Randall White v. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc

Posted on December 29, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H004-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-12-29
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	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.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Randall White	Counsel	—
Respondent	Quail Creek Villas Association Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

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
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:27 (40.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:30 (5.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:34 (45.6 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:37 (55.1 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:41 (170.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002376.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:26 (40.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1002517.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:29 (5.8 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1014952.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:33 (45.6 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1020817.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:36 (55.1 KB)

23F-H004-REL Decision – 1022445.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:39 (170.8 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of Randall White, Petitioner, vs. Quail Creek Villas Association Inc., Respondent, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), Docket No. 23F-H004-REL.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The hearing, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, was held on December 12, 2022, having been previously continued from an initial date of October 21, 2022. Petitioner Randall White appeared on his own behalf, while Carolyn Goldschmidt represented the Respondent homeowner's association (HOA), with three witnesses testifying for the defense.

Main Issues and Allegations

The core issue defined for the hearing was whether the Respondent violated the Quail Creek Villas Association Inc. Bylaws Article III Section 2 and Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 10-3842 by allegedly stopping an in-progress wildfire risk assessment by the Green Valley Fire Department (GVFD). Petitioner later clarified he intended to cite ARS § 33-1802, concerning planned communities, as the relevant property statute.

Petitioner's Argument and Testimony

Petitioner White testified that his concerns about wildfire hazards arose when he had difficulty obtaining homeowner's insurance due to fire risk in the area. He contacted GVFD Inspector John O’Campo to perform a complimentary fire inspection for the entire Quail Creek Villas subdivision. On May 3, 2022, O’Campo notified Petitioner that a Board Member had instructed him via email to address such issues to the management company, thereby halting the planned assessment. Petitioner asserted this interference was not in good faith nor in the best interest of the corporation.

Respondent's Argument and Defense

The Respondent's counsel argued that Petitioner, as a homeowner, lacked the authority to schedule an inspection on behalf of the Association. The Respondent asserted that the Board of Directors is responsible for managing the business and affairs of the corporation, as stipulated in the community documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws). Testimony from the HOA's witnesses suggested the Board member could not recall sending the email that halted the inspection. The Respondent also noted that subsequent to the Petition, the Association did arrange for a fire hazard assessment through the Arizona State Department of Forestry & Fire Management in November 2022, although the ALJ ruled this post-complaint evidence was generally irrelevant to the original alleged violation.

Legal Points and Decision

The ALJ found that ARS § 10-3842 (Standards of Conduct for Officers) was outside the Department’s jurisdiction. The ALJ focused strictly on whether the Board's actions prior to the July 22, 2022, filing date constituted a violation of ARS Title 33 or the Bylaws.

The Administrative Law Judge Decision concluded that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving a statutory or community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The crucial legal finding was that Petitioner did not have the authority or permission to act on behalf of the Association to request the wildfire inspection. Furthermore, the Petitioner conceded that the inspection had not actually commenced when the Board intervened.

Outcome

The ALJ denied Petitioner’s petition. All pending post-hearing motions were also denied as moot. The final order was issued on December 29, 2022.

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

Alj Quote

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

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

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

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

Alj Quote

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

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.

Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on April 26, 2019 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom J Martin	Counsel	—
Respondent	SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.

Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or rules of the planned community.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of HOA website and Policy Manual (Policy BC-3) regarding pickleball courts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its website and policy manual by failing to provide pickleball courts as marketed. The Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing these documents are not community documents. The ALJ affirmed the dismissal, finding that policies and website statements do not fall under the statutory definition of community documents in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus the Department lacked jurisdiction.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community documents, policy manual, pickleball courts, dismissal, rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904
Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:17 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin versus SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. The decision, issued on May 10, 2019, centered on a critical jurisdictional question: whether an HOA’s website content and internal policy manual constitute “community documents” under Arizona state law.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded they do not. The petitioner’s claim, which alleged the HOA failed to provide pickleball courts as promised on its website and in its “Policy Number BC-3,” was dismissed because it did not allege a violation of a legally recognized “community document.” According to Arizona Revised Statutes, such documents are strictly defined as the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and formally adopted rules. As the petitioner’s initial filing cited only the website and a policy not adopted as a rule, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked the statutory jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that the petitioner’s requested relief—a financial award of $463,112 or the construction of eight new courts—was beyond the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Case Overview

