The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide complete financial statements (including balance sheets and statements of cash flows) to the Petitioner upon request. The HOA was ordered to provide the missing financial statements and reimburse the $500 filing fee. A civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide association financial records upon member request.
The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to comply with her request for financial records dated December 15, 2022, pursuant to ARS § 33-1805. The Association provided only Profit & Loss statements on January 12, 2023, but failed to provide other requisite financial documents, such as balance sheets, statements of cash flows, or statements of income, as defined by ARS § 32-701. The failure to fulfill the request for financial statements constituted a violation.
Orders: The petition was affirmed. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Respondent was ordered to provide financial statements, as defined by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701, for the months of August 2022 through December 2022 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Petitioner's request for a civil penalty was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Statutory Compliance, Record Request Delay, Filing Fee Reimbursement, HOA Board Member
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H049-REL Decision – 1062328.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:27 (149.9 KB)
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I request 'financial statements' from my HOA, is it enough for them to just send a Profit and Loss statement?
Short Answer
No. A request for 'financial statements' implies more than just a Profit and Loss statement, and the HOA must provide the full range of documents defined by law.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that providing only a Profit and Loss statement is insufficient when a homeowner requests 'financial statements.' The term encompasses a broader set of documents, including balance sheets and statements of cash flows, which must be provided to fully satisfy the request.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner requested financial statements for the same period after receiving the Profit and Loss statements, implicit in her request was the understanding merely providing the Profit and Loss statement was insufficient to satisfy her request for financial statements.
What specific documents does the law include in the definition of 'financial statements'?
Short Answer
The definition includes balance sheets, statements of income, retained earnings, cash flows, changes in equity, and other standard summaries.
Detailed Answer
Arizona law defines 'Financial Statement' broadly. It is not limited to a single report but includes statements and footnotes showing financial position in conformity with accounting principles.
Alj Quote
In Arizona, “Financial Statement… (b) Includes balance sheets, statements of income, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, statements of changes in equity and other commonly used or recognized summaries of financial information.”
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-701
Topic Tags
financial records
definitions
accounting
Question
How quickly must my HOA respond to my request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly sets a ten-business-day deadline for the association to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
procedural requirements
homeowner rights
Question
Can the HOA tell me to find the records on a Google Drive or website instead of sending them to me?
Short Answer
Only if the records are actually there and accessible. Directing a homeowner to an empty or incomplete digital folder does not count as providing access.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA President directed the homeowner to a Google Drive, but the Treasurer later admitted the specific documents requested were never uploaded. The ALJ ruled that because the documents were not on the drive, the homeowner was not supplied with access.
Alj Quote
Furthermore, although President directed Petitioner to search the Google Drive for the documents, Treasurer admitted on January 23, 2023, that the documents Petitioner was seeking were never on the drive. Thus, Petitioner was neither supplied nor had access to obtain the requisite financial statements.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
digital access
compliance
records request
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making material available for review, though they can charge for copies.
Detailed Answer
The law prohibits charging a member for the act of making material available for review. However, if the member requests copies, the association may charge a fee for those copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. … An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
homeowner rights
costs
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. If the petitioner prevails, the judge is required to order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates that if the homeowner (petitioner) prevails in the hearing, the administrative law judge must order the HOA (respondent) to pay the filing fee back to the homeowner.
Alj Quote
If the petitioner prevails, the administrative law judge shall order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the filing fee required by section 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
reimbursement
outcomes
filing fees
Question
Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if they violated the records law?
Short Answer
No. While the judge has the authority to levy a civil penalty, it is not mandatory, and they may choose to deny a request for a penalty.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the discretion to levy a civil penalty but is not required to do so. In this case, although a violation was found, the judge explicitly denied the request to levy a civil penalty against the HOA.
