Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

George Holub v. 3 Canyons Ranch Master

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner's petition alleging violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 regarding assessment increase and fine imposition was denied in its entirety. The Administrative Law Judge found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, concluding the HOA did not violate the statute.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner George Holub Counsel —
Respondent 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association Counsel Marcus Martinez, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B), (C), (D), (E)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition alleging violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 regarding assessment increase and fine imposition was denied in its entirety. The Administrative Law Judge found Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, concluding the HOA did not violate the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner did not meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803, as the assessment error was corrected and the notice requirements for the fine were met.

Key Issues & Findings

Assessment Increase

Petitioner alleged the yearly assessment increased from $525.00 to $1,010.00, violating ARS § 33-1803(A). The HOA claimed this was a clerical error that was promptly corrected to $525.00.

Orders: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, as the evidence showed the assessment error was immediately corrected, resulting in no statutory violation.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Imposition of fine without proper notice

Petitioner challenged a $500 fine for commencing construction of a courtyard wall without prior approval. Petitioner claimed insufficient notice, while the HOA asserted notice was provided via email, satisfying statutory requirements.

Orders: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The email notice complied with statutory requirements. The Association was ordered not to reimburse the filing fee.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:19 (48.9 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114407.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:22 (6.6 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1135788.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:25 (57.8 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1143255.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:29 (124.1 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114406.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:08 (48.9 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1114407.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:11 (6.6 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1135788.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:15 (57.8 KB)

24F-H021-REL Decision – 1143255.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:18 (124.1 KB)

The hearing summary for *George Holub v. 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association* (No. 24F-H021-REL) addresses allegations that the Homeowners’ Association (HOA) violated the Arizona Planned Communities Act regarding assessments and fines.

Case Overview and Key Issues

The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on January 26, 2024. Petitioner George Holub filed a two-issue petition, alleging the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

The main issues were:

  1. Assessment Increase: The HOA allegedly "nearly doubled the assessment amount from previous year," violating the statutory limit that prevents increases over twenty percent without a majority member vote (ARS 33-1803(A)).
  2. Improper Fine: The HOA allegedly "imposed violation fee without first discussing the violation with [Petitioner] in front of the board members". This concerned a $500 fine levied for unapproved construction.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Petitioner's Argument (George Holub):

Petitioner testified that in July 2023, he received a statement showing his annual assessment increased from $525.00 (or $540.00) to $1,010.00 (or $1,495.00 in one statement). He argued this substantial increase was illegal. Regarding the violation, Holub admitted commencing construction of a courtyard and a 5.5-foot wall without prior HOA approval. He asserted he never received the initial Notice of Violation (NOV) via certified mail. He confirmed the certified mail NOV was returned as undeliverable. Holub also argued the subsequent fine letter (January 2023) was sent to a wrong, outdated address for his property-owning entity, Jolly Acres LLC.

Respondent's Argument (Marcus Martinez, Esq. and Mike Needham, Board President):

Respondent argued that there was no assessment increase. Board President Mike Needham testified that the high assessment amount was a clerical error made by the managing agent. This error was immediately corrected after Petitioner inquired, and a new ledger reflecting the correct $525.00 annual assessment was generated on July 7, 2023.

Concerning the fine, Respondent acknowledged the initial certified NOV (September 15, 2022) was returned undeliverable. However, the Board re-sent the NOV via e-mail on October 24, 2022, which Petitioner acknowledged receiving. The $500 fine was subsequently approved at the January 2023 board meeting for failure to seek approval for the construction. Respondent maintained that its procedures strictly adhered to Arizona law.

Final Decision and Legal Points

The ALJ issued a decision on February 12, 2024, denying the petition. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Assessment Ruling:

The ALJ concluded that the assessment issue was merely a clerical error that was promptly corrected. The evidence showed the annual assessment remained $525.00, meaning the Respondent did not violate ARS § 33-1803(A) by illegally increasing dues.

Fine Ruling:

The ALJ held that nothing in the relevant statute requires the association to send the Notice of Violation via certified mail. Although the mail was returned, Petitioner did receive the NOV via email on October 24, 2022. Since the fine was not imposed until the January 2023 board meeting (two and a half months later), Petitioner was given ample time to respond. Furthermore, the ALJ found Petitioner’s claim regarding failure to receive the fine letter to be "disingenuous," as Petitioner had failed to update a corrected address for the property-owning LLC with the Association after being notified of the requirement.

The Petitioner’s petition was denied in its entirety, and the HOA was not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Questions

Question

Is an HOA required to send a Notice of Violation via certified mail?

Short Answer

No, Arizona statute does not require the initial Notice of Violation to be sent via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that while homeowners often expect certified mail, the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803) does not mandate it for the initial notice. As long as the homeowner actually receives the notice (even via email) and it contains the required statutory information, it is considered valid.

Alj Quote

As to the fine, nothing in the statute requires the Association to send the notice via certified mail.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • notices
  • procedural requirements

Question

Does a clerical error on a ledger count as an illegal assessment increase?

Short Answer

No, if the error is corrected and the homeowner is not actually forced to pay the incorrect amount, it is not a violation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA's management company sent a ledger showing an incorrect assessment amount that appeared to double the fees. However, because the HOA acknowledged the mistake, corrected the ledger to the proper amount, and communicated the correction to the homeowner, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate the statute regarding assessment increases.

Alj Quote

The testimony provided, demonstrated that there was an error in the ledger Petitioner received initially, but that was corrected as evidenced by the July 7, 2023 ledger… Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that the Association violated the statute.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • billing errors
  • fees

Question

Whose responsibility is it to ensure the HOA has the correct mailing address?

Short Answer

It is the homeowner's responsibility to update their address with the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a homeowner cannot claim they didn't receive notice if they failed to provide the HOA with their current address. Even if the homeowner informs a board member verbally or via email of a change in ownership entity, they must explicitly provide the correct mailing address to the Association.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner informed Mr. Needham that Jolly Acres was now the owner and to mail all community documents to them, he did not provide an address nor update a corrected address with the Association. Thus, this was not the Association’s fault that he did not receive notice of the fine.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • homeowner obligations
  • notices
  • mailing address

Question

Can an HOA send a Notice of Violation via email?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner receives it.

Detailed Answer

The decision validated a Notice of Violation sent via email because the homeowner acknowledged receiving it. Since the homeowner received actual notice and the content of the email met statutory requirements, the notice was deemed valid despite not being mailed initially.

Alj Quote

Therefore, although Petitioner never received the Notice of Violation via mail, he did receive the same on October 24, 2022. From the evidence provided, the Notice complied with all of the statutory requirements

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • email
  • notices

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Can a homeowner respond to a violation notice to contest it?

Short Answer

Yes, a homeowner has 21 days to respond via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

Statute allows a member to provide a written response to a violation notice. This response must be sent by certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.

Alj Quote

A member who receives a written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the community documents… may provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(C)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • due process
  • homeowner rights

Question

If a homeowner makes a partial payment on a debt, how must the HOA apply the money?