Case Name

Tom J. Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Case Number

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Tom J. Martin

Respondent

SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Date of Decision

May 10, 2019

Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Requested Relief

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin on September 28, 2018, was founded on the central allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its own website content and its internal policy manual, specifically “Policy Number BC-3.”

• Primary Allegation: The HOA failed to fulfill its advertised and marketed promise to provide pickleball courts.

• Cited Violations: In the initial petition, Martin explicitly alleged violations of the HOA’s website and policy manual. While he checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he failed to identify any specific provisions from those documents.

• Requested Relief: The petitioner sought a significant remedy from the HOA, requesting one of the following:

1. Financial support in the amount of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

2. The provision of eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

3. A commitment from the HOA to be financially responsible for the maintenance of pickleball courts in an amount equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

Procedural History and Key Arguments

The case progressed through several key stages, culminating in a rehearing and a final dismissal.

1. Initial Petition (September 28, 2018): Mr. Martin filed his single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (November 30, 2018): The HOA argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Its core argument was that hearings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 are limited to violations of “community documents,” and that a website and an internal policy do not meet the legal definition of such documents. The HOA also contended the requested relief was outside the tribunal’s authority.

3. Petitioner’s Response (December 4, 2018): In his response, Mr. Martin argued that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” under its ordinary meaning. He further asserted that another HOA policy (CE-3) defined “governing documents” to include “Rules and Regulations,” and therefore Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

4. Initial Dismissal (December 12, 2018): The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that it had not alleged a violation meeting the statutory requirements.

5. Request for Rehearing (December 31, 2018): Mr. Martin requested a rehearing, reasserting that a “policy” is a “rule.” In this request, he newly alleged that the HOA had violated specific provisions: Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) and Articles of Incorporation Article XII, by failing to implement policy BC-3.

6. Rehearing (April 16, 2019): A rehearing was conducted where both parties presented their cases. The respondent renewed its argument regarding lack of jurisdiction.

Central Legal Dispute: The Definition of “Community Documents”

The determinative issue of the case was the precise legal definition of “community documents” and whether the petitioner’s claims fell within that scope.

• Statutory Definition: The court’s decision was anchored in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines community documents as:

◦ The declaration (CC&Rs)

◦ Bylaws

◦ Articles of incorporation, if any

◦ Rules, if any

• The Court’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that this legislative definition is exclusive and does not include “a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

• Petitioner’s Argument Rejected: Mr. Martin’s argument that Policy BC-3 should be considered a rule was found to be “not persuasive.” A critical finding of fact was that the “Respondent has not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule” under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). The tribunal must follow the legislature’s explicit definition.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The ALJ’s conclusions of law led directly to the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged that the respondent violated its website and policy manual—neither of which are “community documents” under Arizona law—the petition failed to meet the foundational requirements for a hearing under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A).

• Improper Relief Requested: The ALJ also concluded that the relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority. Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, an ALJ may order a party to abide by statutes or community documents and may levy civil penalties. The statute does not grant the authority to order large financial payments for construction or to mandate specific capital improvement projects.

• Final Order: Based on these conclusions, the petition was dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

The decision, having been issued as the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin vs. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner in his initial petition filed on or about September 28, 2018?

3. Describe the two alternative forms of relief the Petitioner requested in his petition.

4. On what primary legal grounds did the Respondent file its Motion to Dismiss?

5. According to Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2), what are the four types of documents that constitute “community documents”?

6. Explain the two main arguments the Petitioner made in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss for why Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

7. What new violation did the Petitioner allege in his request for a rehearing on December 31, 2019?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what was the final outcome of the Petitioner’s petition and the primary reason for this decision?