Alj Quote
The administrative law judge… may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
penalties
civil penalty
judgement
Case
Docket No
23F-H049-REL
Case Title
Deanna Smith v Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-06-06
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deanna Smith(petitioner, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Respondent Side
Christina Morgan(HOA attorney) Vingham
George Minter(President, board member, witness) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Linda Dieball(Treasurer, board member) Moondance Townhomes Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.
Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.
Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.
Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?
Short Answer
No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
Legal Basis
Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
disclosure
compliance
Question
Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?
Short Answer
Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Contractual Obligations
Topic Tags
architectural control
maintenance
visibility
Question
Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?
Short Answer
No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.
Legal Basis
Remedy of Violation
Topic Tags
violations
remedies
architectural control
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
evidence
Question
If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?
Short Answer
Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
ADRE
Question
Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?
Short Answer
Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.
Alj Quote
Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors
Case
Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?
Short Answer
No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
Legal Basis
Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
disclosure
compliance
Question
Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?
Short Answer
Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Contractual Obligations
Topic Tags
architectural control
maintenance
visibility
Question
Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?
Short Answer
No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.
Legal Basis
Remedy of Violation
Topic Tags
violations
remedies
architectural control
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
evidence
Question
If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?
Short Answer
Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
ADRE
Question
Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?
Short Answer
Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.
Alj Quote
Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors
Case
Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Shupe(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC Appeared as counsel for Petitioner
Carolyn B. Goldschmidt(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC Legal counsel for the Association; communication contact listed
Lori Don Woullet(Property Manager/Witness) Cadden Community Management Senior Community Association Manager
Diane Patricia Weber(Former Board Member/Witness) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Former Board Treasurer
Lynn Birleffi(Witness) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Called as a witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Randall White(Respondent) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Appeared pro se and testified
Gisela White(Respondent) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Appearance waived
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6). The violation occurred because the Association's governing documents did not permit secret ballots, necessitating that the completed ballot contain the name, address, and signature of the voter, a requirement the distributed ballots failed to meet. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute henceforth.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of voting statute requiring name, address, and signature on completed ballot.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA's vote by written ballot was non-compliant because the individual ballots lacked the required name, address, and signature of the voter. The ALJ concluded that since the community documents did not permit secret ballots, the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) required the ballot itself (distinct from the envelope) to contain the name, address, and signature, and the HOA failed to meet this requirement.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 and henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?
Short Answer
Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.
Alj Quote
The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
governing documents
Question
What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?
Short Answer
The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.
Detailed Answer
Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
compliance
Question
Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?
Short Answer
No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.
Alj Quote
Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
voting
legal definitions
Question
Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?
Short Answer
No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.
Detailed Answer
The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.
Alj Quote
The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
Question
Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
Administrative Procedure
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
reimbursement
Question
What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
agencies
Case
Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?
Short Answer
Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.
Alj Quote
The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
governing documents
Question
What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?
Short Answer
The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.
Detailed Answer
Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.
Alj Quote
Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
voting
compliance
Question
Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?
Short Answer
No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.
Alj Quote
Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
voting
legal definitions
Question
Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?
Short Answer
No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.
Detailed Answer
The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.
Alj Quote
The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
Question
Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
Administrative Procedure
Topic Tags
procedure
burden of proof
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
penalties
reimbursement
Question
What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?
Short Answer
The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Detailed Answer
Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
agencies
Case
Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Clifford Barnes. Appeared pro se, testified on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association. Referred to as Mr. Kate in transcript.
Esmeralda Serena Ayala-Martinez(HOA board president / witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Also referred to as Serena Martinez. Called as witness by Petitioner.
David Medil(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Dave Matt').
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Joseph Mar Martinez').
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Also referred to as Tammy Igenir.
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
V. Nunez(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
D. Jones(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
L. Abril(ADRE Staff Recipient) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of case transmission.
Other Participants
Carolyn Wesen Mo(observer) Member of the public Present during the hearing.