Short Answer

Payments must be applied to the principal debt first, then to accrued interest.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law mandates that any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty or assessment must be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Alj Quote

Any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty shall be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • payments
  • accounting
  • penalties

Question

Will the filing fee for the hearing be refunded if the homeowner loses?

Short Answer

No, the filing fee is not reimbursed if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • fees
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H021-REL
Case Title
George Holub v 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-02-12
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Is an HOA required to send a Notice of Violation via certified mail?

Short Answer

No, Arizona statute does not require the initial Notice of Violation to be sent via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that while homeowners often expect certified mail, the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803) does not mandate it for the initial notice. As long as the homeowner actually receives the notice (even via email) and it contains the required statutory information, it is considered valid.

Alj Quote

As to the fine, nothing in the statute requires the Association to send the notice via certified mail.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • notices
  • procedural requirements

Question

Does a clerical error on a ledger count as an illegal assessment increase?

Short Answer

No, if the error is corrected and the homeowner is not actually forced to pay the incorrect amount, it is not a violation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA's management company sent a ledger showing an incorrect assessment amount that appeared to double the fees. However, because the HOA acknowledged the mistake, corrected the ledger to the proper amount, and communicated the correction to the homeowner, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate the statute regarding assessment increases.

Alj Quote

The testimony provided, demonstrated that there was an error in the ledger Petitioner received initially, but that was corrected as evidenced by the July 7, 2023 ledger… Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that the Association violated the statute.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)

Topic Tags

  • assessments
  • billing errors
  • fees

Question

Whose responsibility is it to ensure the HOA has the correct mailing address?

Short Answer

It is the homeowner's responsibility to update their address with the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a homeowner cannot claim they didn't receive notice if they failed to provide the HOA with their current address. Even if the homeowner informs a board member verbally or via email of a change in ownership entity, they must explicitly provide the correct mailing address to the Association.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner informed Mr. Needham that Jolly Acres was now the owner and to mail all community documents to them, he did not provide an address nor update a corrected address with the Association. Thus, this was not the Association’s fault that he did not receive notice of the fine.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

  • homeowner obligations
  • notices
  • mailing address

Question

Can an HOA send a Notice of Violation via email?

Short Answer

Yes, if the homeowner receives it.

Detailed Answer

The decision validated a Notice of Violation sent via email because the homeowner acknowledged receiving it. Since the homeowner received actual notice and the content of the email met statutory requirements, the notice was deemed valid despite not being mailed initially.

Alj Quote

Therefore, although Petitioner never received the Notice of Violation via mail, he did receive the same on October 24, 2022. From the evidence provided, the Notice complied with all of the statutory requirements

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • email
  • notices

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition must prove that the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that their claims are more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • legal standards
  • burden of proof

Question

Can a homeowner respond to a violation notice to contest it?

Short Answer

Yes, a homeowner has 21 days to respond via certified mail.

Detailed Answer

Statute allows a member to provide a written response to a violation notice. This response must be sent by certified mail within 21 calendar days of the notice date.

Alj Quote

A member who receives a written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the community documents… may provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(C)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • due process
  • homeowner rights

Question

If a homeowner makes a partial payment on a debt, how must the HOA apply the money?

Short Answer

Payments must be applied to the principal debt first, then to accrued interest.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law mandates that any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty or assessment must be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Alj Quote

Any monies paid by a member for an unpaid penalty shall be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Topic Tags

  • payments
  • accounting
  • penalties

Question

Will the filing fee for the hearing be refunded if the homeowner loses?

Short Answer

No, the filing fee is not reimbursed if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered that because the petition was denied, the Respondent (HOA) was not required to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • hearings
  • fees
  • costs

Case

Docket No
24F-H021-REL
Case Title
George Holub v 3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-02-12
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • George Holub (petitioner)
    Jolly Acres LLC (Owner Entity)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Emily Holub (Petitioner's Wife)
    Involved in communications with the HOA regarding assessment

Respondent Side

  • Marcus Martinez (HOA attorney)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Mike Needham (Board President)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    President of the Board of Directors, testified as a witness
  • Nicholas Nogami (Attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Listed in service transmission
  • Sarah Malovich (HOA Agent)
  • David Roberts (HOA Agent)
    Provided statement
  • Mrs. Turka (HOA contact)
    Gate person contact
  • Mr. Plat (MDC Chairman)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Chairman of the Master Design Committee
  • Donna (HOA Agent)
    Platinum Management
    HOA/Accounting contact
  • Stacy Smith (board member)
    3 Canyons Ranch Master Homeowners’ Association
    Board member who made a motion regarding the fine

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Listed in service transmission email list

Other Participants

  • Dimitry Wilker (Neighbor)

Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H007-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-08
Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome The petition was granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner won the claim regarding the unauthorized certified letter charges, resulting in removal of the charges and a $500.00 fee refund. Petitioner lost the claims regarding the animal restriction (chickens are banned fowl) and the failure to engage in mediation (ADR provision 9.15 was inapplicable).
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Virginia Guest Counsel —
Respondent Bella Tierra Community Association Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 5.1, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The petition was granted in part and denied in part. Petitioner won the claim regarding the unauthorized certified letter charges, resulting in removal of the charges and a $500.00 fee refund. Petitioner lost the claims regarding the animal restriction (chickens are banned fowl) and the failure to engage in mediation (ADR provision 9.15 was inapplicable).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove violations of CC&Rs § 9.1.1 and CC&Rs § 9.15. Chickens are banned as birds/fowl under CC&Rs § 3.3, and the mediation clause only applies to disputes involving Declarant Parties, not general homeowner disputes.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongfully charging costs of certified letters/appeal response as a balance forward

Petitioner alleged Respondent wrongfully forwarded the cost of sending certified letters (categorized as a 'balance forward') onto her account without authority in the CC&Rs, violating rules for imposing fines.

Orders: Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her filing fee and remove the balance forward associated with certified letter costs from her assessment.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs § 5.1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Analytics Highlights

Topics: animal restriction, HOA enforcement, certified mail fee, dispute resolution, fines
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • CC&Rs § 9.1.1
  • CC&Rs § 3.3
  • CC&Rs § 9.15
  • CC&Rs § 5.1

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1095892.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:29 (55.6 KB)

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1111192.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:14:34 (104.5 KB)

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1095892.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:15 (55.6 KB)

24F-H007-REL Decision – 1111192.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:18 (104.5 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Virginia Guest v. Bella Tierra Community Association* (No. 24F-H007-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio on October 19, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

Virginia Guest (Petitioner), an owner in the Bella Tierra Community Association (Respondent), filed a petition alleging three main violations by the Homeowners Association (HOA):

  1. Enforcement Authority: Whether the HOA wrongfully issued violation notices for owning chickens, thereby violating CC&Rs § 9.1.1 (enforcement rights). This centered on CC&Rs § 3.3, which bans "animal, bird, fowl, poultry, reptile or livestock," except for a "reasonable number of dogs, cats, parakeets or similar household birds".
  2. Dispute Resolution: Whether the HOA violated CC&Rs § 9.15 by failing to engage in mediation regarding the dispute over animal use.
  3. Improper Fines/Fees: Whether the HOA violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 by charging the Petitioner a "balance forward" (totaling $16.20 at the time of the hearing) to cover the cost of certified letters sent in response to her appeal.

