The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.
Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.
Key Issues & Findings
Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.
Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 21F-H2121046-REL
Select all sources
912007.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2121046-REL
1 source
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Fisenko(petitioner) Testified on behalf of Petitioners
Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko(petitioner)
Laurence Stevens(petitioner attorney) Stevens & Van Cott, PLLC
Respondent Side
Jamie Palfai(HOA attorney) O’Hagan Meyer LLC
Samuel Truett(witness) Bellvue Homeowners Association Witness for Bellvue Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).
Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Community Bylaws 3.03
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Community Bylaws 3.03
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:43 (117.4 KB)
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
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
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-08-23
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
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
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to fulfill a records request
Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:10 (114.1 KB)
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
Topic Tags
records request
exclusions
privacy
Question
Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?
Short Answer
No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.
Alj Quote
Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)
Topic Tags
records request
employees
privacy
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.
Detailed Answer
Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.
Alj Quote
Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 18
Topic Tags
evidence
records request
burden of proof
Question
Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.
Detailed Answer
Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.
Alj Quote
Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Topic Tags
board members
directors
inspection rights
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
Topic Tags
records request
exclusions
privacy
Question
Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?
Short Answer
No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.
Alj Quote
Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)
Topic Tags
records request
employees
privacy
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.
Detailed Answer
Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.
Alj Quote
Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 18
Topic Tags
evidence
records request
burden of proof
Question
Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.
Detailed Answer
Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.
Alj Quote
Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Topic Tags
board members
directors
inspection rights
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael E Palacios(petitioner) Property owner and member of the Association; was appointed to the Board,
Respondent Side
Quinten T. Cupps(HOA attorney) Represented El Rio Community Association
Denise Ferreira(property manager, witness) D & E Management Owns D & E Management and was the manager for the Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Section 5
Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.
Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal proceedings in the case of Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The dispute, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), centered on a four-issue petition filed by the Burnes on July 17, 2020. The allegations concerned construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), specifically violations of architectural rules, failure to collect a construction deposit, violations of open meeting laws, and failure to fulfill a records request.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Respondent on the first three issues, concluding that the association had not violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding architectural control, had properly honored a waiver for the construction deposit, and had not violated state open meeting laws. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent did violate Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the statutory 10-day deadline and by providing an incomplete set of documents.
Following the initial decision, the Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and an allegedly arbitrary decision. The rehearing affirmed the original findings, as the Petitioners conceded they possessed no new evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing.
The final order requires the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee, to comply with the records request statute moving forward, and to provide the specific missing documents from the original request.
Case Background and Procedural History
The case involves property owners Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes, who own Lot 6 in the Saguaro Crest subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, and their homeowners’ association. The dispute arose from the construction of a new home on the adjacent Lot 7.
• July 17, 2020: The Petitioners filed a four-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• August 11, 2020: The Respondent HOA filed its answer, denying all four claims.
• August 19, 2020: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• December 2020 & March 2021: Hearings were conducted before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.
• March 22, 2021: The initial ALJ Decision was issued, denying the Petitioners’ claims on three issues but granting their petition on the fourth issue concerning the records request.
• April 28, 2021: The Petitioners filed a Dispute Rehearing Request on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• May 21, 2021: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.
• July 20, 2021: The rehearing was conducted.
• August 09, 2021: A Final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, affirming the original decision in its entirety.
Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The findings for each are detailed below, based on the evidence presented in the hearings.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without the required submission of documents to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval, specifically concerning modifications to the originally approved plans.
• Key Evidence:
◦ Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the ARC that unanimously approved the initial construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ On October 21, 2018, and again on April 14, 2020, Mr. Burnes expressed concerns to the HOA Board that the placement of the home on Lot 7 deviated from the approved plans, negatively impacting the view and privacy of his own home on Lot 6.
◦ In a letter, Mr. Burnes stated, “Mr. Martinez did not honer the approved plan and has placed the house in the original position,” which he claimed was disharmonious and destroyed his view.
◦ The evidence showed that no additional or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review after the initial January 2018 approval.
◦ The construction plans for Lot 7 were approved by Pima County on May 4, 2018.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ concluded that the “ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Since no modified plans were ever presented, the ARC did not violate the CC&Rs. The decision also noted that the construction complied with the local government’s building authority.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000 refundable Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Key Evidence:
◦ In a meeting on May 3, 2020, the HOA Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family (owners of Lot 7).
◦ The rationale for such waivers was that they were granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases in the subdivision.
◦ Crucially, the HOA “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ determined that it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record explaining the details of the waiver was acknowledged but considered moot because it was not a specifically “noticed issue” in the petition.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA Board conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes, violating state open meeting laws.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Mr. Burnes requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the following day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted via unanimous written consent, as permitted under A.R.S § 10-3821, to restrict Mr. Burnes’s participation as an ARC member only on matters related to Lot 7.