Collin T. Welch(Attorney (Firm Principal)) LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH Name appears in firm name affiliation of Respondent's counsel.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
The Administrative Law Judge denied Petitioner Michael H. Jahr's petition, concluding that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816, because a clothesline is not a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, and ARS § 33-439(a) was inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated ARS § 33-1816. The Tribunal determined that a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of ARS § 33-1816 regarding denial of utilizing solar means to reduce energy consumption.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1816 by refusing him the ability to utilize solar means (a clothesline) to reduce energy consumption, arguing the clothesline met the definition of a 'solar energy device' under ARS § 44-1761, which the HOA cannot prohibit.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. Respondent was ordered not to owe Petitioner any reimbursement for fees incurred.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Solar Energy Device, Clothesline, Planned Community, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
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. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-439(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1808(a)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1816(a-b)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1761
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
Association Rules & Regulations 2-304(D)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1041743.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:59 (161.1 KB)
23F-H032-REL Decision – 1057366.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:04 (55.7 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable 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 a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA prohibit me from using a clothesline in my backyard?
Short Answer
Yes, if the community rules prohibit them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that an HOA can prohibit clotheslines because they do not qualify as protected solar energy devices under Arizona law. In this case, the association's rules explicitly prohibited clotheslines visible from outside the residence.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record… the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device. Moreover, Petitioner knew or should have known that clotheslines were prohibited by the Association under Rules & Regulations 2-304(D).
Legal Basis
Rules & Regulations 2-304(D); ARS 33-1816
Topic Tags
architectural_control
prohibited_items
solar_energy
Question
Is a clothesline considered a 'solar energy device' legally protected by Arizona statute?
Short Answer
No, a clothesline does not meet the statutory definition of a solar energy device.
Detailed Answer
The decision clarified that a clothesline does not fit the legal definition of a 'solar energy device' (specifically a 'system or series of mechanisms') under A.R.S. § 44-1761, and therefore does not enjoy the statutory protection that voids HOA restrictions on solar devices.
Alj Quote
Based on the relevant and credible evidence of record, including the aforementioned germane statutory definitions, and lacking any binding citations offered from a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that a clothesline is not a solar energy device.
Legal Basis
ARS 44-1761(8); ARS 33-439(a)
Topic Tags
solar_energy
definitions
statutory_interpretation
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
When a homeowner petitions for a hearing, they bear the burden of proving that the HOA violated community documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more probable 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 a community document.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden_of_proof
legal_standards
hearing_procedure
Question
Can I be reimbursed for my filing fees if I lose the hearing?
Short Answer
No, reimbursement is generally not awarded if the petition is denied.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the HOA did not owe the homeowner any reimbursement for fees incurred during the filing process.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent does not owe Petitioner any reimbursement(s) for fees incurred in association with the filing of this petition.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
fees
reimbursement
penalties
Question
Are CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that when a property is purchased within a planned community, the buyer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs, which function as a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Common Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
contract_law
governing_documents
Question
Can I use a flag pole sleeve for something other than a flag, like a clothesline?
Short Answer
No, if the permit was granted specifically for a flag pole.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner obtained a permit for a flag pole sleeve but used it for a clothesline. The HOA was entitled to issue a violation notice because the use differed from the approved purpose and violated other rules.
Alj Quote
Respondent did, however, grant Petitioner’s sleeve request with the explicit instruction that its use was for the purpose of flag display… As such, the Association’s October 31, 2022, VIOLATION NOTICE was not issued unlawfully or in error.
Legal Basis
ARS 33-1808(a)
Topic Tags
architectural_requests
permits
flag_poles
Question
How do courts interpret words in statutes that aren't explicitly defined?
Short Answer
They use the ordinary meaning of the words, often consulting dictionaries.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ looked to the 'natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning' of words. Since the statute did not define 'clothesline,' the judge consulted Merriam Webster to define terms like 'system' and 'mechanism' to see if a clothesline fit the description.