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner Guest argued that the chickens were permitted because they are domestic pets similar to parakeets and therefore qualify under the exception clause of CC&Rs § 3.3. She contended that the HOA was enforcing a rule that does not exist and acting arbitrarily, violating the enforcement provision (CC&Rs § 9.1.1). Guest insisted that mediation under CC&Rs § 9.15 was required because the Declarant Party (KB Home) still controls the HOA, making the dispute a claim regarding project use against the Declarant or its agents. Finally, she argued that the $16.20 charge for certified letters was an unauthorized fine, as CC&Rs § 5.1 only permits fines for document violations *after* notice and opportunity to be heard, not for administrative costs.

Respondent's Arguments:

The HOA (represented by Nicholas Nogami, Esq.) argued that chickens are plainly classified as "birds" and "fowl" and are thus explicitly banned by CC&Rs § 3.3. The HOA's authority to enforce its governing documents was deemed legitimate under CC&Rs § 9.1.1. Regarding mediation (CC&Rs § 9.15), the HOA asserted that the section only applies to disputes involving Declarant Parties (e.g., construction defects) and not standard homeowner enforcement claims, therefore mediation was not required. The HOA maintained that the $16.20 charge was a certified letter fee, not a fine, imposed to offset costs incurred for correspondence that state law required to be certified.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on November 8, 2023, denying the petition in part and granting it in part.

  1. Enforcement (Chickens): DENIED. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the HOA violated CC&Rs § 9.1.1. The CC&Rs plainly ban birds and fowl. The ALJ ruled that chickens are both birds and fowl, and while the Petitioner subjectively believes they are pets similar to parakeets, the plain language objectively bans them. The HOA thus had the authority to issue violation notices.
  2. Mediation (Dispute Resolution): DENIED. The ALJ found that CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those related to construction defects or project conditions, and does not apply to homeowner disputes. Since the Petitioner is not a Declarant Party, mediation was not required.
  3. Improper Fees/Fines: GRANTED. The ALJ found that the HOA failed to establish that the CC&Rs empowered them to forward the cost of certified letters (the "balance forward") directly to the Petitioner prior to the completion of the hearing. The HOA violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 by assessing this unauthorized charg

Questions

Question

Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?

Short Answer

Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.

Alj Quote

Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • chickens
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • violations

Question

Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?

Short Answer

Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.

Alj Quote

Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • fines
  • fees
  • administrative costs
  • certified mail

Question

Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?

Short Answer

It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.

Alj Quote

The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 9.15

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • dispute resolution
  • procedure
  • declarant

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

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

Short Answer

The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.

Legal Basis

ALJ Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?

Short Answer

Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • exceptions

Case

Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA ban chickens even if I consider them household pets?

Short Answer

Yes. If the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' your subjective belief that they are pets does not override the objective ban.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that even if a homeowner views chickens as pets akin to parakeets, if the CC&Rs explicitly ban 'fowl' or 'poultry,' that ban is enforceable. The specific classification of the animal in the documents overrides the owner's usage of the animal as a pet.

Alj Quote

Petitioner subjectively believes her chickens are pets and therefore qualify for the pet exception of the animal policy; however the CC&Rs plain language objectively bans not only birds but fowl. Chickens are both birds and fowl therefore, homeowners may not have live chickens on their property.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • chickens
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • violations

Question

Can my HOA charge me for the cost of sending certified letters regarding a violation?

Short Answer

Not unless the CC&Rs explicitly authorize passing those specific administrative costs to the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that an HOA cannot arbitrarily pass on administrative costs, such as certified mail fees for violation notices, unless the governing documents specifically empower them to do so. In this case, the HOA was ordered to remove the charge.

Alj Quote

Respondent failed to establish their CC&Rs empower them to forward the cost of litigation onto Petitioner prior to the completion of hearing. Therefore, Petitioner established Respondent violated CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • fines
  • fees
  • administrative costs
  • certified mail

Question

Is my HOA required to go to mediation before enforcing a rule violation?

Short Answer

It depends on the specific language of the dispute resolution clause. Some clauses only apply to disputes with the developer (Declarant), not general homeowner enforcement.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued that a 'Dispute Notification and Resolution Procedure' required mediation. However, the ALJ found that the specific section cited applied only to 'Declarant Parties' (the developer/builders) regarding construction or design defects, not to standard enforcement actions between the HOA and a homeowner.

Alj Quote

The CC&Rs § 9.15 restricts its application to disputes involving the Declarant Parties, particularly those arising from or related to construction defects or conditions of the Project and not homeowner disputes. Because Petitioner is not a Declarant Party CC&Rs § 9.15 does not apply.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 9.15

Topic Tags

  • mediation
  • dispute resolution
  • procedure
  • declarant

Question

Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner challenges an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing where the homeowner files the petition, the homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning their evidence must be more convincing than the HOA's.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.3, CC&Rs § 9.15, CC&Rs § 5.1 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

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

Short Answer

The ALJ may order partial reimbursement of filing fees if the petition is granted in part.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner lost the argument regarding chickens but won the argument regarding improper fees for certified letters. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse $500 of the $1500 filing fee.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $500.00 of her $1500.00 filing fee within 30 days of the mailing date of the Administrative Law Judge Decision entered in this matter.

Legal Basis

ALJ Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • penalties

Question

Does an exception for 'household birds' in the CC&Rs allow me to keep chickens?

Short Answer

Likely not, if chickens are also defined as 'fowl' which are otherwise banned.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that chickens fell under the exception for 'parakeets or similar household birds,' finding instead that they fell under the explicit ban on 'fowl.'

Alj Quote

Notwithstanding Petitioner’s argument that her chickens are akin to parakeets, an exception to the no animal rule in the CC&Rs, birds and fowl are explicitly banned.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs § 3.3

Topic Tags

  • animals
  • CC&Rs interpretation
  • exceptions

Case

Docket No
24F-H007-REL
Case Title
Virginia Guest v Bella Tierra Community Association
Decision Date
2023-11-08
Alj Name
Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Virginia Guest (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Marcus R. Martinez (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Jamie Petty (association manager / witness)
    Platinum Management
    Association manager for Bella Tierra Community Association; also referenced as Jamie Teddy/Miss Teddy
  • Sean Moynihan (HOA attorney)
    Senology
    General counsel for Respondent; referenced in Petitioner's claims; also referred to as John Moahan

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and decision
  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge who issued the September 22, 2023 Order
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient of decisions/orders

Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. v. Randall & Gisela White

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome 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.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $100.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Shupe, Esq.
Respondent Randall & Gisela White Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3(j)

Outcome Summary

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.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized exterior modification (tile installation)

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.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $100.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R violation, Architectural Review Committee (ALC), exterior modification, tile installation, constructive notice, affirmative defense, HOA maintenance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
  • Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
  • Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co., 166 Ariz. 393 (1990)
  • Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (App. 1977)
  • Flying Diamond Air Park LLC v. Minenberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:07:25 (219.4 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1048063.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:08 (55.7 KB)

23F-H042-REL Decision – 1055060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:11 (219.4 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case hearing concerning the Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. (Petitioner) versus Randall and Gisela White (Respondents) regarding compliance with community documents, held remotely before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on April 27, 2023, under Docket No. 23F-H042-REL.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Respondents violated Section 3(j) of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by installing permanent tile on their front porch entryway without prior written approval from the Association's Board of Directors. The Petitioner sought an order confirming the violation, requiring compliance, and imposing a civil penalty.