◦ The Board’s written consent stated, “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.” This action was taken due to Mr. Burnes’s personal complaints against the Lot 7 owner, creating a conflict of interest.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ found that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was an excused exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it as an urgent matter. The action on May 20 was not an illegal meeting but a permissible action taken via written consent without a meeting. Furthermore, the Board did not remove Mr. Burnes from the ARC entirely, but only restricted his involvement on the specific issue where he had a conflict.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA failed to fulfill a records request in accordance with state law.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On June 4, 2020, the Petitioners submitted a comprehensive request to review “ALL of the documents of the HOA” and for copies of documents falling into 17 specific categories, demanding fulfillment within 10 days.
◦ The statutory deadline for the HOA to comply with both the review and copy requests was June 18, 2020.
◦ The HOA made the documents available for review on June 16, 2020 (within the deadline).
◦ However, the HOA provided copies of the documents only on June 24, 2020, six days past the statutory deadline.
◦ Upon receiving the copies, Mr. Burnes notified the HOA the same day that “[S]ome of the attachments for some emails are not included within in this package from this documentation.” [sic]
• Conclusion:Violation found. The ALJ determined that the HOA violated the statute, which requires copies of requested records to be provided within ten business days. The Respondent’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline was explicitly rejected. The decision also noted that the documents provided were incomplete.
The Rehearing
The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was granted, but it did not alter the case’s outcome.
• Grounds for Rehearing: The request was based on claims of newly discovered evidence and that the original findings on issues 1-3 were arbitrary or capricious.
• Rehearing Proceedings: During the rehearing, the “Petitioners offered no ‘new’ evidence and instead conceded that they wished to present evidence which they had in their possession during the prior hearing, that they markedly had decided not to present.”
• Outcome: Because no new evidence was presented, the Petitioners were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits. The ALJ found no basis to alter the original findings and affirmed the March 22, 2021, decision.
Final Order
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated August 9, 2021, affirmed the original order. The Respondent, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, is mandated to perform the following actions:
1. Denial and Granting of Petitions: The Petitioners’ petition is denied for Issues 1, 2, and 3. The petition is granted for Issue 4.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00, to be paid in certified funds.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent must henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.
4. Provision of Documents: The Respondent must provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020, records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately two to three sentences.
1. Identify the primary parties in this legal dispute and describe their relationship within the Saguaro Crest community.
2. What were the four specific allegations the Petitioners filed against the Respondent on July 17, 2020?
3. Explain Petitioner Norm Burnes’s initial role with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and how the Board of Directors later altered his participation.
4. Describe the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit for the construction on Lot 7.
5. What was the central grievance expressed by the Petitioners regarding the placement and construction of the new home on Lot 7?
6. What action did the Board of Directors take on May 20, 2020, without a formal, noticed meeting, and under what legal authority did they act?
7. Summarize the timeline and outcome of the Petitioners’ June 4, 2020, records request to the Association.
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule in favor of the Petitioners on Issue 4, regarding the violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805?
9. On what grounds did the Petitioners request a rehearing, and what was the judge’s finding regarding the “new evidence” they wished to present?
10. What was the final, affirmed order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Clifford (Norm) S. and Maria Burnes (the “Petitioners”) and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent”). The Petitioners are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision, making them members of the Association, which is the governing body for the community.
2. The Petitioners alleged that the Association (1) improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC approval in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) allowed this construction without the required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804; and (4) failed to fulfill a records request in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
3. Petitioner Norm Burnes was named to serve as an Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member effective December 5, 2017, and he participated in the unanimous approval of the Lot 7 construction plans. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors restricted his participation as an ARC member for all matters concerning Lot 7 due to his personal complaints, which created a conflict of interest.
4. The Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines require a refundable $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit. The Board decided to honor a discretionary waiver for Lot 7, which was said to have been granted during an economic downturn to incentivize purchases, though the Association possessed no corporate record of the waiver being granted.
5. The Petitioners’ central grievance was that the house on Lot 7 was placed too close to their backyard (on Lot 6), destroying their views, violating their privacy, and causing stress. They contended that the owner of Lot 7 did not honor the approved plan and built the house in its original, unapproved position.
6. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors acted without a noticed meeting to restrict Petitioner Norm Burnes’s participation on the ARC for matters related to Lot 7. They acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821, which permits action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, which they obtained via individual signatures.
7. On June 4, 2020, Petitioners requested to review all Association records and receive copies of documents from 17 specific categories. The Association offered a review on June 16 (within the 10-day limit), but did not provide the requested copies until June 24, which was after the statutory deadline of June 18. Furthermore, the copies provided were incomplete, missing some email attachments.
8. The Judge ruled a violation occurred because the Association failed to provide copies of the requested records within the ten business days mandated by the statute. The Judge rejected the Association’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline, stating the Association was obligated to timely clarify and provide the documents.
9. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The judge found that the Petitioners offered no new evidence, but rather wished to present evidence they had possessed but strategically chose not to use in the original hearing.