9. According to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, what powers does an administrative law judge have if a violation of community documents is found?

10. What is the process and time frame for a party wishing to appeal this Administrative Law Judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Tom J. Martin, who appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which was represented by Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

2. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin’s single-issue allegation was that the Respondent violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3. He included printouts from the website and a copy of the policy with his petition.

3. The Petitioner requested financial support in the sum of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon. Alternatively, he requested that the Respondent provide eight pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, and be financially responsible for their maintenance at a level equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

4. The Respondent argued that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This was because hearings are limited to disputes over “community documents,” and neither the website nor Policy BC-3 qualified as such under the definition provided in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1802(2).

5. Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2) defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

6. First, Mr. Martin argued that based on A.R.S. § 1-213, the word “policy” should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a rule. Second, he asserted that because the Respondent’s own policy CE-3 defines “governing documents” to include Rules and Regulations, then BC-3 must be a governing document.

7. In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin alleged for the first time that the Respondent had violated its bylaws, specifically article 4, section 6(3), by failing to implement policy BC-3. He also alleged a violation of Articles of Incorporation Article XII.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Martin’s petition be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) because it alleged violations of a website and a policy manual, which are not legally defined as “community documents.”

9. If a violation is found, an administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute or document at issue. The judge may also levy a civil penalty for each violation and, if the petitioner prevails, order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s filing fee.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date a copy of the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. section 12-904(A).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each question based on the facts and legal principles presented in the decision.

1. Analyze the concept of jurisdiction as it applies to this case. Why was the distinction between “community documents” and other materials like websites or policy manuals the central factor in the judge’s jurisdictional decision?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Martin’s initial petition to the final order of dismissal. Identify the key filings, arguments, and decisions at each stage of the process.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by Mr. Martin. Explain his reasoning for equating a “policy” with a “rule” and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive, citing relevant statutes and case law mentioned in the decision.

4. Discuss the limitations on the relief an Administrative Law Judge can grant in disputes involving planned communities, as outlined in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. How did Mr. Martin’s requested relief fall outside the scope of the judge’s authority?

5. Explain the legal principle that when a legislature defines a word or term, a tribunal must follow that definition. How did this principle, as cited in Walker v. Scottsdale, directly influence the outcome of Mr. Martin’s petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)

The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the State of Arizona.

Articles of Incorporation

A set of formal documents filed with a government body to legally document the creation of a corporation. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

Rules governing the use of land within a particular planned community. Section 4.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs sets out its authority to adopt rules.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these are “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The central legal issue of the case was whether the Respondent’s website and policy manual qualified as community documents.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent argued, and the ALJ agreed, that the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve “community documents.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request by a party for a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2018, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Tom J. Martin.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and arguments, granted in this instance after the initial dismissal. The rehearing was conducted on April 16, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Regulations adopted by a planned community association. The decision notes that while the Respondent has the authority to adopt rules, it had not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule.

4 Harsh Lessons from a Homeowner’s Failed Lawsuit Against His HOA

Introduction: The Promise vs. The Paperwork

Imagine finding the perfect community. Its website advertises fantastic amenities, including the pickleball courts you’ve been dreaming of. The association’s own policy manual seems to confirm this commitment. But what happens when the courts are never built and the homeowner association (HOA) doesn’t deliver on these perceived promises?

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s the central conflict in the case of Tom J. Martin versus the SaddleBrooke HOA in Arizona. Mr. Martin believed his HOA was legally obligated to provide pickleball courts based on its policies and marketing materials. His subsequent lawsuit, however, failed spectacularly, revealing some surprising truths about HOA disputes. This case provides several critical, counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner about the difference between a promise and a legally enforceable contract.

——————————————————————————–

1. A “Policy” Isn’t Always a Legally Binding “Rule”

Mr. Martin’s argument was straightforward: he believed the HOA violated its own “policy manual,” specifically a section referred to as Policy BC-3, by not providing pickleball courts. He contended that, in the ordinary sense of the word, a “policy” is a rule that must be followed.