The key facts were largely undisputed:

  1. Respondents installed large, permanent tile squares in their entryway around May/June 2022.
  2. The Association’s management (Cadden Community Management) advised Mr. White in May 2022 that an Architectural Landscape Committee (ALC) form was required for any exterior modifications.
  3. The Association has a duty to maintain the structural integrity of the concrete, which the Board contended the permanent tile placement compromised, increasing maintenance costs and creating a potential trip hazard.
  4. The Association provided multiple violation notices and extended the compliance deadline from August 2022 to January 31, 2023.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments (HOA):

Petitioner argued that the Respondents acted in knowing disregard of their obligation to seek approval for exterior modifications, thereby violating the CC&Rs. They asserted that the recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to all purchasers as a matter of Arizona law, regardless of any perceived defect in the documents provided at closing.

Respondents' Defense (Owners):

Mr. White acknowledged installing the tile but maintained an affirmative defense that the CC&Rs set provided during his closing was "flawed," missing pages 4 and 6, which included the foundational Section 3(j). He claimed that he had no duty to comply with documents he had not received. Mr. White also argued that the tile was not visible (covered by a rug) and that its removal, based on his engineering knowledge, would cause severe damage to the underlying post-tension concrete slab, making enforcement punitive.

Final Decision and Legal Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioner established a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Focus on Legal Points:

The ALJ concluded that the Respondents’ defense regarding the missing CC&Rs pages was insufficient because the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions, and the CC&Rs constitute a contract binding upon the owners. Furthermore, Mr. White’s own communications referenced Section 3(j) prior to the permanent installation, confirming actual knowledge of the approval requirement. The ALJ found that allowing the tile to remain would violate the CC&Rs requirements for architectural approval and compatibility/uniformity within the Villas Property.

Outcome and Order:

The ALJ Decision, dated May 9, 2023, granted the petition. The final order mandates that Respondents:

  1. Abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j) henceforth.
  2. Reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for its filing fee.
  3. Pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

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

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

Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-05-01
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony Payson Counsel —
Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Counsel Sean K. Mohnihan

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 5.4

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.

Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA's alleged failure to enforce nuisance provision (CC&R Section 5.4) regarding neighbor's outdoor television.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Section 5.4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:11 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-01T10:25:17 (98.4 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1047496.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:55:58 (57.5 KB)

23F-H041-REL Decision – 1053240.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:01 (98.4 KB)

The legal matter of *Anthony Payson v. The Foothills Homeowners Association #1* (No. 23F-H041-REL) was heard virtually by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson on April 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Petitioner's Allegations:

Petitioner Anthony Payson, a homeowner within the community, alleged that the Respondent Homeowners Association (HOA) neglected its duty to enforce the Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that a large, outdoor television/movie theater installed by his neighbor violated CC&R Section 5.4 (Nuisances), which prohibits anything kept on a lot that "will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of the surrounding property". Petitioner sought an order compelling the HOA to enforce the CC&Rs and require the neighbor to remove the television.

Respondent's Key Arguments:

The Respondent HOA, represented by Sean K. Mohnihan, orally moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for relief. The HOA argued that the Petitioner was alleging a violation of Section 5.4 by the neighbor, not the Association itself, and the Association neither owns nor operates the TV.

Crucially, the HOA asserted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes among neighbors or to enforce common law duties to enforce CC&Rs. Furthermore, the HOA maintained that the Petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence (such as a log book, police reports, or a noise study) to substantiate a nuisance claim, despite the HOA having requested such documentation before initiating enforcement action.

Hearing Proceedings and Evidence:

The ALJ held the motion to dismiss in abeyance but proceeded with the presentation of evidence. Petitioner Payson testified that the TV had disturbed his peace and quiet on at least one occasion involving a hockey game, and that its mere existence constituted a violation because it *might* cause disturbance. Payson admitted he did not provide the HOA with specific dates, times, decibel readings, or video evidence of the disturbance, as the HOA had requested. The Respondent ultimately elected not to call witnesses, relying instead on the Petitioner's testimony and the jurisdictional arguments.

Outcome and Legal Decision:

In the final decision issued May 1, 2023, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent (The Foothills Homeowners Association #1) violated CC&R Section 5.4.

The ALJ determined that CC&R Section 5.4 addresses use restrictions on Members and Lots. Since the provisions refer to actions of members, any breach of that Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. The OAH’s authority, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), is limited to finding whether the governing document or statute has been violated by the respondent. Because the Petitioner did not contend or provide facts establishing that the HOA stored property that caused noise or disturbed the peace, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof against the Association.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “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 standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “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 standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony Payson (petitioner)
    Homeowner

Respondent Side

  • Sean K. Mohnihan (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
  • Jason E Smith (attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley, PLLC
    Listed with counsel
  • Gabron (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Linda Armo (board member)
    The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
    Board representative/potential witness
  • Philip Brown (former HOA attorney)
    Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Barry Callahan (neighbor)
    Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner

Victoria J Whitaker v. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H021-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Victoria J Whitaker Counsel —
Respondent Villas at Sunland Condominium Association Counsel Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirement of sending a response via certified mail (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to follow due process when enforcing community documents regarding damage to a semi-common element (carport) before her purchase, leading to a violation notice and subsequent enforcement.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Condominium Association, Due Process, Violation Enforcement, Carport Damage, Statutory Compliance, Filing Fee Denial
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1260(A)(3)(e)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • Declaration Article 5.3
  • Declaration Article 5.1
  • Declaration Article 5.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-05-02T11:03:57 (224.9 KB)

23F-H021-REL Decision – 1036088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:06 (224.9 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of Victoria Whitaker (Petitioner) versus Villas at Sunland Condominium Association (Respondent). The hearing took place on February 3, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Procedural History

The case centered on a dispute over damage to a semi-common element: a carport shared by Petitioner's unit (Unit 16) and an adjacent unit. The damage was observed prior to the Petitioner's purchase of the unit on June 13, 2022. Although the Petitioner received a $20,000 reduction in the purchase price due to the outstanding issue, she denied accepting responsibility for the repair.

On July 18, 2022, after the sale, the Association issued a Notice of Violation to the Petitioner, requiring her to repair the carport ceiling.

A key procedural point addressed at the start of the hearing was the deficient Notice of Hearing, which incorrectly cited the Planned Communities Act (ARS § 33-1803) instead of the correct statute for condominiums. All parties stipulated to amend the governing statute for the dispute to ARS § 33-1242(D), which regulates due process in condominium enforcement actions.

