Design Guidelines concerning the twelve-inch setback requirement?

6. What justification did the Association’s property manager, Paul Favale, provide for the setback requirement?

7. What were the two primary claims Mr. Jones made against the Association in his petition filed on February 12, 2021?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party carried the burden of meeting that standard?

9. How did the Association counter Mr. Jones’s claim that it was selectively enforcing its rules?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Richard J. Jones, a homeowner who appeared on his own behalf, and the Respondent, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, which was represented by its counsel, Troy Stratman, Esq.

2. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Jones added a concrete driveway running from the street to a side gate on his property. This modification is referred to in the documents as a “driveway extension.”

3. Mr. Jones did not submit a request for prior approval to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installing his driveway extension. This pre-approval is required for such modifications under the Association’s CC&Rs.

4. The driveway extension violated the rule requiring a twelve-inch setback from the common block wall. Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway did not comply with this specific requirement of the Design Guidelines.

5. Mr. Jones argued that since the Design Guidelines explicitly required a twelve-inch setback from the property line for sidewalks but did not explicitly state the same for driveway extensions, the requirement did not apply to his project along the full property line.

6. Mr. Favale testified that the purpose of the setback requirement is functional. It is designed to help ensure that water does not drain from one property onto a neighboring property.

7. Mr. Jones’s petition asserted that the Design Guidelines for driveway extensions did not require a setback from the property line (only the common wall). He also claimed that the Association was selectively enforcing its Guidelines and Rules against him.

8. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner, Mr. Jones, bore the burden of proof to show that the Association had violated its own guidelines.

9. The Association submitted an Architectural Status Report covering August 27, 2020, to April 21, 2021. This report provided credible evidence that other Association members had also been denied requests for driveway extensions due to a failure to meet the twelve-inch setback requirement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that Mr. Jones had not met his burden of proof to show the Association had violated its guidelines or enforced them selectively.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as they were applied in this case. Explain specifically how Mr. Jones failed to meet this burden for both of his primary claims.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to determine that the Association’s interpretation of its Design Guidelines was “not unreasonable.” Consider the judge’s reference to the common wall being part of the property line and Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval.

3. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Jones’s initial inquiry to AAM, LLC in April 2020 to the final order in November 2021. Discuss how Mr. Jones’s decision to proceed with construction without explicit approval ultimately weakened his legal position.

4. Evaluate the claim of “selective enforcement.” What kind of evidence would Mr. Jones have needed to present to successfully prove this claim, and why was the Association’s Architectural Status Report considered more compelling evidence by the court?

5. The “Conclusions of Law” section states that the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the parties. Using the facts of this case, explain the legal and practical implications of this principle for a homeowner living within a master association.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company for the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings and renders decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and granting prior approval for modifications to properties, such as driveway extensions.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Mr. Jones.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules that are part of the contract between homeowners and the association, detailing requirements for property modifications.

Driveway Extension

As defined by the parties, a concrete driveway running from the street to a gate at the side of a house.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Richard J. Jones.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as evidence that has “the most convincing force” and is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Selective Enforcement

The legal claim that an association is not applying its rules and guidelines uniformly, instead penalizing some members while allowing others to violate the same rules.

Setback

A required distance that a structure must be located away from a property line or other feature, such as a common wall. In this case, the requirement was for a twelve-inch setback.

He Fought the HOA Over 12 Inches of Concrete—and Lost. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons from His Case.

Navigating the rules of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like walking through a minefield of regulations, where a small misstep can lead to notices, fines, and protracted disputes. For one homeowner, Richard J. Jones, a conflict with his HOA, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, over a new driveway extension escalated all the way to a formal hearing. The official legal decision in his case reveals several counter-intuitive truths about how these disputes are won and lost, offering valuable lessons for any homeowner living under HOA governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. “Asking for Forgiveness” is a Losing Strategy.

The first major takeaway is that violating rules first and hoping for retroactive approval is an approach doomed to fail, even when the situation feels complex. The story here is more nuanced than simple defiance. In April 2020, before any work began, Mr. Jones contacted the HOA’s management company about his plans. After being told his initial idea for “two concrete strips” was not allowed, he was directed to another employee for help with an application for a different design. According to the case file, Mr. Jones “did not hear back from her and he had the driveway extension installed” on May 11, 2020.

While his frustration is relatable, this impatient miscalculation was his crucial error. Section 4.1.1 of the community’s CC&Rs requires prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). By proceeding without securing this written approval, Mr. Jones was in immediate violation. His subsequent application, submitted only after the work was done, was predictably denied on December 2, 2020. The lesson is stark: a breakdown in communication does not absolve a homeowner of their responsibility to follow procedure. The moment unapproved work begins, you are in breach of the community’s governing documents, and the merits of the project become secondary to the procedural failure.

——————————————————————————–

2. You Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong—Not the Other Way Around.

Many homeowners assume that in a dispute, the burden is on the HOA to prove the homeowner is wrong. The legal reality is the exact opposite. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision formally stated in Conclusion of Law #2 that Mr. Jones, as the petitioner who brought the case, bore the “burden of proof.”

To win, he had to demonstrate that the Association committed a violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge’s decision cites the formal definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, which essentially means the evidence presented must be convincing enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The reality for homeowners is surprising and crucial: in a formal dispute, the legal scales are not neutral. You must actively build a case and convincingly prove the HOA has violated its own rules. Mr. Jones failed to meet this standard.

