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

Thomas P Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H009-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-09
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas P. Hommrich Counsel —
Respondent The Lakewood Community Association Counsel Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy

Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

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. §§ 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
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
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. § 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-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:05 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:11 (102.6 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:45 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:48 (102.6 KB)

This concise summary details the administrative legal hearing in the matter of Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association (No. 24F-H009-REL), which convened on October 24, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Thomas P. Hommrich, alleged that the Respondent, The Lakewood Community Association, violated Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs) by adopting the Residential Parking Policy (Parking Policy). Section 2.1 governs public property (such as streets), stating that while such property is not generally subject to the Declaration, restrictions imposed upon owners regarding its use "shall be applicable at all times".

The specific dispute centered on the Association's authority to enforce on-street parking restrictions on government-owned property without formally amending the CC&Rs. Petitioner’s Request for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the policy was denied prior to the hearing.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

Petitioner Hommrich asserted that the Parking Policy was invalid because it referred to itself as a set of "Rules and Regulations". He argued that under the CC&Rs (specifically referencing Section 5.3 and 12.2), "Rules and Regulations" (or "Association Rules") are only authorized to govern common areas. Therefore, for the Association to legally regulate parking on public streets, the restriction must be contained within a formal amendment to the Declaration, following a strict amendment process. By using "rules and regulations" instead of "restrictions," the Association unlawfully usurped the authority required to govern non-common property.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association contended that the Parking Policy was validly adopted under the authority granted in multiple CC&R sections, particularly Section 4.2(t) and Section 12.2. Section 4.2(t) grants the authority to adopt "additional parking rules and restrictions". Furthermore, Section 12.2 dictates that rules adopted by the Board shall have the "same force and effect as if they were set forth in this declaration," negating the necessity for an amendment to the CC&Rs to adopt every new rule. The Association argued the policy merely clarified existing use restrictions found in 4.2(t), and that the semantic difference emphasized by the Petitioner was irrelevant.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violation of Section 2.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's assertion that the semantic difference between "rules and regulations" and "rules and restrictions" was critical was irrelevant in determining the Association's authority under Section 2.1. The Association demonstrated that the Parking Policy was passed by a majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3 and that the policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t), but rather further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.

Final Decision:

The ALJ issued an Order dismissing Petitioner’s petition.

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • public streets
  • authority

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • outcome
  • dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeal
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

  • parking
  • public streets
  • authority

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • procedural
  • burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

  • board authority
  • rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • outcome
  • dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • appeal
  • deadlines

Case

Docket No
24F-H009-REL
Case Title
Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-09
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)
    Property owner, appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (HOA attorney)
    VIal Fotheringham, LLP
    Represented The Lakewood Community Association
  • Sandra Smith (community manager)
    Lakewood Community Association
    Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Moses Thompson (Judge)
    Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission/contact
  • Brian Seatic (party)
    Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:40 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

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

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

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

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

Key Facts and Main Issues

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

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

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

Key Arguments and Legal Points

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

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

Outcome and Final Decision

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

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

Order:

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

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

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H001-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristeen L. Herron Counsel —
Respondent The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Article 4.4
  • CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
  • The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)

This matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 25, 2023, concerning a dispute between homeowner Kristeen L. Herron (Petitioner) and The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent HOA). The Petitioner, appearing on her own behalf, bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated a community document.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The sole issue for determination was whether the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by "turning off the lap pool heater" for approximately one month (mid-April to mid-May 2023), which Petitioner alleged constituted discrimination against senior residents. Petitioner, a "snowbird" residing at the property from October to May, uses the lap pool for exercise therapy due to health issues.

The HOA's governing rules (Rule 3.5.7(e)) stipulate that when the main community pool is closed for the winter season (late-October through April), the lap pool water "shall be heated and maintained at a temperature… which shall be between 78°F and 82°F". The HOA Board adopted a resolution on March 29, 2023, to shut off the lap pool heater simultaneously with opening the large pool, which occurred once the large pool reached 82°F.

Key Legal Arguments

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that turning off the heater around April 15, 2023, was premature, leaving the water too cold for senior residents who required warmer temperatures (preferably 84°F or higher) for health and exercise. Petitioner contended this action, along with the refusal to amend the pool rule (3.5.7(e)), violated CC&R 4.4, which prohibits rules that "discriminate among Owners". Petitioner's witness testified that the 78°F–82°F range was falsely attributed to the Arizona Department of Health.
  2. Respondent's Argument: The HOA asserted its authority under CC&Rs Article 4.4 and 8.2(c)(12) to adopt and enforce rules governing common areas, including setting pool temperatures. The HOA maintained that the 78°F–82°F range was reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and followed the established rules for the winter season. Respondent argued that Petitioner's preference for a higher temperature did not establish a violation of the rule or amount to discrimination. Testimony confirmed the lap pool is not intended for medicinal purposes.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) took the matter under advisement and issued a decision on October 16, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The material facts established that the HOA was obligated to heat the pool between 78°F and 82°F during the winter season (through April 2023).

The critical legal finding was that there was no evidence in the record to support the contention that the HOA failed to maintain temperatures within the required range through April 2023. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her personal preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.