Main Issues and Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

The Petitioner alleged that the Association failed to follow due process under ARS § 33-1242. She argued that the violation should not have been enforced against her, as the damage occurred before her purchase and the violation was not properly investigated by management. The Association's claim that the damage was caused by the prior owner's tenant relied solely on "hearsay" (a neighbor's phone call), and no further investigation or expert assessment was conducted. She also claimed that the subsequent hearing held by the Board on October 5, 2022, was unfair because the Board had already made its decision.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association contended that they fully complied with ARS § 33-1242, providing notice and affording the Petitioner a hearing before the Board prior to taking any enforcement action (such as imposing fines). The core legal argument focused on the Petitioner’s failure to adhere to statutory requirements: ARS § 33-1242(B) requires a unit owner to provide a written response to a violation notice by certified mail within 21 days to "trigger" the subsequent due process provisions. The Petitioner admitted sending her contestation via email, not certified mail. The Association argued that because the Petitioner did not follow the statutory procedure, they cannot be found in violation of the statute's subsequent timing requirements.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ concluded that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was narrowly limited to determining whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1242, not to decide who was responsible for the damage or whether the Board's determination was correct.

The ALJ found that Petitioner bore the burden of proving the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The record established that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARS § 33-1242 (certified mail) necessary to "trigger" any protected due process rights. Despite this procedural failure, the Association still apprised her of her rights and afforded her a hearing.

Based on the evidence, the ALJ concluded that no violation of ARS § 33-1242 was established.

Outcome: Petitioner’s petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.

Detailed Answer

The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).

Alj Quote

The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • scope of hearing
  • violation responsibility

Question

Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?

Short Answer

Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)

Topic Tags

  • certified mail
  • procedural requirements
  • contesting violations

Question

What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?

Short Answer

Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.

Alj Quote

Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • notice
  • board hearing

Question

Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?

Short Answer

Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.

Alj Quote

[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.2

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • limited common elements
  • carport

Question

Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?

Short Answer

Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.

Detailed Answer

The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.

Alj Quote

Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.

Legal Basis

Declaration Article 5.3

Topic Tags

  • tenant liability
  • rental property
  • damages

Question

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

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • evidence
  • legal standard

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?

Short Answer

No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Detailed Answer

The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • costs
  • reimbursement

Case

Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Victoria Whitaker (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf without counsel
  • Kimball Whitaker (observer)
    Observed hearing; potential witness for petitioner
  • Realtor (realtor)
    Petitioner's realtor (name not provided)

Respondent Side

  • Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
  • Joseph Milin (board member)
    Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
    Board President; Witness
  • Steven Cheff (property manager)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Community Manager and Compliance Inspector; Witness
  • Carly Collins (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Admin responsible for correspondence
  • Harvey Colin (property management admin)
    Haywood Community Management (HMC)
    Signed resale disclosure statement
  • Neighbor (Unit 15) (witness)
    Unit 15 resident
    Provided alleged eyewitness testimony regarding the damage

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Chad and Ida Carpenter (prior owners/sellers)
    Unit 16 (prior owners)
    The sellers of the property at issue
  • Kevin Finley (contractor)
    Signature
    Provided repair estimate

Laura B Ganer v. Vincenz Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-16
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated its CC&Rs (Article 7 § 3, Article 10 § 10.11, and Article 12 § 2) when adopting the new parking policy.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Laura B Ganer Counsel —
Respondent Vincenz Homeowners Association Counsel Mark B. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

VHA CC&Rs Article 10 § 11, Article 7 § 3, and Article 12 § 2

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent HOA violated its CC&Rs (Article 7 § 3, Article 10 § 10.11, and Article 12 § 2) when adopting the new parking policy.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to new HOA parking policy adoption

Petitioner alleged the VHA's new parking policy was unreasonable and improperly adopted without an amendment, violating specific CC&R sections.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Parking Policy, CC&Rs, Board Authority, Burden of Proof, Dismissal
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020060-REL Decision – 822882.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:39 (108.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Ganer v. Vincenz Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020060-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Laura B. Ganer vs. the Vincenz Homeowners Association (VHA), case number 20F-H2020060-REL. The central dispute concerned a new on-street parking policy adopted by the VHA Board in 2020. The petitioner, Ms. Ganer, alleged this policy violated multiple articles of the VHA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The Administrative Law Judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, ultimately dismissed the petition. The court concluded that the VHA Board acted within the explicit authority granted to it by the community’s governing documents, specifically CC&R Article 10, § 10.11.1, which empowers the Board to designate parking areas. The judge found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof—a “preponderance of the evidence”—to establish that the VHA had violated its CC&Rs. The decision affirmed the Board’s right to establish rules and regulations for parking as outlined in the CC&Rs without requiring a full membership vote for an amendment.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a single-issue petition filed by homeowner Laura B. Ganer with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about May 20, 2020. The petition alleged that the Vincenz Homeowners Association violated its governing documents by adopting a new parking policy.

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Laura B. Ganer, a property owner within the VHA.

◦ Respondent: Vincenz Homeowners Association (VHA).

• Catalyst: The VHA Board of Directors adopted a new on-street parking policy in 2020.

• Alleged Violations: The petition claimed the new policy violated VHA CC&R Article 10, Section 11; Article 7, Section 3; and Article 12, Section 2.

• Legal Forum: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing, which took place on August 27, 2020.

The Contested 2020 Parking Policy

The policy adopted by the VHA Board resolved to allow on-street parking for specific vehicles in designated areas, provided the parking complied with associated rules.

• Allowed Vehicles: Private passenger automobiles and pickup trucks that do not exceed one ton in capacity.

• Designated Parking Areas:

1. Immediately in front of a Lot, for vehicles associated with the owner, resident, or their guests, or with the lot owner’s consent.

2. Immediately in front of any Common Area park within the Association.

3. Along any public street within the Association that does not border a Lot (e.g., in front of a Common Area tract).

Core Legal Arguments and Cited CC&Rs

The dispute centered on whether the VHA Board had the authority to enact the new parking policy or if doing so violated the foundational CC&Rs.

Petitioner’s Position (Laura B. Ganer)

Ms. Ganer argued that the new policy fundamentally contradicted the intent and letter of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Article 10: She asserted that the original intention of CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1 was to limit parking within the VHA.

• Violation of Article 7: She contended the policy violates Article 7, Section 3, because it is “unreasonable” by allowing parking “virtually everywhere” within the community.

• Implicit Amendment: The new policy was so expansive that it effectively constituted an amendment to the CC&Rs, which would require the procedure outlined in Article 12, Section 2 (a 67% member vote), not just a Board resolution.

Respondent’s Position (Vincenz HOA)

The VHA argued that its actions were a proper exercise of the authority explicitly granted to the Board in the CC&Rs.

• Authority from Article 10: VHA contended that CC&R Article 10, § 10.11.1 expressly allows the Board to create parking rules by permitting parking “within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.”

• Inapplicability of Article 7: The Association argued that Article 7, Section 3, which governs general “Association Rules,” did not apply because the parking policy was adopted under the specific authority of Article 10.