Alj Quote
Words should be given 'their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'… BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY does not define 'clothesline' or 'solar energy device.' Per Merriam Webster, however, 'system' means a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole
Legal Basis
Statutory Construction Principles
Topic Tags
legal_standards
definitions
interpretation
Question
What is the deadline for filing a request for a rehearing?
Short Answer
30 days from the service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to request a rehearing, they must file it with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the decision.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
deadlines
procedural_requirements
Case
Docket No
23F-H032-REL
Case Title
Michael H. Jahr vs. Leisure World Community Association
Decision Date
2023-03-14
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael H. Jahr(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Daniel Clark Collier(assistant community manager) Leisure World Community Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent and testified as a witness
Regis Salazar(witness) Testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE Recipient of recommended decision
Other Participants
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of electronic transmission
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842; Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
Outcome Summary
The ALJ denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated community documents or statutes. The ALJ noted that Petitioner lacked the authority to request the inspection on behalf of the HOA, and one primary statute cited (ARS § 10-3842) was inapplicable/outside jurisdiction.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged statutory and community document violations. The ALJ found Petitioner lacked the authority to act for the Association, and the inspection had not yet commenced when directed to stop.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged interference with wildfire risk assessment
Petitioner alleged Respondent stopped the Green Valley Fire Department's in-progress wildfire risk assessment, interfering with the assessment and failing to act in good faith or in the best interests of the Corporation.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. All pending post-hearing motions were denied as moot.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, wildfire risk, homeowner authority, jurisdiction, planned community
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Art. III Sec. 2
Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?
Short Answer
No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.
Alj Quote
Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802
Topic Tags
Homeowner Authority
Common Area Inspections
Board Powers
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a 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. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.
Detailed Answer
Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.
Legal Basis
Jurisdictional Limits
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Corporate Law
Officer Conduct
Question
What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?
Short Answer
Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.
Alj Quote
Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rules
Topic Tags
Evidence
Procedure
Mistakes
Question
Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?
Short Answer
No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.
Alj Quote
The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
Legal Research
Petition Drafting
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?
Short Answer
30 days from the date the order is served.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
Appeals
Deadlines
Case
Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can an individual homeowner authorize vendors or government agencies to perform inspections on HOA common property?
Short Answer
No. Unless explicitly granted permission by the governing documents, an individual homeowner does not have the authority to act on behalf of the Association.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that a homeowner cannot unilaterally request services, such as a fire inspection, for the entire subdivision. The authority to manage association affairs and property generally resides with the Board of Directors.
Alj Quote
Here, the record reflects that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request that GVFD perform a wild fire inspection in and for the Quail Creek Villas subdivision.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Art. III, Section 2; ARS 33-1802
Topic Tags
Homeowner Authority
Common Area Inspections
Board Powers
Question
Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The person bringing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not inherently have to disprove the allegations; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence that a 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. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over the standards of conduct for corporate officers (ARS Title 10)?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to specific real estate and planned community statutes.
Detailed Answer
Allegations regarding the general corporate conduct of officers under Title 10 (Corporations and Associations) generally fall outside the scope of the administrative hearing process provided by the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, Corporations and Association – Standards of Conduct for Officers, is outside the jurisdiction of the Department and inapplicable to this matter.
Legal Basis
Jurisdictional Limits
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Corporate Law
Officer Conduct
Question
What is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard used in these hearings?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is 'more probably true than not'.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof required in civil and administrative hearings. It is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It essentially means the evidence must tip the scale slightly in favor of the petitioner.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
If I accidentally email my evidence to the wrong email address for the HOA's attorney, will it still be admitted?
Short Answer
Likely not. The responsibility for properly serving evidence lies with the person sending it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that if a petitioner misspells the opposing counsel's email address, resulting in the evidence not being received, the petitioner is responsible for that error, and the evidence may be excluded.
Alj Quote
Thus, Petitioner bore the onus of any mishandling/compromise of his proposed hearing exhibits.
Legal Basis
Procedural Rules
Topic Tags
Evidence
Procedure
Mistakes
Question
Can I cite general statutes or non-existent statutes in my petition?
Short Answer
No, you must cite specific, valid statutes. Citing non-existent codes weakens the case.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the petitioner cited statutes that did not exist (e.g., ARS 33-9). While the judge may try to interpret the intent based on evidence, relying on invalid statutes makes it difficult to sustain the burden of proof.
Alj Quote
The conundrum of Petitioner’s confusing reliance on statutes that do not exist and/or are outside the jurisdiction of the Department is solved, in large part, based on the substantive evidence of record.
Legal Basis
Statutory Interpretation
Topic Tags
Legal Research
Petition Drafting
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing if I disagree with the decision?
Short Answer
30 days from the date the order is served.
Detailed Answer
If a party wishes to contest the ALJ's decision, they must file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this ORDER upon the parties.
Legal Basis
ARS 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
Appeals
Deadlines
Case
Docket No
23F-H004-REL
Case Title
Randall White vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-29
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Randall White(petitioner) Quail Creek Villas homeowner Appeared on his own behalf.
Respondent Side
Carolyn B. Goldschmidt(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt | Shupe LLC Counsel for Respondent.
Lori Wuollet(community manager) CAD Community Management Witness for Respondent; also known as Lori Don Wlette or Gloria Wlette.
John Messner(board member) Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Vice President and witness for Respondent.
Robert Jelen(board member) Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. President and witness for Respondent; sometimes referred to as Bob Kellen.
Max Tittle(board member) Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Also referred to as Max Tibble or Matt Tittle.
Diane(board member) Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Presided over the hearing and issued the decision.
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Signed minute entries (Sept 27, 2022) and order regarding virtual appearance (Nov 28, 2022).
John O'Campo(fire inspector) Green Valley Fire Department Contacted by Petitioner regarding wildfire assessment.
Roger Thompson(fire inspector) Green Valley Fire Department Parallel to John O'Campo; communicated with Petitioner and Respondent's board member.
Corey Guerin(inspector) AZ Dept Forestry & Fire Management Performed the Firewise assessment on November 3, 2022.
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH Signed transmission lists.
c. serrano(Staff) OAH Clerical staff involved in document transmission.
Other Participants
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE Recipient of official transmissions.
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmissions.
vnunez(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmissions.
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmissions.
labril(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official transmissions.
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
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. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
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)
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
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
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
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
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Matthew E Thompson(petitioner) Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
Charles Dean Otto(Board President; witness) Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Other Participants
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Constituent Services Manager
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Transmitted electronic order
c. serrano(OAH staff) OAH Transmitted Minute Entry
Sam Muza(Contractor President) Verde Valley Landscape Services Signed contract with HOA
Charlene Frost(homeowner) Filed Request for Exterior Change application
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of records request statute (failure to timely provide materials lists/specifications related to roof replacement/repairs).
Petitioner requested materials lists and specifications regarding recent (Sept 2021) and past (since 1986) roof work on February 27, 2022. The Association provided a scope of work document from the vendor on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed. The ALJ determined the requested documents were not established to be 'financial and other records of the association' as contemplated by the statute, and TMT was not in possession of them at the time of the request.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for a civil penalty were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02 A
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA records request, Planned Community Act, Roof Repair/Replacement, Condominium, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 1003691.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:15 (160.6 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979940.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:17 (49.4 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979959.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:18 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 985762.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:20 (52.8 KB)
22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 986375.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:22 (52.8 KB)
Study Guide – 22F-H2222048-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 22F-H2222048-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert C. Ochs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Ashley N. Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Appeared on behalf of respondent
Carl Westlund(witness) The Management Trust Division Vice President of Community Management at TMT
Shauna Carr(property manager) The Management Trust Former executive community manager for Camel View Greens
Dameon Cons(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Sent response letter to Petitioner
Mark A. Holmgren(HOA attorney) Goodman Holmgren Counsel for Respondent listed on transmittals
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) OAH Transmitted orders/minute entries
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
vnunez(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
labril(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of official documents
Other Participants
Jeff Centers(vendor/project manager) Vendor Contractor hired by the community
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Sections 3.5 or 3.6 regarding its authority to enact or enforce the rules and regulations that were at issue.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 3.5 or 3.6. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was authorized to enact rules relating to the operation of the association and to enforce them.
Key Issues & Findings
Petitioner claimed Respondent violated CC&Rs 3.5 and 3.6 regarding its power to adopt and enforce rules by applying rules allegedly unrelated to the operation of the association and/or failing to follow protocol.
Petitioner challenged the HOA's authority to enact (3.5) and enforce (3.6) specific rules, arguing they were not related to association operation (e.g., controlling off-site email communication or fining for vendor interaction) and that enforcement protocols were violated. The ALJ denied the petition, finding the HOA was authorized to enact and enforce rules related to the operation of the association, and Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is 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.
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 rules and regulations, CC&Rs, Enforcement authority, Burden of Proof, Planned community association dispute
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. 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
22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 966844.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:56 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 969590.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:01 (44.1 KB)
22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 994145.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:05 (145.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs are an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
When a person purchases a property within an HOA, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs. The decision explicitly states that this document constitutes a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between Respondent and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Legal Status
Contract
Question
Can an HOA create rules regarding behavior toward staff and board members?
Short Answer
Yes, rules prohibiting harassment or abuse of staff and board members are valid.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that rules governing conduct towards the board and management relate to the operation of the association and are therefore within the HOA's authority to enact.
Alj Quote
Respondent was authorized to enact rules and regulations relating to the operation of the association. The rules at issue in this matter relate to the operation of the association.
Legal Basis
Authority to Adopt Rules
Topic Tags
Rules and Regulations
Harassment
Board Authority
Question
Must the HOA provide a hearing before assessing a fine?
Short Answer
Yes, due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing are generally required.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites the HOA's specific fine guidelines which mandate that a member must be given notice and a chance to be heard before a fine is assessed.
Alj Quote
No fine shall be assessed until the Member who has committed a violation has been given due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Fine Guidelines
Topic Tags
Fines
Due Process
Hearings
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their contention is more likely true than not. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the HOA violated its documents.
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
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can the HOA fine me for interrupting or hindering vendors?
Short Answer
Yes, rules prohibiting the hindering of vendors are enforceable.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ upheld the HOA's authority to enforce rules that include fines for hindering hired vendors, as these rules relate to the association's operations.
Alj Quote
Hindering a hired vendor from their work at another property in The Meadows. This violation carries a $100.00 fine.
Legal Basis
Enforcement of Rules
Topic Tags
Vendors
Interference
Fines
Question
If I challenge the validity of a rule, will the judge also decide if I am guilty of the specific violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge only decides the issues raised in the petition.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner's petition only challenges the HOA's authority to make a rule, the ALJ will not rule on the facts of the specific violation (e.g., whether the conduct actually happened) if that issue was not explicitly raised.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner may have wanted to argue that the alleged violations brought against her were not proper, she did not raise that issue in her Petition.
Legal Basis
Scope of Hearing
Topic Tags
Petition Scope
Legal Procedure
Defense
Question
Does the HOA have the power to enforce rules that are not explicitly detailed in the original CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the power to adopt and enforce new rules.
Detailed Answer
The CC&Rs in this case allowed the Association to adopt new rules deemed necessary for the operation of the association, and gave them the same force as the Declaration.
Alj Quote
The Association shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Declaration and of Rules & Regulations by any lawful remedy or means…
Legal Basis
CC&R Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Rulemaking
Enforcement
Governing Documents
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222038-REL
Case Title
Evin Abromowitz vs The Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-08-22
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes, CC&Rs are an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.
Detailed Answer
When a person purchases a property within an HOA, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs. The decision explicitly states that this document constitutes a contract.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between Respondent and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Legal Status
Contract
Question
Can an HOA create rules regarding behavior toward staff and board members?
Short Answer
Yes, rules prohibiting harassment or abuse of staff and board members are valid.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that rules governing conduct towards the board and management relate to the operation of the association and are therefore within the HOA's authority to enact.
Alj Quote
Respondent was authorized to enact rules and regulations relating to the operation of the association. The rules at issue in this matter relate to the operation of the association.
Legal Basis
Authority to Adopt Rules
Topic Tags
Rules and Regulations
Harassment
Board Authority
Question
Must the HOA provide a hearing before assessing a fine?
Short Answer
Yes, due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing are generally required.
Detailed Answer
The decision cites the HOA's specific fine guidelines which mandate that a member must be given notice and a chance to be heard before a fine is assessed.
Alj Quote
No fine shall be assessed until the Member who has committed a violation has been given due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Legal Basis
Due Process / Fine Guidelines
Topic Tags
Fines
Due Process
Hearings
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove that their contention is more likely true than not. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the HOA violated its documents.
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
Standard of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can the HOA fine me for interrupting or hindering vendors?
Short Answer
Yes, rules prohibiting the hindering of vendors are enforceable.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ upheld the HOA's authority to enforce rules that include fines for hindering hired vendors, as these rules relate to the association's operations.
Alj Quote
Hindering a hired vendor from their work at another property in The Meadows. This violation carries a $100.00 fine.
Legal Basis
Enforcement of Rules
Topic Tags
Vendors
Interference
Fines
Question
If I challenge the validity of a rule, will the judge also decide if I am guilty of the specific violation?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; the judge only decides the issues raised in the petition.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner's petition only challenges the HOA's authority to make a rule, the ALJ will not rule on the facts of the specific violation (e.g., whether the conduct actually happened) if that issue was not explicitly raised.
Alj Quote
While Petitioner may have wanted to argue that the alleged violations brought against her were not proper, she did not raise that issue in her Petition.
Legal Basis
Scope of Hearing
Topic Tags
Petition Scope
Legal Procedure
Defense
Question
Does the HOA have the power to enforce rules that are not explicitly detailed in the original CC&Rs?
Short Answer
Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the power to adopt and enforce new rules.
Detailed Answer
The CC&Rs in this case allowed the Association to adopt new rules deemed necessary for the operation of the association, and gave them the same force as the Declaration.
Alj Quote
The Association shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Declaration and of Rules & Regulations by any lawful remedy or means…
Legal Basis
CC&R Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Rulemaking
Enforcement
Governing Documents
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222038-REL
Case Title
Evin Abromowitz vs The Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-08-22
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Evin Abromowitz(petitioner) Property owner and member of The Meadows Homeowners Association.
Carolyn C. E. Davis(witness) Known as Carrie Davis.
Shannon Kelsey(witness) Former employee of the association.
Patrick Scott(witness) Witness for Petitioner.
Respondent Side
Nicholas Nogami(HOA attorney) Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP Represented The Meadows Homeowners Association.
Lynn Mater(HOA President/manager/witness) The Meadows Homeowners Association/ADAM LLC Testified for Respondent.
Jacqueline Conoy(assistant community manager) ADAM LLC/The Meadows Homeowners Association Recipient of emails from Petitioner.
Omid(board member) The Meadows Homeowners Association Mentioned in relation to drafting rules with Lynn.
Hiker(attorney associate) Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP (implied) Appeared on the call with Nicholas Nogami.
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge.
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(OAH administrative staff) OAH Signed transmission.
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Signed transmission.
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:41 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:45 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:50 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:55 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:00 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:03 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