Based on these conclusions, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which 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 violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which 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 violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kristeen L. Herron (petitioner)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Property owner and member of the Association
  • Karen Ellis (witness)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
  • LouAnne Schmidt (observer)
    Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • Eden Cohen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
  • April Lord (witness)
    City Property Management
    Vice President of Management Services
  • Christiano Monteiro (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board President; Testified as witness for Respondent
  • John Deck (maintenance technician)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Director of Maintenance
  • Mark (board member)
    The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
    Board member mentioned making a motion
  • Heather Tiveres (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Former managing agent employee whose name was clarified in testimony

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (ROOT)

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H052-REL No. 23F-H064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-28
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition regarding the Bylaws violation (annual meeting held 27 days late, 23F-H052-REL) but denied the request for civil penalties. The ALJ dismissed the petition regarding the alleged statutory violation of in-person voting requirements (23F-H064-REL), finding Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. Petitioner was reimbursed the $500 filing fee for the prevailing issue.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner R.L. Whitmer Counsel —
Respondent Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners Counsel Emily H. Mann

Alleged Violations

Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws of Hilton Casitas Council of Co-owners
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition regarding the Bylaws violation (annual meeting held 27 days late, 23F-H052-REL) but denied the request for civil penalties. The ALJ dismissed the petition regarding the alleged statutory violation of in-person voting requirements (23F-H064-REL), finding Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. Petitioner was reimbursed the $500 filing fee for the prevailing issue.

Why this result: Petitioner lost the statutory claim (23F-H064-REL) due to failure to provide sufficient evidence for a narrow interpretation of 'in person' voting. Petitioner failed to prove that civil penalties were warranted for the Bylaws violation (23F-H052-REL).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold the annual meeting prior to March 31, 2023 (23F-H052-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to hold the annual meeting by the Bylaws' deadline of March 31, 2023. Respondent stipulated that the meeting, held on April 27, 2023, was late, constituting a violation.

Orders: Respondent violated Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws; Petition affirmed. Petitioner was denied civil penalties but was reimbursed the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Alleged violation for failing to allow in-person voting (23F-H064-REL)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the statute by allowing voting only through video conferencing and failing to provide an opportunity for in-person voting. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a narrow interpretation of 'in person' that excludes remote video attendance.

Orders: Respondent did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C). Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Annual Meeting Deadline, Bylaws Violation, HOA Voting Procedure, In-Person Voting, Video Conferencing Voting, Civil Penalties, Mootness Defense, Waiver Defense
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071110.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:14 (50.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1071477.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:19 (58.2 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1074907.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:22 (40.0 KB)

23F-H052-REL Decision – 1088736.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:25 (113.8 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the consolidated matters of R.L. Whitmer, Petitioner, v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners, Respondent (Nos. 23F-H052-REL and 23F-H064-REL). The hearing took place at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on August 11, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The consolidated case involved two separate petitions filed by Petitioner R.L. Whitmer, an owner and member of the Association.

  1. Late Annual Meeting (23F-H052-REL): Alleged the Association failed to hold the 2023 Annual Meeting by March 31st, violating Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws, as the meeting was held on April 27, 2023.
  2. In-Person Voting (23F-H064-REL): Alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C) by holding the Annual Meeting via Zoom video conferencing and failing to provide members the opportunity to vote "in person".

Hearing Proceedings and Arguments

Respondent's (HOA) Arguments:

The Association stipulated to a technical violation regarding the late meeting (27 days late). The delay was attributed to a management company calendaring error and transition issues. The Respondent argued this issue was moot since the meeting had already occurred, and the OAH lacked jurisdiction to mandate the "impossible" (ordering the meeting to be held prior to March 31, 2023).

Regarding the voting issue, the Association acknowledged the meeting was held via Zoom but argued this was done for the convenience of out-of-town members and for fiscal responsibility, as in-person meetings required renting space. Crucially, the Association argued that the Petitioner waived his right to object to the voting procedure because he failed to lodge a complaint prior to the election, which is a requirement under established Arizona legal custom concerning procedural election challenges.

Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner argued that the OAH possesses statutory authority to issue an order requiring future compliance with the Bylaws (a forward-looking injunction) and to levy civil penalties. Petitioner presented testimony from Mr. Eli, a homeowner who stated he could not attend the Zoom-only meeting because he was not "tech-savvy" and was denied an in-person option, arguing this demonstrated the Association's discriminatory intent and warranted civil penalties.

Legal Points and Outcome

The ALJ issued a decision on August 28, 2023.

Issue 1 (Late Meeting): The ALJ affirmed the petition (23F-H052-REL), concluding that the Association did violate Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws based on the Respondent’s stipulation.

Issue 2 (In-Person Voting): The ALJ dismissed the petition (23F-H064-REL). The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving that the specific interpretation of "in person" must exclude remote video attendance. The decision referenced the alternative interpretation of "in person" utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed remote meetings in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C).

Civil Penalties: The ALJ denied the Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against the Association, finding that the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Final Order:

The ALJ ordered that Petitioner’s petition in matter 23F-H064-REL be dismissed. The Petitioner’s petition in matter 23F-H052-REL was affirmed, and the Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold the annual meeting by the specific deadline in the bylaws, is that considered a legal violation?