10. The final, affirmed order granted the Petitioners’ petition regarding Issue 4 and denied it for Issues 1-3. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for ¼ of their filing fee ($500.00), comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 going forward, and provide the missing email attachments from the records request within 10 business days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal concept of “burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioners successfully met this burden for the records request violation but failed to do so for their allegations concerning the CC&Rs, the construction deposit, and the open meeting laws.
2. Discuss the role, authority, and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as depicted in the source documents. Evaluate the Saguaro Crest ARC’s actions and failures to act regarding the construction on Lot 7, and explain why the Judge determined that no violation of CC&Rs Section 5 had occurred.
3. Examine the conflict of interest involving Petitioner Norm Burnes’s dual roles as an aggrieved neighbor and a member of the ARC. Detail how this conflict emerged, the specific actions the Board of Directors took to address it, and the legal justification for those actions.
4. Trace the full timeline of events related to the Board of Directors’ meetings in April and May 2020. Analyze the Petitioners’ claim that these constituted a violation of Arizona’s open meeting laws (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804) and the Judge’s legal reasoning for concluding that no violation was established.
5. Evaluate the Petitioners’ request for a rehearing. Based on the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, explain the legal standard for granting a rehearing based on “newly discovered material evidence” and why the Petitioners’ offer of proof failed to meet this standard.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders in the case.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established by the Association’s CC&Rs, charged with implementing Architectural Guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards within the community. In this case, Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Specific statutes, such as § 33-1804 (open meeting laws) and § 33-1805 (records access), were central to this case.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The overseeing body of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, comprised of a President, Vice President, and Treasurer.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Saguaro Crest community that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling aspects of property use.
Construction Compliance Deposit (CCD)
A refundable $5,000.00 deposit required by Section 4.0 of the Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines, which became a point of contention regarding Lot 7.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona where the evidentiary hearings for this case were held.
Petitioners
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes and Maria Burnes, the property owners of Lot 6 who filed the petition against the Homeowners Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not true.
Respondent
The Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., the non-profit corporation governing the subdivision and the party against whom the petition was filed.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
He Sued His HOA and Won… Sort Of. 4 Shocking Lessons from a Neighbor vs. HOA Showdown
Introduction: The Neighbor’s Nightmare
It’s a scenario that sparks anxiety for any homeowner: you look out your window and see the first signs of a new construction project on the property next door. The questions immediately flood your mind. Will it block my view? Will I lose my privacy? Will this new structure change the character of the neighborhood I love?
When a decision by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) feels threatening, the impulse to fight back is strong. But what does that fight actually look like, and what does it mean to “win”?
The real-life case of the Burnes family versus the Saguaro Crest HOA in Arizona provides a masterclass in the unexpected realities of neighbor-versus-HOA disputes. They took their fight to an administrative hearing, and the official legal decision reveals surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any homeowner. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from that legal showdown—critical warnings for anyone who thinks going to battle with their HOA is a straightforward affair.
1. He Helped Approve the Plans He Grew to Hate
In a turn of profound irony, the petitioner leading the charge against the HOA, Mr. Norm Burnes, was a serving member of the very committee that set the entire conflict in motion: the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
On January 3, 2018, the ARC, including Mr. Burnes, unanimously approved the construction plans for the neighboring home on Lot 7. At the time, they were just plans on paper. But more than two years would pass before Mr. Burnes raised an alarm—long after the abstract lines on a page had become concrete and steel next door. On April 14, 2020, with construction underway, the reality of the new build became a personal grievance. Mr. Burnes wrote to the board, explaining that the new house was a “constant source of stress” for his family, that his privacy was “violated / gone,” and that his cherished views were “destroyed.”
In his own words, the impact was devastating:
“A large part of the value to me for my house was the view from the back patio. That’s gone now. The view from my kitchen and bedroom windows are destroyed.”
This is a powerful lesson in unintended consequences. It reveals how abstract plans can become deeply personal issues once construction begins. More importantly, it highlights the inherent conflict that can arise when a homeowner acts in an official capacity for the community while also trying to protect their own personal interests.
2. The HOA Won on Substance, But Lost on a Technicality
The Burnes family filed a formal petition with four distinct allegations against their HOA. In a striking outcome, the judge sided with the HOA on the three major, substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.
• Construction Plans: The judge found the HOA was not at fault for the final build. No modified plans were ever submitted for the ARC to review after the initial approval, and the construction itself complied with the local government’s authority.
• $5,000 Deposit: The judge concluded that the Lot 7 owner had been granted a waiver for the required construction deposit, even though the HOA lacked a formal record of it—a stroke of luck for the board that highlights the critical importance of meticulous record-keeping.
• Improper Meeting: The judge determined that the Board had not improperly removed Mr. Burnes from the ARC; they had only “removed [him] as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7,” a targeted recusal due to his direct conflict of interest, not a full removal from the committee. Furthermore, the meeting Mr. Burnes complained about was deemed a valid emergency meeting held at his own request.