• No Amendment Required: VHA maintained that since Article 10 grants the Board the power to adopt parking rules and regulations, an amendment to the CC&Rs under Article 12, Section 2 was not necessary.

• Jurisdictional Argument: VHA also argued that the petition should be dismissed because Ms. Ganer failed to allege or provide facts that the VHA itself had improperly parked a vehicle in violation of the CC&Rs.

Relevant Articles from VHA CC&Rs

Article

Section

Provision Text

Article 10

§ 10.11.1

“Vehicles. No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.”

Article 10

§ 10.11.2

Governs restrictions on other vehicles like RVs, boats, and commercial vehicles, but allows the Board to designate areas and rules for them.

Article 7

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may… adopt, amend and repeal the Association Rules. The Association Rules shall be reasonable… and shall not be inconsistent with this Declaration…”

Article 12

“Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, this Declaration may be amended only by the affirmative vote (in person or by proxy) or written consent of: (a) Members holding not less than sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Class A votes…”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision, issued on September 16, 2020, was based on a direct interpretation of the VHA’s governing documents and the evidence presented.

Legal Standard and Burden of Proof

• The petitioner, Ms. Ganer, bore the burden of proving her allegations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not.

• In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties, and they must be construed as a whole.

Conclusions of Law

1. Interpretation of Article 10: The judge found that CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1 unambiguously forbids parking except in specified locations, including “in an area that has… been designated for parking by the Board.”

2. Board Authority: The court concluded that the VHA’s adoption of the parking policy was a valid exercise of the authority explicitly granted to the Board by Article 10.11.1 to designate such parking areas.

3. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Ms. Ganer failed to establish that the VHA violated any of the cited articles. The judge noted that Ganer did not even allege that the VHA itself had improperly parked a vehicle.

4. Overall Finding: The decision states, “Upon consideration of all of the evidence presented in this matter, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that VHA did not violate CC&R Article 7 § 3, Article 10 § 10.11, and CC&R Article 12 § 2 when it adopted the parking policy.”

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED, the petition is dismissed.”

The decision is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Ganer v. Vincenz Homeowners Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative law case Laura B. Ganer v. Vincenz Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020060-REL. It is designed to test comprehension of the facts, legal arguments, and final decision as presented in the source documents.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondent in this case, and what was their relationship within the community?

2. What specific action did the Vincenz Homeowners Association (VHA) take in 2020 that initiated this legal dispute?

3. List the three specific articles of the VHA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that petitioner Laura Ganer alleged were violated.

4. According to VHA’s CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1, under what three conditions are private passenger automobiles and pickup trucks permitted to be parked?

5. What was Ms. Ganer’s primary argument for why the VHA’s new parking policy was “unreasonable” as defined under Article 7 § 3?

6. Upon what grounds did the VHA argue that the petition should be dismissed, relating to the petitioner’s specific allegations?

7. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

8. How did the VHA defend its adoption of the new parking policy without obtaining the 67% member vote required for amendments under Article 12 § 2?

9. What was the core reason the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Ms. Ganer failed to prove a violation of CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Laura B. Ganer, a property owner. The respondent was the Vincenz Homeowners Association (VHA). Ganer owned property within the planned community governed by the VHA.

2. In 2020, the VHA’s Board of Directors adopted a new parking policy that formally allowed on-street parking for certain vehicles in designated areas, such as in front of lots and common areas. This new policy prompted Ms. Ganer to file her petition.

3. Ms. Ganer alleged that the VHA violated Article 10, section 11; Article 7, section 3; and Article 12, section 2 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

4. CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1 permits these vehicles to be parked within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.

5. Ms. Ganer argued that the new policy was unreasonable because it allows for parking virtually everywhere within the VHA. She asserted that the original intention of the CC&Rs was to limit parking, not expand it so broadly.

6. The VHA argued for dismissal because Ms. Ganer did not contend, nor provide facts to establish, that the VHA had actually parked an automobile or pickup truck in any prohibited area. The VHA stated the Office of Administrative Hearings only had jurisdiction over alleged violations, not the mere adoption of a policy.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

8. The VHA contended that an amendment was not required to adopt the parking policy. It argued that CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1 already granted the Board the specific authority to designate parking rules and regulations.

9. The Judge concluded that Ms. Ganer failed to prove a violation because she did not allege that the VHA had actually parked a vehicle in a prohibited area. The Judge noted that the covenant forbids parking in a roadway or garage unless it is in an area designated by the Board.

10. The final order was that the petition is dismissed. This means the judge ruled in favor of the respondent, Vincenz Homeowners Association, and against the petitioner, Laura Ganer.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt, drawing evidence and arguments directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1 presented by Laura Ganer and the Vincenz Homeowners Association. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this conflict, and what does this reveal about the judicial interpretation of restrictive covenants?

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the standard was, and why the petitioner ultimately failed to meet it according to the Judge’s findings.

3. Examine the VHA’s argument that CC&R Article 7 § 3 (regarding the adoption of “Association Rules”) was not applicable to its creation of the new parking policy. Based on the text, what is the distinction between a board-designated rule under Article 10 and a formal “Association Rule” under Article 7?

4. Evaluate the petitioner’s claim that the new parking policy constituted an amendment to the Declaration, thereby violating CC&R Article 12 § 2, which requires a 67% member vote. Why was this argument unsuccessful, and what does the decision imply about the scope of a homeowner association board’s power?

5. Using the facts of the case, explain the procedural journey of a homeowner’s dispute within a planned community in Arizona, from the initial filing to the final administrative order.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings) and makes legal decisions. The ALJ in this matter was Velva Moses-Thompson.

Allowed Vehicles

A term from the VHA’s 2020 parking policy defining the types of vehicles permitted for on-street parking: private passenger automobiles and pickup trucks not exceeding one ton in capacity.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner bore the burden of proof.

An acronym for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or homeowners association.

Common Area

Land within a planned community owned by the association for the shared use and enjoyment of its members, such as a park.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency that received the initial petition from Ms. Ganer.

Notice of Hearing

A formal document issued by a legal body that sets the date, time, and location for a hearing and outlines the issues to be discussed. In this case, it was issued on July 1, 2020.

An acronym for the Office of Administrative Hearings, the state office where the evidentiary hearing for this case was held.

Petition

The formal written application filed by a party (the petitioner) to a legal body, initiating a case. Ms. Ganer filed her petition with the Department on or about May 20, 2020.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, Laura B. Ganer.

Planned Community

A real estate development that includes common property and is governed by a homeowners’ association, with rules established by CC&Rs.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win a civil case, defined as proof that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&R that limits the use of real property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, such covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or who is responding to a lawsuit. In this case, the Vincenz Homeowners Association.

3 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Against Her HOA’s New Parking Rules

For millions of homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association (HOA) is often defined by a single, persistent source of frustration: parking rules. Whether it’s restrictions on street parking, rules about commercial vehicles, or limits on guest parking, these regulations are a frequent flashpoint for community disputes. We tend to think of these fights as homeowners pushing back against ever-tightening restrictions.