Short Answer

Yes. If the HOA misses the deadline mandated by the bylaws, it is a violation, even if the meeting is held later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing the specific deadline set in the bylaws constitutes a violation. In this case, the bylaws required a meeting by March 31, but it was held on April 27. The HOA stipulated to the failure, and the ALJ affirmed the petition regarding this violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent stipulated it failed to adhere to Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws when it held the Annual Meeting on April 27, 2023, 27 days after the deadline. Thus, Petitioner met their burden in matter number 23F-H052-REL.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • bylaws compliance
  • deadlines

Question

Does a statutory requirement for 'in person' voting prevent the HOA from holding meetings via video conference?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'in person' does not strictly exclude remote attendance via technology like Zoom.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the phrase 'in person' is open to interpretation (e.g., social distancing protocols). Unless the homeowner provides sufficient evidence that 'in person' must strictly mean 'corporeal presence in a defined space,' holding a meeting via video conference does not violate the statute.

Alj Quote

While 'in person' could be interpreted as corporeal presence in a defined space, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence said definition ought to be used, not the COVID-19 social distancing definition of 'in person,' or some other definition of the phrase 'in person.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • voting rights
  • statutory interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

No. A violation does not automatically result in civil penalties; the evidence must justify such a penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even though the ALJ confirmed the HOA violated the bylaws by holding the meeting late, the request for a civil penalty was denied because the evidence presented did not warrant it (e.g., lack of bad faith).

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner met their burden they sought civil penalties, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02. Here, the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • remedies

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get reimbursed for the filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee for the specific issues where the homeowner prevailed.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee to the homeowner for the petition regarding the late meeting (which he won), but dismissed the petition regarding the virtual meeting.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What standard of proof does a homeowner need to meet to prove the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner (homeowner) to show that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, 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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs/Bylaws)?

Short Answer

Yes. The tribunal has the explicit authority to interpret the contract between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the OAH is authorized by statute to hear these disputes and specifically has the authority to interpret the governing documents (contract) between the parties.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • contract interpretation
  • OAH authority

Case

Docket No
23F-H052-REL / 23F-H064-REL
Case Title
R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
Decision Date
2023-08-28
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fails to hold the annual meeting by the specific deadline in the bylaws, is that considered a legal violation?

Short Answer

Yes. If the HOA misses the deadline mandated by the bylaws, it is a violation, even if the meeting is held later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that missing the specific deadline set in the bylaws constitutes a violation. In this case, the bylaws required a meeting by March 31, but it was held on April 27. The HOA stipulated to the failure, and the ALJ affirmed the petition regarding this violation.

Alj Quote

Respondent stipulated it failed to adhere to Article III Section 3 of the Bylaws when it held the Annual Meeting on April 27, 2023, 27 days after the deadline. Thus, Petitioner met their burden in matter number 23F-H052-REL.

Legal Basis

Bylaws Article III Section 3

Topic Tags

  • annual meetings
  • bylaws compliance
  • deadlines

Question

Does a statutory requirement for 'in person' voting prevent the HOA from holding meetings via video conference?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'in person' does not strictly exclude remote attendance via technology like Zoom.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the phrase 'in person' is open to interpretation (e.g., social distancing protocols). Unless the homeowner provides sufficient evidence that 'in person' must strictly mean 'corporeal presence in a defined space,' holding a meeting via video conference does not violate the statute.

Alj Quote

While 'in person' could be interpreted as corporeal presence in a defined space, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence said definition ought to be used, not the COVID-19 social distancing definition of 'in person,' or some other definition of the phrase 'in person.'

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1250(C)

Topic Tags

  • virtual meetings
  • voting rights
  • statutory interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

No. A violation does not automatically result in civil penalties; the evidence must justify such a penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even though the ALJ confirmed the HOA violated the bylaws by holding the meeting late, the request for a civil penalty was denied because the evidence presented did not warrant it (e.g., lack of bad faith).

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner met their burden they sought civil penalties, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02. Here, the evidence did not give rise to the awarding of civil penalties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02

Topic Tags

  • civil penalties
  • fines
  • remedies

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get reimbursed for the filing fees?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee for the specific issues where the homeowner prevailed.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the HOA to pay back the $500 filing fee to the homeowner for the petition regarding the late meeting (which he won), but dismissed the petition regarding the virtual meeting.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner his $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which he prevailed.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What standard of proof does a homeowner need to meet to prove the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The burden is on the petitioner (homeowner) to show that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is the standard evidentiary weight required in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, 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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • evidence

Question

Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs/Bylaws)?

Short Answer

Yes. The tribunal has the explicit authority to interpret the contract between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that the OAH is authorized by statute to hear these disputes and specifically has the authority to interpret the governing documents (contract) between the parties.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • contract interpretation
  • OAH authority

Case

Docket No
23F-H052-REL / 23F-H064-REL
Case Title
R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners
Decision Date
2023-08-28
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • R.L. Whitmer (petitioner)
  • Sedack Eli (witness/homeowner)
    Also referred to as Sebeck Eli.

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
  • Robert Westbrook (HOA President/witness)
  • Liard (community manager)
    Affidavit attached to exhibits; first name unknown.
  • John Brookke (board member)
    Attended annual meeting.
  • Jay Panzer (board member)
    Attended annual meeting.
  • Joanna O’Neal (board member)
    Attended annual meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    ALJ for final decision; also referred to as Joe Delveio.
  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued orders on July 6, 2023.
  • Alyssa Leverette (ALJ)
    OAH
    Issued Minute Entry on July 18, 2023.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of transmission.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of transmission.
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of transmission.
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of transmission.

Other Participants

  • Stadilla Stadilla (homeowner/attendee)
    Attended annual meeting.
  • Mike Denson (homeowner/attendee)
    Attended annual meeting.
  • Rick Walker (homeowner/attendee)
    Attended annual meeting.
  • Mary Griffith (homeowner/attendee)
    Attended annual meeting.

Rosalie Lynne Emmons v. Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H055-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rosalie Lynne Emmons Counsel —
Respondent Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • 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 Enforcement, Selective Enforcement, Shed, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs, Prior Approval
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.
  • CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:09:55 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:10:00 (110.9 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)

This summary concerns the matter of *Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs. Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association*, Docket No. 23F-H055-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brian Del Vecchio.

Key Facts and Background

The Petitioner, Rosalie Lynne Emmons, is a Rovey Farm Estates property owner subject to the community documents, including the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines. The key fact is that Petitioner built a storage shed in the fall of 2021 without first receiving written approval from the Design Review Committee. The Petitioner admitted the shed was constructed, submitted an application post-construction in December 2021/January 2022, and the application was denied on February 7, 2022. The denial was based on the shed exceeding the height of the surrounding fence line and violating the plain language of the design guidelines and local city code.

Main Issues and Arguments

The Petitioner alleged that the Association (Respondent) engaged in selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of the CC&Rs (specifically §§3.2, 3.3, and 3.11) regarding the shed policy. Petitioner argued that the HOA had a pattern of failing to enforce restrictions in a timely, fair, and reasonable manner, citing evidence and photos of approximately 20 other visible sheds allegedly in violation. Petitioner also argued the HOA demonstrated a lack of diligence in enforcement (laches).

The Respondent argued that enforcement was uniform and consistent, noting that the Design Guidelines require prior approval for construction and mandate that sheds not exceed the height of the surrounding fences. The Respondent’s witness, Matt Johnson, testified that there was no discretion when a violation was observed, and that all three applications submitted by other homeowners for sheds exceeding the fence height were also denied. Furthermore, the CC&Rs include a non-waiver provision (§3.1) stating that approving one construction does not waive the right to withhold approval of subsequent similar projects. The Respondent requested dismissal as the Petitioner had failed to meet her burden of proof.

Legal Points and Outcome

The legal proceeding established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The Petitioner admitted that her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and visible from the street, all of which are violations of the CC&Rs. The Respondent provided evidence showing "a multitude of compliance letters, violations, fines, and approved and rejected shed applications associated with the enforcement".

Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate CC&Rs §§3.2, 3.3, and 3.11.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in this matter be dismissed.

Questions

Question

If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?

Short Answer

Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

CC&R Violation

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • unauthorized construction
  • violations

Question

If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?

Short Answer

No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.

Legal Basis

Enforcement Discretion

Topic Tags

  • waiver
  • enforcement history
  • COVID-19

Question

Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.

Detailed Answer

Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • architectural standards
  • sheds
  • visibility

Question

What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.

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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?

Short Answer

Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the burden falls on the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence that the HOA violated its own CC&Rs or acted arbitrarily. Merely alleging selective enforcement without sufficient proof is not enough to win the case.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs… Petitioner alleged but failed to provide sufficient evidence of Respondent’s supposed selective enforcement.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?

Short Answer

Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

Most CC&Rs explicitly state that no construction or modification can occur without prior written approval. Admitting to building a structure without this approval constitutes a violation in itself. If the structure also violates design guidelines (e.g., height or visibility), the HOA can enforce the rules against it.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

CC&R Violation

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • unauthorized construction
  • violations

Question

If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?

Short Answer

No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ decision accepted testimony that while enforcement might have been reduced during a specific event like the COVID-19 pandemic, the HOA is entitled to resume enforcement of rules (such as design guidelines) once normal operations return.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.

Legal Basis

Enforcement Discretion

Topic Tags

  • waiver
  • enforcement history
  • COVID-19

Question

Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.

Detailed Answer

Violating specific physical constraints listed in the community documents, such as height restrictions relative to a fence line or visibility from public streets, are valid grounds for the HOA to find a violation and deny approval.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • architectural standards
  • sheds
  • visibility

Question

What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win an administrative hearing against an HOA, a homeowner does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their claim is 'more probably true than not'—essentially carrying greater evidentiary weight than the opposing side.

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

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence
  • hearings

Question

Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?

Short Answer

Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.

Detailed Answer

The ADRE has jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes. The case is then typically heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • ADRE
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
23F-H055-REL
Case Title
Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-08-22
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rosalie Lynne Emmons (petitioner)
    Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
    Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
  • Matt Johnson (community manager/witness)
    Envision Community Management
    Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
  • Mark Schmidt (HOA staff)
    Envision Community Management
    Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
  • Carrie Schmidt (compliance officer)
    Envision Community Management
    Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • Jose Garcia (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Gilbert Bar (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
  • Jane Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with MJ Kim) was denied
  • MJ Kim (homeowner/applicant)
    Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with Jane Kim) was denied

Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H045-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-14
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Harry G. Turner Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.

Key Issues & Findings

Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)

Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Related election workflow tool

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

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:36 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:40 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:42 (105.1 KB)

This summary addresses the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing in the matter of Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 23F-H045-REL. The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio on July 24, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Harry G. Turner, a MountainGate Homes property owner and member of the Association, challenged the Respondent Home Owners Association's (HOA) plan, announced November 14, 2022, to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H of the subdivision. The core legal issue before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was whether the HOA violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements).

Article 10 Section 4 requires the Board to secure approval from not less than two-thirds (2/3rds) of the members voting if they adopt a resolution to change the use of a specified part of the Common Areas. The dispute centered on the established classification of Tract H: if Tract H was already designated for drainage, implementing the ditch would not be a change of use and would not require a vote; if it was designated solely as "open space," a vote would be required.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument (Harry G. Turner):

The Petitioner argued that the Board violated the CC&Rs by moving forward with the ditch without a membership vote. Turner contended that Tract H was designated as "Preserved/Active Open Space" according to the "Tract Data" portion of the plat map and the Subdivision Disclosure Reports. He also presented evidence, including certified engineering reports, suggesting that the necessary drainage facilities were completed or certified as "as built" during the community's transition from condominiums to townhomes between 2006 and 2010. Turner shared a prior legal opinion recommending a membership vote due to the ambiguity surrounding whether the ditch constituted a "change of use". He asserted that the HOA was attempting new construction on common area designated as passive open space.

Respondent's Argument (MountainGate HOA, represented by Michael Luden and witness Brenda Anderson):

The Respondent denied violating the CC&Rs, arguing that no change protocols were needed because Tract H has always been dedicated for drainage. The HOA pointed to the "Conveyance and Dedication" portion of the plat maps (dating from 2006, 2008, and 2010), which explicitly listed Tract H as common area to be used for "open space, landscaping, and drainage". The HOA argued that the drainage plan approved by certified engineers was never fully implemented by the original developers, resulting in severe flooding experienced by neighbors along the northern edge of the property (Tract H). Therefore, the HOA was merely implementing an *original* intended use, not changing the use.

Final Decision and Legal Outcome

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet this burden. The evidence showed a conflict in the governing documents: the plat map described Tract H as "Preserved/Active Open Space" in the "Tract Data" section, but designated it for "drainage" in the "Conveyance and Dedication" section. Since neither party presented sufficient evidence to establish which description controlled the legal designation of Tract H, the Petitioner could not definitively prove that Tract H was *not* classified as drainage.

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent did not violate Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs. Petitioner’s petition was dismissed, and the request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent was denied.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.

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

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.

Alj Quote

Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • document interpretation
  • common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… 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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.

Alj Quote

Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • remedies

Case

Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.

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

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.

Alj Quote

Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • document interpretation
  • common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… 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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.

Alj Quote

Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • common areas
  • voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • remedies

Case

Docket No
23F-H045-REL
Case Title
Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-08-14
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Harry G. Turner (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael Luden (president/representative)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association
  • Brenda Anderson (witness/secretary)
    Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
    Witness for Respondent; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
  • Kelly Callahan (HOA attorney)
    HOA's attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Jeremiah Lloyd (Community Development Director)
    Pinetop Lakeside
    Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside
  • Bill Best (County Engineer)
    Navajo County
    Navajo County Engineer
  • Emory Ellsworth (engineer)
    Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying
    Engineer consulted by Petitioner
  • John Murphy (engineer)
    Murphy Engineering Group
    Engineer whose company provided original certified plans

Other Participants

  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed in transmission list
  • Ken Anderson (community member)
    Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified
  • Gary Lao (developer)
    Original developer

Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-11
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the HOA violated the community documents. The ALJ found that forcing enforcement of a discretionary restriction after decades of inaction would be unreasonable and that the matter was essentially a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Michael S. McLeran, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Appendix B, Section 5

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the HOA violated the community documents. The ALJ found that forcing enforcement of a discretionary restriction after decades of inaction would be unreasonable and that the matter was essentially a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence; enforcement would be an unreasonable exercise of discretion due to long-standing inaction; and there was no legal avenue for the HOA to compel removal of the private property (trees).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce Prohibited Plant List (Oleanders and Palm Trees exceeding 10 feet)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Appendix B, Section 5 of the CC&Rs by failing to enforce the Prohibited Plant List and require her rear neighbors to remove oleander and palm trees that exceeded height guidelines and caused nuisance and damage.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: homeowner dispute, prohibited plants, HOA discretion, failure to enforce, neighbor dispute, CC&Rs, oleander, palm trees
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:18 (41.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:22 (47.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:26 (50.0 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:29 (50.3 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:33 (52.9 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:38 (52.5 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:41 (49.8 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:08:46 (155.5 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:49 (41.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1049882.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:52 (47.2 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1055238.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:55 (50.0 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1057283.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:58 (50.3 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1058121.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:01 (52.9 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1059849.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:04 (52.5 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1072130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:08 (49.8 KB)

23F-H046-REL Decision – 1082955.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:11 (155.5 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the administrative hearing *Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association* (No. 23F-H046-REL).

Key Facts and Procedural Background

The Petitioner, Brenda Norman, a member of the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (HOA), filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to enforce Appendix B, Section 5 (Prohibited Plant List), against her rear neighbors. The dispute centered on the Neighbors’ oleander and palm trees, which Petitioner claimed caused nuisance—specifically debris clogging her pool equipment and triggering her allergies/asthma.

The initial hearing scheduled for May 9, 2023, was dismissed by default when the Petitioner failed to appear. Upon Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted over Respondent's objection, the matter was reset for a rehearing on July 31, 2023. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the HOA's subsequent Motion to Dismiss, determining the sole issue for hearing was the alleged CC&R violation and the appropriateness of a civil penalty.

Main Issues and Arguments

The sole issue for the hearing was whether the Rancho Del Lago Community Association violated Appendix B, paragraph 5, of its CC&Rs by failing to enforce the restriction on certain plants whose mature growth height is reasonably expected to exceed ten feet for aesthetic reasons.

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that the Neighbors’ oleanders and palm trees violated the Prohibited Plant List because of their expected height and the resulting nuisance. She asserted the HOA had a contractual duty to enforce the CC&Rs and should be compelled to require the Neighbors to remove the plants.
  1. Respondent's Argument: The HOA, represented by Counsel Michael McLeran and witness Spencer Broad (Community Manager), argued that the dispute was primarily a non-justiciable neighbor dispute, lacking jurisdiction before the Department. The HOA noted it did not own or maintain the trees, which are on private property. Crucially, the HOA argued that enforcing the height restriction (which had never been enforced since 2009) only against the Neighbors would be an unreasonable and discriminatory exercise of discretionary power. Furthermore, enforcing the restriction against this one member would unjustly impact hundreds of other members with trees over ten feet. The HOA also pointed out that the Neighbors had voluntarily trimmed the plants.

Key Legal Points and Outcome

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The decision focused on several key legal conclusions:

  • Discretionary Enforcement: The Design Guidelines at issue were determined to be discretionary. The HOA was not required to enforce a height restriction in this instance.
  • Unreasonable Authority/Due Process: Enforcement in the face of "decades of intentional inaction" would constitute an unreasonable exercise of authority and likely result in a deprivation of the Neighbors' due process rights.
  • Jurisdiction and Remedy: The ALJ noted that the Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between owners. Regardless, there was no legal avenue by which the HOA could legally remove private property oleanders and palm trees or compel their removal.
  • Mootness: Petitioner’s acknowledgment that the Neighbors' voluntary trimming had, at least temporarily, alleviated the debris issues rendered the underlying petition moot.

Final Decision

Based on the findings and conclusions, the ALJ issued an Order on August 11, 2023, dismissing Petitioner's petition with prejudice.

Questions

Question

Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.

Alj Quote

Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • enforcement
  • landscaping
  • private property

Question

Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?

Short Answer

No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.

Alj Quote

Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.

Legal Basis

Due Process / Laches / Waiver

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • waiver
  • due process

Question

Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?

Short Answer

No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • neighbor disputes
  • ADRE

Question

Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?

Short Answer

Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.

Detailed Answer

Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.

Alj Quote

Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • neighbor disputes
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.

Alj Quote

It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.

Legal Basis

Discretionary Enforcement

Topic Tags

  • nuisance
  • maintenance
  • discretion

Case

Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I force my HOA to remove a neighbor's plants that violate the community's design guidelines?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The HOA often lacks the legal authority to enter private property to remove landscaping, even if it violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that there was no legal way for the HOA to remove trees or shrubs from a neighbor's private backyard, nor compel them to be removed, particularly when the HOA does not own or maintain that specific property.

Alj Quote

Regardless, there is no legal avenue by which Respondent could legally remove Neighbors’ backyard Oleanders and/or Palm Trees, or have them removed.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • enforcement
  • landscaping
  • private property

Question

Does the HOA have to enforce a rule if they haven't enforced it for many years?

Short Answer

No. Sudden enforcement after long periods of inaction may be considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA has ignored a specific restriction (like a height limit on plants) for decades, enforcing it suddenly against a single homeowner can be seen as an unreasonable exercise of authority and a violation of due process.

Alj Quote

Enforcement, in the face of decades of intentional inaction, would be an unreasonable exercise of authority and a likely deprivation of Neighbors’ due process rights.

Legal Basis

Due Process / Laches / Waiver

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • waiver
  • due process

Question

Will the Arizona Department of Real Estate resolve a dispute between me and my neighbor?

Short Answer

No. The Department does not have jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.

Detailed Answer

The administrative hearing process is for disputes between a homeowner and the association. It does not cover disputes between two owners where the association is not a party.

Alj Quote

The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • neighbor disputes
  • ADRE

Question

Is the HOA required to mediate disputes between neighbors?

Short Answer

Typically, no. Governing documents usually do not require the HOA to pick sides or resolve neighbor conflicts.

Detailed Answer

Unless the CC&Rs or guidelines specifically state otherwise, the HOA is not obligated to resolve disputes between neighbors or take one side.

Alj Quote

Moreover, neither the CC&Rs nor the Design Guidelines require Respondent to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs / Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • neighbor disputes
  • HOA obligations

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) must show that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the governing documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated one or more provisions of the Association’s Design Guidelines.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

If my neighbor's trees are causing a nuisance (like debris in my pool), does the HOA have to act?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Subjective hardship does not automatically mandate HOA enforcement if the rules are discretionary.

Detailed Answer

Even if a neighbor's landscaping causes inconvenience or subjective hardship to another homeowner, the HOA is not required to enforce discretionary guidelines, especially if they have historically not done so.

Alj Quote

It is clear that plant debris from Neighbors’ backyard is causing Petitioner subjective hardship(s) and inconveniences, which amount to a perceived nuisance… [however] Respondent is not required to enforce a flora/height restriction in this instance.

Legal Basis

Discretionary Enforcement

Topic Tags

  • nuisance
  • maintenance
  • discretion

Case

Docket No
23F-H046-REL
Case Title
Brenda Norman vs. Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Decision Date
2023-08-11
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Brenda Norman (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Zvena Norman (potential witness)
    On standby as a potential witness for Petitioner
  • David Norman (associated party)
    Petitioner's husband; co-petitioner in prior litigation referenced during the hearing

Respondent Side

  • Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
    Childers Hanlon 7 Hudson, PLC
    Counsel for Rancho Del Lago Community Association
  • Spencer Broad (witness, property manager)
    HA managed solutions
    Community Manager for Rancho Del Lago Community Association; also spelled Brod
  • Phil Brown (HOA attorney)
    Attorney referenced by Petitioner regarding a 2018 letter
  • Eric (compliance manager)
    HOA management solutions
    Compliance Manager since 2009; full last name withheld from the record

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge presiding over the matter
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge Mahalski (ALJ (prior case))
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge in 2019 litigation referenced during the hearing

Other Participants

  • Cindy White (neighbor)
    Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
  • Ray White (neighbor)
    Owner of the plants subject to the dispute
  • Nathan Tennyson (former HOA attorney)
    Former in-house counsel referenced by Petitioner

Jennifer J Sullivan v. The Village at Elk Run Homeowners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

Challenging HOA Violation Notice for Short-Term Rental Restriction

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1050430.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081482.pdf

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

23F-H043-REL Decision – 1081483.pdf

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

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

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

Key Facts and Background

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

Main Issues and Arguments

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

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

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Sullivan contended that the CC&Rs do not contain an explicit minimum rental period, and therefore, rentals shorter than 30 days are permissible. She argued that Arizona law (ARS 33-1806.01) requires HOAs to list a minimum rental period if they intend to restrict short-term leasing, which the Elk Run CC&Rs failed to do. She asserted that renting a home is considered a residential use.
  1. Respondent's Argument: The Association, represented by Michael McLeran, argued that Section 4.1 must be read in its entirety to uphold the community's character. They asserted that operating a short-term rental for profit (as evidenced by Petitioner's tax licensing) constitutes a "gainful occupation, profession, trade or other nonresidential use," which is prohibited. The final sentence of Section 4.1 allowing "Month to Month or Longer Terms" clarifies the *only* exception where renting for profit is permitted, thereby implicitly prohibiting shorter-term rentals. Testimony from the original CC&R signatory, John Vail, supported the intent for a minimum 30-day rental period.

Outcome and Legal Decision

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

  • short-term rentals
  • CC&R interpretation
  • Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • business use
  • taxes
  • commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • implicit restrictions
  • rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&R Section 4.1

Topic Tags

  • short-term rentals
  • CC&R interpretation
  • Airbnb

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Finding of Fact 6 / Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • business use
  • taxes
  • commercial activity

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 6

Topic Tags

  • CC&R interpretation
  • implicit restrictions
  • rental rules

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure
  • evidence

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Order / ARS § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

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

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

Section 9.2 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

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

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

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

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1073539.pdf

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

23F-H056-REL Decision – 1080973.pdf

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

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

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

Key Facts and Background

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

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

Main Issues and Arguments

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

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

Legal Conclusion and Outcome

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

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

Order

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed.

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • fiduciary duty
  • maintenance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.2

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • repairs
  • CC&Rs interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Duty of Care / Contract Awareness

Topic Tags

  • warranties
  • contractor
  • due diligence

Case

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

Questions

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / Due Diligence

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • fiduciary duty
  • maintenance

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 9.2

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • repairs
  • CC&Rs interpretation

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal procedure

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • penalties

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines

Question

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

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

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

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Duty of Care / Contract Awareness

Topic Tags

  • warranties
  • contractor
  • due diligence

Case

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Ryan McMahon v. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ryan McMahon Counsel —
Respondent Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association Counsel Mike Yohler

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to fully satisfy sub-requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter, as the documentation provided (specifically from the plumbing company and designer) lacked the necessary professional weight or specificity required by the Association to address structural and plumbing concerns.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statute regarding denial of interior modification request.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1221 by denying his request to combine two units and add two bathrooms, claiming the denial was unsupported by facts or governing documents. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove the violation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
  • 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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium modification, HOA denial, structural integrity, plumbing concerns, burden of proof, architectural approval
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
  • 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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H060-REL Decision – 1081134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:25 (189.0 KB)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing held on July 19, 2023, regarding Petitioner Ryan McMahon's claim against the Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association (OAD doc number 23 FH060 REL). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark presided.

Key Facts

Petitioner Ryan McMahon, who owns Unit B8, and his fiancée, who owns the adjacent Unit B4 below him, sought permission from the Association to combine the two units (B8 and B4) and add two new bathrooms. The Association, governed by its CC&Rs, issued a series of denials based on concerns regarding the structural integrity and the piping system of the condominium.

In June 2022, the Association issued a conditional approval that required Petitioner to provide specific documentation, including an engineer's sign-off on community plumbing concerns, detailing the proper size and condition of the main sewer line, and ensuring the pipes could accommodate up to six bathrooms, four kitchens, and four laundry units. The conditions also required submission of detailed plans for sewer pipe venting and exhaust fans.

Petitioner subsequently submitted documentation, including letters from a licensed structural engineer (Robert A. Young, PE) confirming no structural reason for denial, and correspondence from a plumbing company (Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc.) providing calculations and stating the project would not negatively impact the plumbing or drainage capacity. The City of Scottsdale had reviewed the plans for code conformity but required HOA approval before issuing permits.

The Association, represented by witness Kit Groseth (Board President), denied the request multiple times, asserting the documents submitted were "vague, incomplete, and unreliable". The Association argued that the Petitioner failed to provide information specifically requested by the preliminary approval letter, particularly documentation from a registered plumbing engineer addressing the detailed capacity concerns. The Association admitted it did not hire its own engineer due to the anticipated high cost (estimated $5,000–$10,000).

Main Issues and Legal Points

The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1221 by denying the interior modification request. This statute permits unit owners to make alterations that *do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems* of the condominium.

The critical legal point focused on Petitioner's burden of proof. The ALJ was tasked with determining if Petitioner provided a preponderance of the evidence proving the Association acted illegally by denying the request.

The Association argued that while Petitioner provided some engineering support, he did not meet the specific itemized requirements of the conditional approval, particularly regarding specific plumbing engineering reports.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof.

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to fully comply with itemized requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter. Specifically, the plumbing company providing calculations was not a licensed structural engineering firm, limiting the weight of its attestation. Furthermore, the structural engineer’s reports (Mr. Young) were not offered for consideration regarding the pipes, fans, and vents, as required by the conditional approval.

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued an ORDER that Petitioner's petition be denied. This decision is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243; ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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

Common Law / Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?

Short Answer

Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.

Alj Quote

After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • renovations
  • condominiums

Question

Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • CC&Rs
  • contract interpretation

Question

Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.

Alj Quote

Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.

Legal Basis

Fact-specific determination / ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Topic Tags

  • renovations
  • architectural committee
  • expert evidence

Question

Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?

Short Answer

Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.

Alj Quote

Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)

Topic Tags

  • exterior changes
  • architectural control
  • common elements

Question

If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?

Short Answer

Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).

Detailed Answer

Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.

Alj Quote

While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.

Legal Basis

Evidence sufficiency

Topic Tags

  • renovations
  • compliance
  • engineering reports

Case

Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?

Short Answer

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

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243; ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • hearing procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

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

Common Law / Legal Standard

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence
  • definitions

Question

Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?

Short Answer

Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.

Alj Quote

After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • renovations
  • condominiums

Question

Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • CC&Rs
  • contract interpretation

Question

Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.

Alj Quote

Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.

Legal Basis

Fact-specific determination / ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Topic Tags

  • renovations
  • architectural committee
  • expert evidence

Question

Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?

Short Answer

Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.

Alj Quote

Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)

Topic Tags

  • exterior changes
  • architectural control
  • common elements

Question

If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?

Short Answer

Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).

Detailed Answer

Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.

Alj Quote

While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.

Legal Basis

Evidence sufficiency

Topic Tags

  • renovations
  • compliance
  • engineering reports

Case

Docket No
23F-H060-REL
Case Title
Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-08-07
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ryan McMahon (petitioner)
    Full name: Ryan Christopher McMahon
  • Christina Samaras (witness)
    Petitioner's fiance and observer. Also referred to as Christina Cincer.
  • Robert A. Young (engineer/consultant)
    Structural Engineer (PE) providing documentation for Petitioner
  • Scott Olsson (plumber/consultant)
    Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc.
    Licensed plumber/Qualifying Party providing statements for Petitioner
  • Gary Devol (designer/consultant)
    Designs by Devol LLC
    Designer who created the modification plans

Respondent Side

  • Mike Yohler (attorney)
    Farmers Insurance
    Counsel of record for Respondent
  • Kent William Groseth (board member)
    Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
    Board President and witness
  • Emma (property manager representative)
    AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
    Exchanged correspondence with Petitioner regarding denial
  • Mia (board member)
    Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
    HOA president at the time of initial request
  • Jim Nelson (board member)
    Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
    Co-vice president
  • Robin (property manager representative)
    AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
    Vice President involved in email correspondence
  • Miss Morgan (attorney)
    Previous counsel replaced by Mike Yohler

Neutral Parties

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