Despite winning on these core points, the HOA was found in violation of the law on the fourth issue: a simple procedural error. The HOA had violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the legally mandated 10-business day deadline. While the HOA allowed the Burnes family to review the documents on time (on June 16, within the June 18 deadline), they failed to provide the physical copies until June 24, four business days past the legal deadline.
This demonstrates a critical lesson for any organization. An entity can win the arguments on major issues but still be found in violation of the law for a minor administrative slip-up. Procedural diligence isn’t just good practice; it’s a legal requirement that can define the outcome of a case.
3. A Legal “Victory” Doesn’t Always Solve the Real Problem
So, what did the Burnes family “win” after their long and stressful legal battle? The judge’s final order was clear and specific. They received:
• A reimbursement of 1/4 of their filing fee ($500).
• An order for the HOA to provide the missing email attachments from their records request.
• An order for the HOA to comply with the records-request law in the future.
This outcome stands in stark contrast to Mr. Burnes’s original, deeply personal complaint. His fight began because the new house was a “constant source of stress” and had destroyed his backyard view. The legal ruling, however, did nothing to halt or alter the construction on Lot 7. The neighbor’s house, the very source of the entire conflict, remained exactly where it was.
This is a sobering look at the difference between a legal remedy and a practical solution. Winning in an administrative hearing is defined strictly by the letter of the law. The legal system addresses violations of statutes and governing documents, which may not align with—or offer any solution for—the personal grievance that ignited the conflict in the first place.
4. You Don’t Get a Do-Over for a Bad Strategy
Unhappy with the initial decision, the petitioners filed for a rehearing. The official grounds they cited were serious: they claimed to have “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.”
But when the rehearing began, the reality was quite different. As stated in the final decision, the petitioners conceded that they possessed no new evidence at all. Instead, they admitted they had strategically chosen not to present certain evidence during the first hearing and were now asking for a second chance to do so.
The judge’s response was swift and decisive. The petitioners were “precluded from recalling… witnesses, or offering additional exhibits,” and the original decision was affirmed.
This serves as a stark reminder that legal proceedings are formal and final. A trial or administrative hearing is not a practice run. The petitioners’ admission that they deliberately withheld evidence was a fatal strategic error, turning their request for a second chance into a confirmation of their first failure.
Conclusion: The Letter vs. The Spirit of the Law
The showdown between the Burnes family and the Saguaro Crest HOA is a compelling story of unintended consequences, procedural missteps, and strategic blunders. But taken together, the lessons reveal a single, powerful truth: the legal system is designed to correct violations of law, not to soothe personal grievances. The family won on a paperwork technicality but lost on every issue that mattered to their quality of life. The HOA won on the substance of the dispute but was penalized for failing to follow administrative rules.
The case leaves us with a critical question to consider. When you find yourself in a dispute, is it more important to be legally ‘right,’ or to find a practical resolution? As the Burnes family discovered, the two are not always the same thing.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford Burnes(petitioner/ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Also known as Norm S. Burnes
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Cynthia F. Burnes(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Jacob A. Kubert(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Debora Brown(witness) Witness for Petitioners
Respondent Side
John Crotty(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent
Kelsea Dressen(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent (also listed as Kelsey P. Dressen)
Esmerelda Martinez(board member/witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Vice President
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Treasurer
Raul Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Ramona Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jamie Argueta(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission (listed as DGardner)
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted decision/order
The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Section 5
Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.
Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 866263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:10 (268.5 KB)
21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:42 (239.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120002-REL
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.
Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.
However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.
I. Background and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.
Procedural Timeline
July 17, 2020
Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
August 11, 2020
Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.
Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021
An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
March 22, 2021
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.
April 28, 2021
Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.
May 21, 2021
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
July 20, 2021
The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.
August 09, 2021
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.
Key Parties
Name / Entity
Clifford & Maria Burnes
Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.
Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Counsel for Petitioners.
Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.
Respondent.
John Crotty, Esq.
Counsel for Respondent.
Norm Burnes
Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.
Raul & Ramona Martinez
Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.
• Factual Record:
◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.
◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Factual Record:
◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.
◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.
◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.
Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.
• Factual Record:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”
◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.
• Factual Record:
◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.
◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.
◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.
◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.
◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”
• Conclusion of Law:Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.
III. Final Order and Directives
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.
• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).
• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.
• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.
• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case, and what is their fundamental relationship?
2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.
3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?
4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?
6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.
7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?
8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?
9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?
10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.
5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.
6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.
7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.
8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.
9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.
10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?
2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.
3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.
4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?