But what happens when the script is flipped? In a fascinating legal case from Arizona, a homeowner named Laura Ganer took her HOA to court not because the rules were too strict, but because the board enacted a new, more permissive parking policy. She believed the board had overstepped its authority by allowing on-street parking that had previously been forbidden.

The resulting decision from the Administrative Law Judge provides a masterclass in HOA governance. It peels back the layers of community documents to reveal how power is delegated and exercised. The outcome holds several surprising lessons for any homeowner who thinks they understand the rules of their community.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Devil in the Details: How a “Restriction” Became a Permission Slip

At the heart of Ms. Ganer’s case was her belief that the community’s founding documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—were written to severely limit on-street parking. She pointed to what seemed like a clear and unambiguous rule in the Vincenz Homeowners Association (VHA) governing documents.

The rule, found in VHA CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1, begins with a strong prohibition:

“No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.”

For many residents, the rule’s intent seemed clear: keep cars in garages and driveways. The critical turn, however, lay not in the prohibition but in the exceptions that followed. The power was vested in a single, potent phrase authorizing the Board to act: “…or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.” This clause, tucked at the end of the sentence, transformed a restrictive rule into a grant of discretionary power. The judge found this language gave the VHA Board explicit authority to create its new policy. This is a classic example of how governing documents are drafted to provide operational flexibility, allowing a future board to adapt to changing community needs without undergoing the arduous process of a full membership vote to amend the CC&Rs. The Board wasn’t breaking the rules; it was using a specific power granted to it all along.

——————————————————————————–

2. A Board Rule Isn’t a Bylaw Amendment (And Why It Matters)

Ms. Ganer raised two additional legal arguments. First, she contended that such a fundamental change to the community’s parking landscape was effectively an amendment to the CC&Rs. If it were an amendment, it would have required a community-wide vote and approval of “not less than sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Class A votes,” as stipulated in Article 12 § 2.

The VHA countered, and the judge agreed, that the Board was not amending the CC&Rs. Instead, it was exercising a power the document had already granted it in Article 10: the power to “designate” parking areas. Because the mechanism for the board to act was already in the foundational document, no amendment—and therefore no membership vote—was necessary.

Critically, Ms. Ganer also alleged a violation of Article 7 § 3 of the CC&Rs, which states that any “Association Rules shall be reasonable.” The VHA’s response to this claim was a deft legal maneuver. It argued that Article 7 § 3 did not apply because the Board didn’t adopt the parking policy under its general authority to make rules; it acted under the specific authority granted in Article 10. This distinction is vital in HOA governance, as it illustrates how a specific grant of power can sometimes bypass the general requirements that apply to other board actions.

——————————————————————————–

3. An Opinion Isn’t Proof: The Heavy Burden on the Homeowner

Ms. Ganer’s claim that the new policy was “unreasonable” because it allowed “parking virtually everywhere” was her attempt to prove a violation of Article 7 § 3. To an outside observer, this might seem like a fair point. But in a legal setting, a personal feeling of unreasonableness is not evidence.

The Administrative Law Judge noted that as the petitioner, Ms. Ganer had the “burden of proof” to show the HOA violated the CC&Rs “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This legal standard requires convincing proof, not just a strong opinion. The court document provides a clear definition:

“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Ms. Ganer failed to meet this burden. Her assertion that the rule was unreasonable could not overcome the VHA’s argument that it had acted within the specific authority granted by Article 10. She did not provide convincing evidence of a violation, and the judge found in favor of the HOA, dismissing her petition entirely.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Ultimate Authority Is in the Fine Print

This case serves as a powerful lesson in HOA law, illustrating a key principle of document hierarchy. The ultimate authority is not what seems fair or what was historically done, but the exact wording in the community’s governing documents. A specific grant of authority will almost always override arguments based on general principles.

Here, the specific power to “designate” parking areas in Article 10 trumped both the general procedural requirement for a 67% vote for amendments in Article 12 and the general principle that rules must be “reasonable” under Article 7. Ms. Ganer’s challenge failed because the Board’s actions, while contrary to her expectations, were perfectly aligned with the powers the CC&Rs had given it from the start.

This case is a powerful reminder to read the fine print. When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and what powers might you be surprised to find your board already has?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Laura B Ganer (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of herself.

Respondent Side

  • Mark B. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Vincenz Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Nicole Payne (recipient)
    Received transmission of the decision via US Mail.

Wendy Ellsworth v. Vincenz Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020043-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-09-08
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The petition concerning the alleged violation of CC&R section 10.11.1 by the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment request regarding waiver of enforcement.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Wendy Ellsworth Counsel Brian Hatch
Respondent Vincenz Homeowners' Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl

Alleged Violations

VHA CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1

Outcome Summary

The petition concerning the alleged violation of CC&R section 10.11.1 by the HOA was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment request regarding waiver of enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that VHA violated CC&R section 10.11.1 by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rule on the declaratory judgment requested by the Petitioner regarding VHA's waiver of its enforcement rights.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1 regarding parking enforcement and waiver

Petitioner alleged VHA waived its right to enforce CC&R 10.11.1 (parking prohibition) because violations had been frequent since inception. The tribunal found Petitioner failed to establish VHA violated section 10.11.1, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction regarding the requested declaratory judgment on waiver of enforcement.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, CC&R Violation, Parking, Waiver, Jurisdiction
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020043-REL Decision – 820839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:25:22 (95.4 KB)

20F-H2020043-REL Decision – 820839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:39 (95.4 KB)

Briefing: Ellsworth v. Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (No. 20F-H2020043-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Wendy Ellsworth versus the Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (VHA). The case centered on Ms. Ellsworth’s petition alleging that the VHA had waived its right to enforce a specific parking restriction outlined in its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition in its entirety.

The dismissal was based on two fundamental conclusions. First, the petitioner, Ms. Ellsworth, failed to meet her burden of proof. Her petition did not allege, nor did she provide evidence, that the VHA itself had violated the parking rule. Instead, her claim focused on the VHA’s alleged failure to enforce the rule against others. Second, and more decisively, the judge determined that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacks the jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment. Ms. Ellsworth was effectively asking the tribunal to declare that the VHA had waived its enforcement rights, a legal determination beyond the OAH’s statutory authority. The VHA successfully argued that the OAH’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing alleged violations committed by the association, not to adjudicating the association’s future enforcement capabilities.

Case Background

• Petitioner: Wendy Ellsworth, a property owner within the Vincenz community.

• Respondent: Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (VHA).

• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson.

• Filing Date: Ms. Ellsworth filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about January 15, 2020.

• Hearing Date: An evidentiary hearing was held on August 19, 2020.

• Decision Date: The final decision was issued on September 8, 2020.

The matter was referred to the OAH to determine whether VHA was in violation of its community documents as alleged by the petitioner.

Central Dispute: CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1

The entire dispute revolved around the enforcement of a specific vehicle parking rule within the VHA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

Article 10 § 10.11.1 provides:

Vehicles. No private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks shall be parked upon the Property or any roadway adjacent thereto except within a garage, in a private driveway appurtenant to a Dwelling Unit, or within areas designated for such purpose by the Board.