The judge, however, dismissed the case based on a harsh legal reality. According to Arizona law, the court’s jurisdiction in this type of hearing is limited to violations of official “community documents.” The judge was bound by the statute’s specific definition of what constitutes these documents.

Based on Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1802(2), “community documents” are strictly defined as:

• The declaration (often called CC&Rs)

• Bylaws

• Articles of incorporation

• Rules

Crucially, the HOA’s own CC&Rs specified the exact procedure for how to adopt an enforceable rule, and the association had never subjected Policy BC-3 to that formal process. It wasn’t just a legal technicality; the HOA was following its own governing documents about how to create—or not create—a binding rule. Because the pickleball policy had not been formally adopted, it was legally unenforceable in this hearing.

Key Takeaway Analysis: In a legal dispute, the common-sense meaning of a word can be overruled by a specific statutory definition. It’s not enough to read an HOA’s policy manual. As a homeowner, you must cross-reference that policy with the CC&Rs or Bylaws to confirm the HOA has followed its own stated procedure for adopting it as a formal, legally binding rule.

——————————————————————————–

2. Marketing Materials Are Not Governing Documents

To support his case, Mr. Martin presented printouts from the HOA’s website. He felt these materials advertised and marketed the availability of pickleball courts, stating in a legal filing that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

The judge’s conclusion was unequivocal: advertising and marketing materials, just like the internal policy manual, do not qualify as “community documents.” The legal definition is exclusive, and an HOA’s website is not on the list. Therefore, promises or suggestions made on a website carry no legal weight in a dispute over violations of governing documents.

Key Takeaway Analysis: There is a significant gap between marketing promises and legally enforceable obligations. For potential buyers, this is a critical warning. The glossy brochure, the community website, and the sales pitch might paint a picture of community life, but that picture is not guaranteed by the legally binding documents you sign at closing.

——————————————————————————–

3. You Must Allege a Violation of theRightDocument

The case also reveals a crucial lesson in legal procedure. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin only alleged violations of the HOA’s website and its policy manual. While his petition form indicated alleged violations of the “CC&Rs and Bylaws,” he failed to identify any specific provisions within those official documents that the HOA had actually violated.

It was only after his case was first dismissed that he attempted to specify violations of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation in his request for a rehearing. By then, it was too late. The initial petition failed to allege a violation of a legitimate community document.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Precision is paramount. To successfully challenge an HOA in an administrative hearing, a homeowner cannot just have a general grievance. You must be able to pinpoint the exact article, section, and provision of an official “community document” (like the CC&Rs or Bylaws) that was violated and state it clearly in your initial complaint.

——————————————————————————–

4. The Court May Not Have the Power to Grant Your Request

Mr. Martin was clear about what he wanted the court to do. He requested one of two specific forms of relief:

• Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

• Alternatively, construct eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, with the HOA being financially responsible for their maintenance.

The judge noted a final, critical problem with the case: the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority.” The law governing these hearings simply did not give the judge the power to order an HOA to undertake a massive, six-figure construction project.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Even if you have a valid case and prove the HOA violated a rule, the court or tribunal you are in has limits. An administrative hearing might only be empowered to levy a civil penalty or issue an order for the HOA to abide by an existing rule. It likely cannot force the HOA to build new facilities or make large capital expenditures. This highlights the need to research the legal venue before you file to ensure it has the authority to grant the specific outcome you are seeking.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Litigate

The outcome of Mr. Martin’s lawsuit underscores the critical difference between a homeowner’s reasonable expectations and an HOA’s legally enforceable covenants. For homeowners, disputes are won or lost based on the precise wording of official governing documents—the CC&Rs, bylaws, and formal rules.

Before you challenge your HOA, have you read the fine print to see if their promise is written in the one place that truly matters?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom J. Martin (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (respondent attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Michael S. Shupe (attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Recipient of transmittal

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)

Other Participants

JS (Unknown staff)
Transmittal initials