5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)
The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Offer of Proof
A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioners
The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL
🧑⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
1 source
The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
Jacob A. Kubert(attorney)
Cynthia F. Burnes(attorney)
Debora Brown(witness)
Respondent Side
John Crotty(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Kelsea Dressen(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Martinez(board president; witness) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors President of the Board
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Vice President of the Board
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Treasurer of the Board
Raul Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7 and 13 Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
Ramona Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Sadot Negreté(observer)
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE contact) Arizona Department of Real Estate Also listed as DGardner
c. serrano(administrative staff) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
Jamie Argueta(ARC member; property seller) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition following a rehearing. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8, as that section applies only to the Association's notice obligation to members and not to assessment payments sent by members to the Association.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof because the CC&R provision cited was inapplicable to the dispute. Additionally, the Petitioner was found to have inadvertently caused delays in payment receipt by using restricted delivery, contrary to instructions.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8 by failing to handle his monthly assessment payments correctly, resulting in late fees and threats of foreclosure. The ALJ found that Section 14.8 governs the Association's notice obligations to members and is inapplicable to the Petitioner's delivery of assessment payments to the Association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied on rehearing.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Assessments, Late Fees, Notice Provision, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
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)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs in apportioning a proportionate share of the insurance deductible.
Key Issues & Findings
Dispute over apportionment of insurance deductible following sewer backup damage in a common area.
Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to apportion 43.84% ($10,958.96) of the insurance deductible to her unit following damage caused by a main sewer line blockage in a common area.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, 3.09
2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Deductible Apportionment, Sewer Maintenance, Common Area, Condominium Documents, Rules and Regulations
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120014-REL Decision – 840033.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:25 (138.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.
Alj Quote
Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
Rules and Regulations Section 19
Topic Tags
insurance
deductible
assessments
common elements
Question
Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?
Short Answer
The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.
Detailed Answer
The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.
Alj Quote
Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.
Legal Basis
Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)
Topic Tags
insurance
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?
Short Answer
Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.
Alj Quote
Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 3.09
Topic Tags
maintenance
repairs
negligence
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs… '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
Standard of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal procedure
evidence
burden of proof
Question
Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.
Alj Quote
Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 4.10
Topic Tags
rulemaking
board authority
governing documents
Case
Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.
Alj Quote
Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.
Legal Basis
Rules and Regulations Section 19
Topic Tags
insurance
deductible
assessments
common elements
Question
Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?
Short Answer
The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.
Detailed Answer
The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.
Alj Quote
Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.
Legal Basis
Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)
Topic Tags
insurance
homeowner responsibilities
Question
If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?
Short Answer
Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.
Alj Quote
Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 3.09
Topic Tags
maintenance
repairs
negligence
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the CC&Rs… '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
Standard of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal procedure
evidence
burden of proof
Question
Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.
Alj Quote
Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Section 4.10
Topic Tags
rulemaking
board authority
governing documents
Case
Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lori Jordan(petitioner) Appeared and testified at the hearing
James Jordan(petitioner)
Chuck Stewart(witness) The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Board Testified for Petitioner; later joined Board and voted against apportionment
Respondent Side
Sean Lissarrague(board member) The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Vice President of the Board; appeared and testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Received electronic transmission of the decision
Other Participants
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted the electronic decision
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA acted in compliance with the CC&R’s and was the prevailing party, finding that the HOA had the right to enter property to correct emergency conditions, but was under no obligation to do so. The petition was dismissed following the rehearing.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by Respondent of Article XII Section 6, and Article XIII Section 1(d) and 4 or the CC&R’s. The ALJ noted that the relief sought (forcing access) may require a different venue or party.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether 10,000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4
Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the HOA violated CC&Rs by refusing to grant access to a neighboring property to investigate and remedy a water leak causing damage. The ALJ found the HOA had the right, but not the obligation, to enter the property.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied in the initial decision (August 17, 2020). Upon rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that there was no violation by the Respondent, and the Respondent was the prevailing party; Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-2198.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Enforcement, Right of Entry, Drainage Issues, Rehearing
Briefing Document: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the Association to exercise its authority under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to enter a neighboring property to inspect the source of a persistent water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.
The ALJ ultimately denied the Petitioner’s petition and subsequent appeal. The central conclusion across both hearings was that while the Association’s CC&Rs grant it the right to enter a member’s property under specific circumstances (such as for inspections or emergencies), they do not impose an obligation or duty to do so. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated any provision of the CC&Rs. The ALJ characterized the situation as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute” and determined that the Association acted within its business judgment by requiring more definitive proof of the leak’s source before authorizing entry, citing concerns over potential liability.
Case Overview
This matter involves a single-issue petition filed by a homeowner against her Homeowners Association (HOA) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
Case Details
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020057-REL
Petitioner
Susan E. Abbass
Respondent
10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Initial Hearing Date
July 28, 2020
Rehearing Date
November 24, 2020
Core Allegation
The Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) & 4 by failing to grant access to a neighbor’s property to investigate a water leak.
Chronology of Key Events
1. November 14, 2019: Ronald Pick, residing with the Petitioner, discovers the home office carpet is “completely soaked with water.” He determines the drainage issue originates from the neighboring property.
2. November 2019: After the neighbor refuses to cooperate, the Petitioner contacts Robert Kersten, the Association’s Community Manager. Kersten sends a violation notice to the neighbor.
3. January 2020: The Association’s Board of Directors informs Kersten that they will handle the matter directly, and he ceases interaction with the Petitioner.
4. May 5, 2020: The Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500.00 fee.
5. July 28, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.
6. August 17, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof.
7. August 31, 2020: The Petitioner files a request for a rehearing.
8. October 14, 2020: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the request for a rehearing.
9. November 24, 2020: The rehearing is conducted.
10. December 1, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again finding for the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.
Summary of Arguments
Petitioner’s Position (Susan E. Abbass)
• The Problem: A water leak originating from a neighboring property caused damage, with recurring water intrusion during rainfall.
• Attempted Resolution: The Petitioner and Mr. Pick attempted to work with the neighbor, who was uncooperative on the advice of her insurance company. They then sought the Association’s help to gain access for inspection.
• Core Argument: The Petitioner argued that the water leak constituted an “emergency situation” and that the Association had an obligation under the CC&Rs to grant access to the neighbor’s property for inspection.
• Evidence Provided: The Petitioner provided the Association with all available evidence, including a report from the City of Phoenix.
• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner offered to pay for a geotechnical engineer and any associated costs for the inspection.
• Legal Basis: The Petitioner claimed the Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.
Respondent’s Position (10000 North Central HOA)
• Actions Taken: The Association, through its manager Robert Kersten, acknowledged the complaint and sent a violation notice to the neighbor regarding improper vegetation. They also contacted the neighbor to request access.
• Core Argument: The Association contended that the CC&Rs do not allow its manager to authorize entry “whenever they feel like it.” Entry requires “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof,” which the Board determined had not been provided by the Petitioner.
• Business Judgment and Liability: Respondent’s counsel argued the Board was exercising its business judgment to avoid potential liability that could arise from granting third-party access to a member’s property without sufficient cause.
• Neighbor’s Actions: The Association stated that, to its knowledge, the neighbor’s insurance company inspected the water flow and determined the neighbor was not at fault.
• Evidence Provided: At the rehearing, the Association submitted photographs (Exhibits K, L, M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage flowing away from the Petitioner’s property.
Analysis of CC&R Provisions
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.
Article
Provision Summary
XII, Section 6
Easement in Favor of Association: Grants the Association and its agents the right to enter Lots for specific purposes, including: (a) inspection of owner maintenance, (c) correction of emergency conditions, and (d) exercising its powers and duties.
XIII, Section 1(d)
Drainage Flow: States that “nothing shall be erected, planted or maintained to impede or interrupt said or normal drainage flow” in patio or yard areas that have been graded for drainage.
XIII, Section 4
Owner Maintenance and Association’s Right to Enter: Requires owners to keep their Lot in good order and repair. If an owner fails, the Association “shall have the right to enter upon said Lot or Patio to correct drainage and to repair, maintain and restore the Lot…” after providing notice to the owner and receiving approval from the Board.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs.
Key Findings from the Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
• Right vs. Obligation: The judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner was “incorrect that the Respondent has an ‘obligation’ to enter the property.” The CC&Rs grant the Association a right to enter but do not impose a duty or obligation to do so.
• Lack of “True Emergency”: While Mr. Pick testified about water damage during rain, the judge noted a lack of testimony on the extent of the damage. The fact that over eight months had passed since the initial leak discovery indicated there was “no true emergency situation.”
• Stalemate and Business Judgment: The judge acknowledged the “stalemate” where the Petitioner could not obtain more proof without access, and the Association would not grant access without more proof. The Association’s decision was framed as an exercise of business judgment based on its determination that the submitted proof did not meet its standard for entry.
• Nature of the Dispute: The matter was characterized as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute,” implying the Association was not the proper party to compel action.
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.
Key Findings from the Rehearing Decision (December 1, 2020)
• No New Evidence: The Petitioner “failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony” that would alter the original conclusion.
• Petitioner’s Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”
• Respondent’s Compliance: The ALJ concluded that the Association “acted in compliance with the CC&Rs.” It was “receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation.” The lack of the neighbor’s full cooperation did not constitute a violation by the Association.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The judge stated that under statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), an ALJ can only order a party to abide by the community documents. The judge “cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”
• Incorrect Venue: The decision noted that “it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in this matter be denied. The final decision from the rehearing on December 1, 2020, named the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. This order is binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days of the order being served.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan E Abbass(petitioner)
Ronald Pick(witness) witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Blake Johnson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Robert Kersten(property manager) witness for Respondent
Kelly Oetinger(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent HOA violated the governing CC&R provisions.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violations; specifically, the HOA was found to have the right to enter property for certain conditions (including emergencies or maintenance) but was under no obligation to do so, and the situation was not determined to be a true emergency by the ALJ.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether 10000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4.
Petitioner claimed the Association violated specified CC&R sections by refusing to grant access to the neighboring property to determine and resolve the source of a water leak. Petitioner requested an ORDER requiring the Association to allow access. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs grant the HOA the right to enter, but not the obligation, and Petitioner failed to prove an emergency situation or a violation of the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter was denied.
Briefing Document: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the Association to exercise its authority under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to enter a neighboring property to inspect the source of a persistent water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.
The ALJ ultimately denied the Petitioner’s petition and subsequent appeal. The central conclusion across both hearings was that while the Association’s CC&Rs grant it the right to enter a member’s property under specific circumstances (such as for inspections or emergencies), they do not impose an obligation or duty to do so. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated any provision of the CC&Rs. The ALJ characterized the situation as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute” and determined that the Association acted within its business judgment by requiring more definitive proof of the leak’s source before authorizing entry, citing concerns over potential liability.
Case Overview
This matter involves a single-issue petition filed by a homeowner against her Homeowners Association (HOA) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.
Case Details
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020057-REL
Petitioner
Susan E. Abbass
Respondent
10000 North Central Homeowners Association
Administrative Law Judge
Adam D. Stone
Initial Hearing Date
July 28, 2020
Rehearing Date
November 24, 2020
Core Allegation
The Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) & 4 by failing to grant access to a neighbor’s property to investigate a water leak.
Chronology of Key Events
1. November 14, 2019: Ronald Pick, residing with the Petitioner, discovers the home office carpet is “completely soaked with water.” He determines the drainage issue originates from the neighboring property.
2. November 2019: After the neighbor refuses to cooperate, the Petitioner contacts Robert Kersten, the Association’s Community Manager. Kersten sends a violation notice to the neighbor.
3. January 2020: The Association’s Board of Directors informs Kersten that they will handle the matter directly, and he ceases interaction with the Petitioner.
4. May 5, 2020: The Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500.00 fee.
5. July 28, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.
6. August 17, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof.
7. August 31, 2020: The Petitioner files a request for a rehearing.
8. October 14, 2020: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the request for a rehearing.
9. November 24, 2020: The rehearing is conducted.
10. December 1, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again finding for the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.
Summary of Arguments
Petitioner’s Position (Susan E. Abbass)
• The Problem: A water leak originating from a neighboring property caused damage, with recurring water intrusion during rainfall.
• Attempted Resolution: The Petitioner and Mr. Pick attempted to work with the neighbor, who was uncooperative on the advice of her insurance company. They then sought the Association’s help to gain access for inspection.
• Core Argument: The Petitioner argued that the water leak constituted an “emergency situation” and that the Association had an obligation under the CC&Rs to grant access to the neighbor’s property for inspection.
• Evidence Provided: The Petitioner provided the Association with all available evidence, including a report from the City of Phoenix.
• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner offered to pay for a geotechnical engineer and any associated costs for the inspection.
• Legal Basis: The Petitioner claimed the Association violated CC&Rs Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.
Respondent’s Position (10000 North Central HOA)
• Actions Taken: The Association, through its manager Robert Kersten, acknowledged the complaint and sent a violation notice to the neighbor regarding improper vegetation. They also contacted the neighbor to request access.
• Core Argument: The Association contended that the CC&Rs do not allow its manager to authorize entry “whenever they feel like it.” Entry requires “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof,” which the Board determined had not been provided by the Petitioner.
• Business Judgment and Liability: Respondent’s counsel argued the Board was exercising its business judgment to avoid potential liability that could arise from granting third-party access to a member’s property without sufficient cause.
• Neighbor’s Actions: The Association stated that, to its knowledge, the neighbor’s insurance company inspected the water flow and determined the neighbor was not at fault.
• Evidence Provided: At the rehearing, the Association submitted photographs (Exhibits K, L, M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage flowing away from the Petitioner’s property.
Analysis of CC&R Provisions
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific articles within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.
Article
Provision Summary
XII, Section 6
Easement in Favor of Association: Grants the Association and its agents the right to enter Lots for specific purposes, including: (a) inspection of owner maintenance, (c) correction of emergency conditions, and (d) exercising its powers and duties.
XIII, Section 1(d)
Drainage Flow: States that “nothing shall be erected, planted or maintained to impede or interrupt said or normal drainage flow” in patio or yard areas that have been graded for drainage.
XIII, Section 4
Owner Maintenance and Association’s Right to Enter: Requires owners to keep their Lot in good order and repair. If an owner fails, the Association “shall have the right to enter upon said Lot or Patio to correct drainage and to repair, maintain and restore the Lot…” after providing notice to the owner and receiving approval from the Board.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Rulings
The ALJ’s conclusions were consistent across both the initial decision and the rehearing. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the CC&Rs.
Key Findings from the Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
• Right vs. Obligation: The judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner was “incorrect that the Respondent has an ‘obligation’ to enter the property.” The CC&Rs grant the Association a right to enter but do not impose a duty or obligation to do so.
• Lack of “True Emergency”: While Mr. Pick testified about water damage during rain, the judge noted a lack of testimony on the extent of the damage. The fact that over eight months had passed since the initial leak discovery indicated there was “no true emergency situation.”
• Stalemate and Business Judgment: The judge acknowledged the “stalemate” where the Petitioner could not obtain more proof without access, and the Association would not grant access without more proof. The Association’s decision was framed as an exercise of business judgment based on its determination that the submitted proof did not meet its standard for entry.
• Nature of the Dispute: The matter was characterized as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute,” implying the Association was not the proper party to compel action.
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.
Key Findings from the Rehearing Decision (December 1, 2020)
• No New Evidence: The Petitioner “failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony” that would alter the original conclusion.
• Petitioner’s Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”
• Respondent’s Compliance: The ALJ concluded that the Association “acted in compliance with the CC&Rs.” It was “receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation.” The lack of the neighbor’s full cooperation did not constitute a violation by the Association.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The judge stated that under statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), an ALJ can only order a party to abide by the community documents. The judge “cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”
• Incorrect Venue: The decision noted that “it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in this matter be denied. The final decision from the rehearing on December 1, 2020, named the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal. This order is binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days of the order being served.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative case involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It covers the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing concerning an alleged violation of the Association’s governing documents. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case facts, legal arguments, and final rulings.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific event on November 14, 2019, initiated the dispute between the Petitioner and her neighbor?
3. Identify the specific articles and sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that the Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated.
4. According to the Respondent’s property manager, Robert Kersten, what was required before the Association could authorize entry onto a member’s property?
5. What was the central legal distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s power to enter a property under the CC&Rs?
6. What was the outcome of the initial hearing on July 28, 2020, and what was the judge’s primary reason for this decision?
7. On what grounds did the Petitioner file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Did the Petitioner present new evidence or testimony at the rehearing that changed the outcome? Explain briefly.
9. According to the Administrative Law Judge, what is the legal definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What limitations on the Administrative Law Judge’s authority are described in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), and how did this affect the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Susan E. Abbass, the Petitioner, and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is a property owner and Association member who filed a complaint, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association responsible for governing the community.
2. On or about November 14, 2019, Ronald Pick, who resides with the Petitioner, discovered that the carpet in their home office was completely soaked with water. He ultimately determined the drainage problem originated from the neighboring property, which sparked the dispute.
3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article XII, Section 6, as well as Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the CC&Rs. These sections relate to the Association’s easement rights for inspection and maintenance, rules against impeding drainage flow, and an owner’s duty to keep their lot in good repair.
4. Robert Kersten testified that the Association could not authorize entrance onto another’s property “whenever they feel like it.” He stated there must be “reasonable justification” and “some type of proof” to allow for access, which he determined the Petitioner had not provided.
5. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs give the Respondent the right to enter a property for specific purposes, but they do not impose an obligation to do so. This distinction was crucial, as the judge concluded the Association was not required to act, even if it had the authority.
6. In the initial hearing, the judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The primary reason was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent had violated a provision of the CC&Rs.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”
8. No, the Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony at the rehearing that demonstrated a violation by the Respondent. The judge concluded that the Petitioner again failed to sustain her burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
9. The judge cites two definitions for “preponderance of the evidence.” The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) states that the judge “may order any party to abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The judge interpreted this to mean he could not force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property, as his only power was to order compliance with the CC&Rs, which had not been violated.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Use the details from the case documents to construct a thorough and well-supported argument for each prompt. (Answers not provided).
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner needed to demonstrate to prevail and detail the specific reasons cited by the Administrative Law Judge for why she failed to meet this standard in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the legal and practical reasoning behind the Respondent’s decision not to grant access to the neighboring property. Evaluate the “business judgment” defense, the potential liability concerns, and the characterization of the issue as a “neighbor versus neighbor dispute.”
3. Examine the distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as interpreted by the Administrative Law Judge from the CC&Rs. How did this interpretation become the central pillar of the decisions in this case, and what does it reveal about the scope of a homeowners’ association’s power?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial filing of the petition to the final order after the rehearing. Identify each key date and procedural step, and explain the purpose and outcome of each stage of the administrative hearing process.
5. Imagine you are advising the Petitioner after the final decision. Based on the judge’s conclusions that the Petitioner was in the “incorrect venue and possibly party,” what alternative legal avenues might she pursue to resolve the underlying water leak issue? Use evidence from the text to support your suggestions.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, hears evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Arizona Department of Real Estate
The state agency in Arizona authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their homeowners’ associations.
Burden of Proof
The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In this case, the Petitioner had the burden to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated specific articles within these documents.
Easement
A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific, limited purpose. In this case, Article XII Section 6 of the CC&Rs granted an easement to the Association for purposes such as inspection, maintenance, and correction of emergencies.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing an impartial forum for disputes like the one in this case.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this matter, Susan E. Abbass was the Petitioner.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is defined in the text as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins a lawsuit or legal action. In the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent was the prevailing party.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and decision. A rehearing was granted in this case after the Petitioner claimed the initial decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association was the Respondent.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Susan E Abbass(petitioner)
Ronald Pick(witness) witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Blake Johnson(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Robert Kersten(property manager) witness for Respondent
Kelly Oetinger(HOA attorney) Brown Olcott, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