——————————————————————————–

3. A Small Loophole Isn’t Enough to Win.

Mr. Jones’s central argument rested on a perceived loophole in the governing documents. He claimed the Design Guidelines required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent about the “property line” as a whole, and therefore the rule didn’t apply to the entirety of his project. This highlights a key aspect of HOA governance: the purpose behind a rule matters. The property manager testified that the setback requirement exists to “ensure that water does not drain to the neighbor’s property,” transforming the rule from an arbitrary measurement into a practical and defensible standard.

Ultimately, the judge was unpersuaded by the loophole argument, and the reason is a masterclass in how these cases are decided. The judge’s decision, articulated in Conclusion of Law #7, pointed out that the common wall is fundamentally part of the property line. More importantly, the decision explicitly connected this conclusion to Mr. Jones’s prior actions: “…considering that Mr. Jones did not obtain prior approval from ARC before constructing his driveway extension, the Association’s interpretation…is not unreasonable.” This is the crucial insight: his procedural failure (Lesson #1) directly weakened his ability to argue about ambiguous wording. An HOA’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules is far more likely to be upheld when the homeowner has already disregarded clear procedural mandates. Tellingly, the Association later modified the guidelines to explicitly close this perceived loophole.

——————————————————————————–

4. Proving “Selective Enforcement” is Harder Than You Think.

A common defense from homeowners is that the HOA is engaging in “selective enforcement”—singling them out while letting others get away with similar violations. Mr. Jones made this exact claim, but the Association came prepared with meticulous documentation to defeat it.

As detailed in Finding of Fact #21, the HOA presented an “Architectural Status Report” covering August 27, 2020 through April 21, 2021. This document provided time-stamped evidence that other homeowners’ requests for similar driveway extensions had also been consistently denied for failing to meet the same 12-inch setback requirement. This report systematically dismantled the selective enforcement argument. For homeowners, this underscores a critical point: the feeling of being singled out is not evidence. To win a selective enforcement claim, you must provide clear proof that other members in the exact same situation were treated differently, a high bar that an HOA with good records can easily overcome.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Contract is a Contract

The overarching theme from this case is that HOA governing documents are not merely suggestions; they are legally binding. As stated in Conclusion of Law #5, the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the homeowner and the association. While HOA rules can often feel arbitrary or frustrating, they carry the weight of a contract. The path to successfully challenging them is narrow and requires a clear, well-documented case that proves the HOA, not the homeowner, has breached its duties.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all community members. How well do you really know the contract you’re living under?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard J Jones (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Troy Stratman (attorney)
    Stratman Law Firm, PLC
    Counsel for Respondent
  • Paul Favale (property manager)
    Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Angela Pate (property manager employee)
    AAM, LLC
    Contacted by Petitioner regarding installation inquiry

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
  • Miranda Alvarez (Staff)
    Transmitted decision

Ronald Borruso v. Sunland Village East Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronald Borruso Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village East Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. and Nikolas Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 occurred.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations regarding member speaking rights at May 27, 2021 meeting and unauthorized board meetings concerning Operations Manager job qualifications

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by restricting member speaking rights during deliberations at a special meeting on May 27, 2021, and by holding improperly noticed meetings to approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager.

Orders: Ronald Borruso’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Statute Violation, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121062-REL Decision – 912276.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:53 (114.4 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Ronald Borruso, Petitioner, vs. Sunland Village East Association, Respondent (No. 21F-H2121062-REL), heard on September 3, 2021. The Petitioner, Ronald Borruso, alleged that the Association violated its Bylaws and specific provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.

Key Facts and Legal Standard

The Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the matter. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Borruso refined his allegations to two main issues, both centering on the violation of association meeting requirements under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A) and (C).

Main Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: Member Participation at the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged that during a special meeting concerning a recall petition, the Board denied members the right to speak at an appropriate time during proceedings, violating § 33-1804(A). He argued the meeting was improperly divided into a "closed" session where members could not offer substantive comments, followed by an "Open Session Q & A" after adjournment.
  • Association's Argument: The Association maintained there was only one meeting, and it was not a violation to restrict members’ comments until after the Board provided its statements. They argued they used the term "closed" inartfully, noting that members were allowed to attend the entire 3-hour meeting, and ample opportunity was provided for comments during the Q & A session (lasting about 90 minutes).
  • Legal Point: ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(A) permits members to attend and speak at an appropriate time during deliberations, and mandates they speak once after the Board discusses an agenda item but before formal action. The ALJ noted that legally, a "closed" meeting refers to an executive session, which the Board did not conduct.

Issue 2: Unnoticed Meeting to Approve Operations Manager Qualifications

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged the Board held un-noticed meetings to write and approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager, violating sections 33-1804(A) and (C). His primary evidence was a former Board President, Ms. Haynie, confirming in a May 6, 2021 meeting that the Board had written and approved the job description.
  • Association's Argument: Current Board members testified credibly that Ms. Haynie was wrong and that the Board had never met or voted on the job description. The description posted was similar to a previous one, and Ms. Haynie had allegedly prepared and posted it without Board approval.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Borruso failed to meet the required standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on both issues.

  1. Regarding the May 27th Meeting: The Petitioner did not prove a violation of § 33-1804(A). Although the Board was not precise in its terminology, members were allowed to attend the entire meeting, and the evidence showed it was a single meeting where members spoke after the Board's presentation.
  2. Regarding the Job Qualifications: The Petitioner failed to prove that an un-noticed meeting occurred, as the credible testimony indicated that the former President had been mistaken about the Board’s approval. Therefore, there was no violation of sections 33-1804(A) and (C).

The petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ronald Borruso (petitioner)
  • Thomas Huston (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Nikolas Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Mark Thurn (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Current Board President, testified for Respondent
  • Marvin Fretwell (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joyce Haynie (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Former President, subject of recall petition
  • Kim Shallue (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Presided over May 27th meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission