Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

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

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

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

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Taylor Kidd vs Heritage Village III Homeowners Association (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-23
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The ALJ found that the Association violated its own CC&Rs (Article VII, Section 1) by failing to incorporate and follow Article III, Section 4 of the McCormick Ranch CC&Rs, which required a two-thirds vote of voting owners for a special assessment for capital improvements. Both petitions were granted, and the Association was ordered to refund the total filing fees of $1,000.00.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.7
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182719.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182767.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1182769.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1203525.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1215299.pdf

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

24F-H037-REL Decision – 1226570.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Procedural History

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

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

Main Issues and Key Arguments

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

Petitioners' Argument:

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

Respondent's Argument:

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

Final Decision and Outcome

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

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

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

Outcome:

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • homeowner rights
  • petition process

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • master association
  • governing documents

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Master CC&R Article III, Section 4

Topic Tags

  • special assessments
  • voting rights
  • capital improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement
  • fees

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • homeowner rights
  • petition process

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • master association
  • governing documents

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Master CC&R Article III, Section 4

Topic Tags

  • special assessments
  • voting rights
  • capital improvements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement
  • fees

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jesse Freeman Counsel —
Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was 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. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • 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. § 41-1092.09
  • 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: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
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. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:35 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:40 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:43 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:50 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:53 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:57 (146.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)

This summary details the hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Jesse Freeman, Petitioner, vs. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association, Respondent*, Case No. 24F-H035-REL. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on July 24, 2024, concerning an HOA dispute.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core issue was whether the Respondent, Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association (the Association), failed to comply with Article II, Section 8 of its Bylaws, as purportedly amended on October 18, 2000, by refusing to hold a subsequent membership meeting with a diminished quorum.

The dispute arose after the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, failed to reach the required 25% quorum (only 89 votes were present, short of the 126 needed). Petitioner Jesse Freeman alleged that when quorum failed, the membership made and seconded a motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting 60 days later with a reduced quorum requirement of 15% (76 votes), but the Association's Board President and attorney abruptly denied the motion and ended the meeting. Petitioner sought an Order compelling the Association to hold a meeting with the 15% diminished quorum requirement.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Freeman, a property owner and former board member, argued that the amendment decreasing the quorum requirement for subsequent meetings to 15% was valid, asserting that its validity was established because it was dated October 18, 2000, and archived on the Association’s public website (Exhibit Y). Petitioner contended that the bylaw language was "compulsory" and mandated that the membership be allowed to adjourn and reconvene the meeting under the diminished quorum rule.

Respondent’s Case:

Respondent’s counsel and witnesses (Community Manager Brandon Moore and former Board President Chris Redden) presented two main arguments.

  1. Invalidity: The amendment was never formally adopted, ratified, or implemented by the Association. Witnesses testified that there were no ballots, meeting minutes, signatures, or stamps in the Association's records to substantiate the amendment’s validity. Furthermore, Petitioner conceded that during his two-year tenure on the Board (2017-2018), the Board never utilized the purported amendment, despite often failing to meet quorum, supporting the argument that the document was either a failed proposal or unknown.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: Even if the amendment were valid, its language is not mandatory. The amendment states that the second meeting "shall require fifteen percent quorum". Respondent argued that this language simply sets the quorum requirement *if* a second meeting is held; it does not contain binding words (such as "shall" or "must" directed at the Association) that compel the Board to *call* a second meeting.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof—that the contention was "more probably true than not".

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner's petition.

The legal conclusions supporting the denial were:

  1. Lack of Corroboration: Petitioner failed to present sufficient credible evidence that the Association had voted on, ratified, or implemented the amendment to Bylaw Article II, Section 8. The document’s mere presence on the Association’s website was insufficient to establish validity.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: The ALJ concluded that the language of the purported amendment was not compulsory. It does not contain verbiage inherently binding, such as "shall" or "must," that would require the Respondent to hold a second meeting.

The ALJ Decision was issued on August 09, 2024.

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the 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

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the 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

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
    Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
  • Nicholas Belisi (witness)
    Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
  • Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
    Brown Property Management
    Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
  • Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
  • Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted documents/Final Order.

Other Participants

  • Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Millie Lton (unknown)
    Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.

Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H024-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-05-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox Counsel Ross Meyer, Esq.
Respondent Casa Del Monte, Inc. Counsel Solomon Krotzer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.

Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:59 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:06 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:17 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:22 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:27 (132.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:38 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:41 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:44 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:47 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:52 (132.9 KB)

This matter, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), concerned a dispute between Jeffrey Connell and Corey Cox (Petitioners) and the homeowners' association, Casa Del Monte, Inc. (Respondent).

Key Facts and Issues:

The core issue referred for the evidentiary hearing was whether the Association "repeatedly violated" Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1248 (the condominium open meeting law) at an Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023. Petitioners, newly elected board members, alleged two specific violations: 1) failing to provide 48-hour notice of the meeting, and 2) voting on a topic in closed session.

The central factual dispute revolved around the closed session discussion of a proposed Code of Conduct. Petitioners asserted that the discussion was an attempt to coerce them into signing the Code outside of an open meeting and that Counsel for the Association did not offer genuine legal advice regarding the Code of Conduct. Petitioners ran on a platform of transparency and argued the Code, a non-confidential general document, should not have been discussed in a closed session.

Respondent maintained that the Executive Session was proper because its primary purpose was receiving legal advice from the Association’s general counsel, Curtis Ekmark, which is permitted under ARS § 33-1248(A)(1). The counsel provided guidance regarding board conduct, fiduciary responsibilities, and the legal implications of adopting the Code, even though the Code itself was a draft and ultimately rejected by the Board. Testimony confirmed the Code was "strongly encouraged" by counsel.

Legal Points and Outcome:

The ALJ noted that ARS § 33-1248(A)(1) permits closing a meeting portion only if it is limited to the consideration of "legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association". Legal advice is defined as "guidance given by lawyers to their clients".

Crucially, the ALJ narrowed the scope of the decision: because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one issue, the Tribunal would not address the tangential issue of whether the Association properly provided 48-hour notice of the meeting.

The Petitioners bore the burden of proving the alleged statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof.

The ALJ found that the Board had advanced notice of the session to discuss the Code of Conduct and had the opportunity to ask questions, noting that incumbent members had already signed the document. The ALJ held that the quantity or quality of the legal advice given was irrelevant. Since the record reflected that the meeting's closure was not solely for non-legal purposes (like reviewing non-privileged documents from a public website), the motion to enter Executive Session based on receiving legal advice was found permissible.

The Final Order dictated that Petitioners' petition was denied. The hearing concluded with a stipulation to submit written closing briefs by April 29, 2024 (after an extension was granted).

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.

Alj Quote

While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the 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

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.

Alj Quote

The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • legal advice
  • open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • filing fees
  • scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board documents
  • voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.

Alj Quote

While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • executive session
  • public records
  • violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the 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

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.

Alj Quote

The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • code of conduct
  • executive session
  • board meetings

Case

Docket No
24F-H024-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date
2024-05-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeffrey Connell (petitioner)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also served as a board member.
  • Corey Cox (petitioner)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also served as a board member.
  • Ross Meyer (attorney)
    Meyer & Partners, PLLC; Enara Law PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioners.
  • Jonathan Dessaules (witness)
    The Sol Law Group
    Testified as a subject matter expert/HOA attorney.
  • Matthew Elias (attorney)
    Enara Law PLLC
    Counsel for Petitioners; listed in final decision transmittal.

Respondent Side

  • Lori N. Brown (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Benjamin Bednarek (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent.
  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Association Corporate Counsel/General Counsel.
  • Solomon Krotzer (attorney)
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
    Counsel for Respondent; appeared at hearing (referred to as 'Paulo' once).
  • Mary Lou Ehmann (property manager)
    Pride Management
    Former Community Manager for Casa Del Monte; provided testimony.
  • Jonathan Ryder (board president)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also referred to as John Ryder.
  • Jean Yen (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Also referred to as Jeannie Yen; Treasurer.
  • Bill McMichael (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Vice President.
  • Jim Burton (board member)
    Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
    Secretary.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.
  • kvanfredenberg (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official case transmission.

VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association v. Duane S & Mary L Eitel

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association Counsel Anthony Rossetti, Esq.
Respondent Duane Eitel & Mary Eitel Counsel Kevin Harper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31

Outcome Summary

Petitioner sustained its burden of proof establishing that Respondents violated CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 by operating a cat rescue business (VKNR) from their residence, which involved unauthorized commercial activity, excessive non-pet animals, and creating a nuisance. Violation of 7.29 was not established. The petition was granted.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing dozens of cats in excess of a reasonable number of household pets, creating a nuisance.

Respondents operated a nonprofit cat rescue (VKNR) from their single-family residence, housing 50+ cats in a 3-car garage, which constituted an unauthorized commercial use, exceeded a reasonable number of pets, and created traffic and waste nuisances.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is granted. Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs section 7.2
  • CC&Rs section 7.3
  • CC&Rs section 7.25
  • CC&Rs section 7.26
  • CC&Rs section 7.28
  • CC&Rs section 7.31

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Home Business, Pets/Animals, Nuisance, CC&Rs, Enforcement, HOA
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. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:45 (51.0 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:48 (49.4 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:52 (65.5 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:55 (184.8 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1094853.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:39 (51.0 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1113338.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:44 (49.4 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1125372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:48 (65.5 KB)

24F-H003-REL Decision – 1147484.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:51 (184.8 KB)

This case, *VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association v. Duane S & Mary L Eitel* (No. 24F-H003-REL), was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Issues

The Petitioner, VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association (the Association), filed a petition alleging that the Respondents, Duane S. Eitel and Mary L. Eitel, violated several Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by operating an unauthorized business out of their home and housing cats far in excess of a "reasonable number of household pets".

The primary CC&R sections alleged to be violated were:

  1. 7.2 (Residential Use) & 7.3 (No Commercial Use): Prohibiting commercial use, manufacturing, storing, or vending on the lot.
  2. 7.25 (Animals): Limiting animals to a reasonable number of generally recognized household pets, and stating that state and county laws govern pet numbers, noise, and nuisance.
  3. 7.26, 7.28, 7.29, and 7.31: Related to nuisance, garbage, debris, diseases, and maintaining a safe and orderly condition.

The core factual dispute centered on the operation of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc. (VKNR), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Respondents historically stored over fifty (50) cats/kittens in their three-car garage pending private adoption. Pinal County had previously determined the operation was an unauthorized use subject to a zoning violation in 2017.

Hearing Proceedings and Arguments

The evidentiary hearing took place on November 14, 2023.

Petitioner's Argument: The Association argued that Respondents were unequivocally running a business. This assertion was supported by evidence that VKNR has an Employer Identification Number (EIN), charges adoption fees ($125 for kittens, $95 for adult cats), and handles cats as "a product," not pets. Furthermore, housing 50+ non-pet animals in the garage was unreasonable and violated residential use restrictions. Petitioner’s witness testified to observing cars, deliveries, and volunteers cleaning cages in the driveway, creating concerns about debris, waste runoff, and biohazardous materials.

Respondent's Argument: Respondents argued that VKNR is a volunteer nonprofit and therefore not a "commercial business" prohibited by CC&R 7.3. They asserted they were fostering animals and that adoption fees merely covered costs. Respondent Duane Eitel (DE) testified that the operation was run so that adopters did not pick up cats at the residence (with limited exceptions), and that the cleaning processes had been moved to the rear yard in response to earlier complaints. They noted that Pinal County had never issued a final violation regarding the number of cats.

Procedural Outcome and Final Decision

Following the presentation of evidence, the ALJ recessed the hearing to encourage settlement, placing the matter in "Status". The status period was extended until February 2, 2024. As the parties were unable to settle, they requested the ALJ issue a decision based on the hearing record.

The ALJ issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision on February 22, 2024, finding that the Petitioner sustained its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Legal Findings:

  • The ALJ concluded that Respondents' operation of VKNR constituted a "clear business model". The assertion that VKNR is not a "business" because it is a nonprofit was deemed "both technically and legally inaccurate".
  • Respondent DE admitted that the 50+ animals housed in the garage were not pets.
  • The continued operation, including visible debris and the scope of the operation, created a nuisance and traffic issues.
  • The ALJ found violations of CC&R sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.25, 7.26, 7.28, and 7.31 were established. (A violation of 7.29 was not established).

Final Order: The Association's petition was granted. Respondents were ordered to **henceforth abide by CC&R sections 7.2,

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H003-REL

7 sources

In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.

What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:04 PM

7 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

24F-H003-REL

7 sources

In a legal dispute before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the VVE-Casa Grande Home Owners Association alleged that residents Duane and Mary Eitel violated community CC&Rs by operating an unauthorized cat rescue from their garage. The association contended that housing dozens of animals constituted an illegal business and a nuisance that impacted the neighborhood’s residential character. While the homeowners argued their nonprofit fostering was a charitable endeavor rather than a commercial enterprise, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the large-scale operation exceeded the “reasonable number of pets” allowed. Evidence from Pinal County inspections and neighbor testimony confirmed that the garage held over 50 cats, leading to concerns over traffic, sanitation, and debris. Ultimately, the judge found the homeowners in violation of multiple governing documents and ordered them to cease operations.

What were the main legal arguments regarding the cat rescue?
How did the court define a home-based business versus a nonprofit?
What specific HOA rules were the homeowners found to have violated?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:04 PM

7 sources

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Rossetti (petitioner attorney, property manager)
    Rossetti Management & Realty Services
    Represented Petitioner and owned the newly hired management company.
  • Douglas Karolak (witness, homeowner)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Testified on behalf of Petitioner.
  • Nicole Elliot (property manager)
    Norris Management
    Former HOA management committee/manager who issued warning letters.
  • CD Mai (homeowner/neighbor)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Mentioned by Karolak as a vocal opponent/adjacent neighbor to the Eitels.

Respondent Side

  • Duane Eitel (respondent, witness)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member
    Referred to as Duane S Eitel in earlier documents; DE in the decision.
  • Mary Eitel (respondent)
    VVE-Casa Grande HOA Member, CEO/Director of Valley Kitten Nursery & Rescue Inc.
    Referred to as Mary L Eitel in earlier documents.
  • Kevin Harper (respondent attorney)
    Harper Law, PLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Christopher Sinco (code compliance officer)
    Pinal County Animal Control
    Involved in the 2017/2018 county inspection.

Other Participants

  • Scott Lenderman (property manager)
    HOA management administrator (prior to Rossetti)
    Mentioned as the first HOA management administrator.

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

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

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

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

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Main Issues

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

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

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

Key Arguments

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

Final Decision and Outcome

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

The ALJ issued the following key conclusions:

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

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

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H013-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-12-19
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial records (check registers) within the mandated ten business days. The request for civil penalties was denied, but the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:33 (57.6 KB)

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

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

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1115590.pdf

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

24F-H013-REL Decision – 1125702.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Legal Issue

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

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

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

Hearing Arguments

Petitioner (Krahn) argued:

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

Respondent (Gauer) argued:

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

Outcome and Legal Decision

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

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

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H013-REL”, “case_title”: “John R Krahn Living Trust & Janet Krahn Living Trust v Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-12-19”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a check register considered an official financial record that an HOA must provide upon request?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The decision confirms that check registers are undisputed financial records under Arizona law.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that a check register qualifies as a financial record. Consequently, homeowners are entitled to review these documents when requested under A.R.S. § 33-1805.”, “alj_quote”: “It was undisputed that a check register is a financial record within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Thus, Mr. Krahn was entitled to the requested financial record.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “financial records”, “check register” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute mandates a specific timeframe for HOAs to comply with record requests. Failure to provide access within ten business days constitutes a violation of the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “records request”, “compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee just to review the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the HOA can charge for copies (up to fifteen cents per page), they are explicitly prohibited from charging a fee for the act of making materials available for a member’s review.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review… An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “records request”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA eventually provides the records months later, is it still a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Providing records after the ten-business-day deadline is considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA fulfills the request eventually, missing the ten-day statutory window establishes a violation. In this case, delays of several months were deemed violations despite the records ultimately being provided.”, “alj_quote”: “Both requests were fulfilled beyond the ten business day statutory requirement. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation of the charged provision of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “compliance”, “deadlines”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge must order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Reimbursement of the filing fee is mandatory under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) when the homeowner prevails in the hearing.”, “alj_quote”: “If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “legal costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the judge automatically fine the HOA (civil penalties) if they are found in violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Civil penalties are not automatic; the homeowner must provide sufficient evidence that the HOA’s actions warrant them.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the judge has the authority to levy civil penalties for each violation, they may deny them if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence justifying such penalties, even if a statutory violation is proven.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Respondent’s actions warranted the issuance of civil penalties… Thus, civil penalties ought to be denied.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “civil penalties”, “fines”, “enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Admin. Code R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “procedure”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA simply tell me the records are on an online portal if they aren’t actually there?”, “short_answer”: “No. Incorrectly stating records are on a portal does not satisfy the requirement if the records are not actually available.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA claimed records were available online, but the homeowner proved they were not. The ALJ found the HOA in violation for failing to provide the records within the statutory time, regardless of the portal claims.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent… stated he must submit a written request by certified mail and reiterated the financial documents were available through the online portal. At the time, the check registers were not available through the online portal… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent’s conduct… was in violation”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “online portal”, “access to records”, “bad faith” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

ROBERT J. GARING v. PRESCOTT LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H012-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert J. Garing Counsel —
Respondent Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. Counsel Adrianne A. Speas, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Petitioner alleged that the Association's use of a voting delegate system, where Voting Members cast votes for unit owners who did not respond to neighborhood polls, constitutes proxy voting prohibited under ARS § 33-1812.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Planned Community Act, Delegate Voting, Proxy Voting, Board Election, ARS 33-1812, Nonprofit Corporation Act
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H012-REL Decision – 1115010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:30 (162.7 KB)

24F-H012-REL Decision – 1115010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:58 (162.7 KB)

This legal case summary details the hearing regarding the alleged violation of Arizona law concerning proxy voting within a planned community association.

Key Facts and Parties

The hearing was held on November 9, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark. The matter involved Robert J. Garing (Petitioner), appearing on his own behalf, against Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), a nonprofit homeowners' association.

The Association utilizes a neighborhood delegate voting system. Unit owners elect a Voting Member (and an alternate) for their respective neighborhoods. The Voting Members then cast all votes for the election of the Association's Board of Directors. Prior to the election, unit owners are polled. The governing documents stipulate that the Voting Member "shall cast the votes attributable to any Units not responding to the poll in his or her discretion".

Main Issue

The underlying issue was whether the Respondent was in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1812 of the Planned Communities Act. Petitioner alleged that when Voting Members vote on behalf of units whose owners did not return a poll, this practice is a form of proxy voting, which ARS § 33-1812 prohibits.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that the delegate voting system is fundamentally a proxy system. He asserted that ARS § 33-1812 contains "clear, unambiguous" language prohibiting all proxies after the period of declarant control, and this special statute supersedes the general Nonprofit Corporations Act. Petitioner presented evidence showing that Voting Members exercised their discretion to cast zero votes for candidates who had received votes from polled unit owners, demonstrating a lack of correlation between member preference and the delegate’s vote.
  2. Respondent's Argument: Respondent argued that its system constitutes permissible delegate voting, which is distinct from the prohibited proxy voting. Testimony established that Voting Members are elected by the unit owners, not appointed like proxies, and cast votes by ballot, not proxy. Counsel for Respondent argued that the legislature chose only to prohibit proxy voting in the Planned Communities Act, and did not bar the use of delegate voting, which is allowed under the Nonprofit Corporation Act.

Legal Focus and Outcome

The ALJ focused on the language of ARS § 33-1812(A)(7), which prohibits casting "votes allocated to a unit… pursuant to a proxy".

The ALJ issued a decision denying the petition. The conclusion was that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The key legal determination was that the legislature "made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance" within the Planned Community Act.

The ALJ reasoned that for the election of Board Directors, there are no votes "allocated to a unit"; instead, "all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates" under the Association's governing documents. Since the statute prohibits proxy voting only when votes are allocated to a unit, the Association's delegate system for director elections did not violate ARS § 33-1812.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert J. Garing (petitioner)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. member
    Also served as alternate Voting Member for 2 years
  • James Thomas Joan (witness)
    Also listed as Jimmy Yiannis

Respondent Side

  • Adrianne A. Speas (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Appeared as counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Sisley (board president; witness)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.
    Also Alternate Voting Member for Parkside; served as the association representative
  • Catherine Black (assistant community manager; witness)
    Homeco
    Homeco is the HOA management company for Respondent
  • Lynn M. Krupnik (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Counsel listed for Respondent in distribution

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Final decision authority/recipient of ALJ Decision

Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sebastien Verstraet Counsel —
Respondent Monterey Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Marcus R. Martinez

Alleged Violations

Section 4.24, Declaration/Rules

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.

Key Issues & Findings

Flooring Restriction for New Units

Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • 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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:28 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:33 (110.4 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:06 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:14 (110.4 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the case of Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (No. 23F-H066-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent) violated its governing documents by enforcing a prohibition against the Petitioner, Sebastien Verstraet, who installed Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP) flooring in his third-floor unit. The Petitioner filed the action after the Association, upon discovery of the unauthorized installation, issued a violation notice and required removal of the LVP.

The restriction at issue was Section 4.24 of the Declaration, titled "Flooring Restriction for New Units," which prohibited hard floor coverings (listing materials such as ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood, or laminated flooring) in all third-floor units, requiring carpet and pad instead to mitigate noise disturbance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The evidentiary hearing took place on October 26, 2023.

Petitioner's Position: Mr. Verstraet argued that he was unaware of the prohibition before installation, having only briefly reviewed the community documents received shortly before closing. He contended that LVP is the preferred modern flooring, significantly improves resale value, and provides soundproofing (IIC rating of 63) equal to or better than standard carpeting, rendering the rule obsolete or illogically drafted. He also noted that LVP was already permitted and installed in the kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry room of the unit. Furthermore, he did not seek prior written approval because he was unaware of the restriction.

Respondent's Position: The Association, represented by counsel, asserted its right and obligation to enforce its governing documents as written. Counsel argued that the recorded covenants were binding upon the Petitioner when he took the deed. The rule explicitly prohibits vinyl flooring in all third-floor units to address noise mitigation, a factor contemplated by the developer or subsequent amendment. The Community Manager, Robert Stein, testified that the Association followed typical enforcement procedures, and a neighbor below had complained about rolling noises emanating from the unit. The Association requested dismissal, arguing it had not violated its CC&Rs or Arizona law.

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on November 13, 2023.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated its documents or Arizona law. The decision emphasized the following legal points:

  1. Binding Nature of Documents: Although the Petitioner's points regarding LVP's aesthetic appeal and value were "valid," the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous regarding the prohibition of hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in third-floor units.
  2. Failure to Seek Approval: The Petitioner admitted receiving the Declaration prior to closing, not fully reading it, and failing to seek permission to install the flooring. Had he sought approval, he likely would have been informed of the prohibition.

The ALJ ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be DENIED. Consequently, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

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

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

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

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sebastien Verstraet (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ron Riecks (witness)
    Flooring installer for Petitioner; also referred to as Ron Reichkes

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Robert Stein (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

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