This provision explicitly restricts the parking of personal vehicles to approved locations: garages, private driveways, or other areas specifically designated by the VHA Board.

Positions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Position (Wendy Ellsworth)

Ms. Ellsworth’s central argument was not that the VHA had violated the parking rule, but that it had lost the ability to enforce it through inaction.

• Core Allegation: The petition claimed VHA had waived its ability to enforce Article 10, Section 10.11.1.

• Stated Rationale: Ms. Ellsworth intended to prove that “violations of the street parking prohibition have been ‘frequent’ since Vincenz’s inception” and that the community’s CC&Rs “do not contain a relevant non-waiver provision.”

• Testimony: At the August 19, 2020 hearing, Ms. Ellsworth initially testified that the VHA had never enforced the parking rule. However, under cross-examination, she later conceded that she was unsure whether the VHA had ever enforced it.

Respondent’s Position (Vincenz Homeowners’ Association)

The VHA argued for a complete dismissal of the petition, primarily on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.

• Core Argument: The petition failed to state a valid claim because it did not contend that VHA itself had improperly parked a vehicle in violation of the CC&Rs.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: VHA contended that the OAH’s jurisdiction, granted under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A), is strictly limited to hearing petitions about alleged violations of community documents or state statutes by the association.

• Declaratory Judgment: The VHA characterized Ms. Ellsworth’s request as one for a “declaratory judgment”—a ruling on the VHA’s legal right to enforce the rule—which it argued the OAH has no legal authority to issue.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sided entirely with the Respondent, concluding that the petition must be dismissed. The decision was based on a failure of proof by the petitioner and a critical lack of jurisdiction by the tribunal.

Legal Standards Applied

Standard

Description

Burden of Proof

The Petitioner bears the burden to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance of the Evidence

Defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with “the most convincing force.”

Covenant Interpretation

In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be interpreted as a whole.

Conclusion 1: Failure to Establish a Violation

The ALJ found that Ms. Ellsworth failed to meet her burden of proof. The decision notes:

• Ms. Ellsworth “did not even allege that VHA parked an automobile or a truck in a roadway, garage, or in an area that has not been designated for parking by the Board.”

• Because no violation by the VHA was alleged or proven, the core requirement for a successful petition was absent.

Conclusion 2: Lack of Jurisdiction

The most significant finding was that the tribunal lacked the authority to grant the relief Ms. Ellsworth sought.

• The ALJ explicitly stated: “To the extent that Ms. Ellsworth is requesting a declaratory judgment that VHA has waived its right to enforce CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1., this tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make such a determination.”

• This conclusion affirmed the VHA’s central argument that the OAH is not the proper forum for determining an association’s prospective enforcement rights.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the findings, the final order was unambiguous:

“IT IS ORDERED, the petition is dismissed.”

The decision document includes a notice outlining the next steps available to the parties. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, the order is binding unless a party files a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide: Ellsworth v. Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (Case No. 20F-H2020043-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Wendy Ellsworth and Respondent Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (VHA). It covers the key facts, legal arguments, and the final ruling of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

——————————————————————————–

Review Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific rule, or covenant, was at the center of the dispute?

3. What was the core allegation made by the petitioner, Wendy Ellsworth, in her initial petition?

4. What was the primary legal argument made by the respondent, Vincenz Homeowners’ Association, for why the petition should be dismissed?

5. What change occurred in Ms. Ellsworth’s testimony during the hearing?

6. According to the decision, what is the legal standard for the “burden of proof” in this type of hearing?

7. How does Arizona law interpret “restrictive covenants” when their language is unambiguous?

8. What two key reasons did the Administrative Law Judge give for dismissing the petition?

9. Which government body has jurisdiction to hear petitions from homeowners concerning violations of planned community documents?

10. What action could the parties take after the order was issued, and within what timeframe?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Wendy Ellsworth, a homeowner, and Respondent Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (VHA). Ms. Ellsworth initiated the legal action by filing a petition against the VHA.

2. The rule at the center of the dispute was Article 10, Section 10.11.1 of the VHA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section prohibits the parking of private passenger automobiles or pickup trucks on the property or adjacent roadways, except in garages, private driveways, or other Board-designated areas.

3. Ms. Ellsworth’s core allegation was that the VHA had waived its ability to enforce the street parking prohibition (CC&R 10.11.1). She claimed that violations had been “frequent” since the community’s inception and that the VHA’s CC&Rs lacked a relevant non-waiver provision.

4. The VHA argued that the petition should be dismissed because Ms. Ellsworth never alleged that the VHA itself had violated the parking rule. The VHA contended that the OAH only has jurisdiction over alleged violations by the association, not over a homeowner’s request for a declaratory judgment on the right to enforce a rule.

5. During the hearing, Ms. Ellsworth initially testified that the VHA had never enforced the parking rule. However, upon cross-examination, she admitted that she was unsure whether the VHA had ever enforced it.

6. The legal standard for the burden of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the petitioner to provide proof that convinces the trier of fact that their contention is more probably true than not.

7. In Arizona, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes.

8. The judge dismissed the petition for two main reasons. First, Ms. Ellsworth failed to establish that the VHA itself had violated section 10.11.1. Second, the tribunal (the OAH) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment stating that the VHA has waived its right to enforce the covenant.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate is the government body that receives petitions for hearings concerning violations of planned community documents. These hearings are then referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

10. After the order was issued on September 8, 2020, either party could file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate. This request had to be filed within 30 days of the service of the Order.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Use the facts and legal principles from the case to construct your arguments. No answer key is provided.

1. Explain the concept of “waiver” as argued by the petitioner. Why was this argument ultimately ineffective before the Office of Administrative Hearings in this specific case?

2. Analyze the jurisdictional limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) as demonstrated in this decision. Discuss the difference between adjudicating a violation of community documents and issuing a declaratory judgment.

3. Describe the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and explain how the petitioner, Wendy Ellsworth, failed to meet this burden of proof. Consider both her initial claim and her testimony during the hearing.

4. Evaluate the petitioner’s legal strategy. What was the central flaw in her petition that prevented the Administrative Law Judge from ruling on the merits of her non-enforcement claim?

5. Based on the legal precedent cited (Powell v. Washburn), discuss the principles Arizona courts use to interpret CC&Rs. How did the judge apply this principle to the specific language of Article 10, Section 10.11.1?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson) who presides over hearings at an administrative agency (like the OAH) and issues decisions.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct.

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

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the VHA violated its CC&Rs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision.

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any actual harm has occurred. The OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction to issue such a judgment in this case.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The OAH’s jurisdiction was limited to hearing alleged violations of community documents, not requests for declaratory judgments.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state agency where the evidentiary hearing for this case was held. It conducts hearings for other state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition to start a legal action. In this case, Wendy Ellsworth.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning that the evidence presented is more convincing and likely to be true than not. It is a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, Vincenz Homeowners’ Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or a set of CC&Rs that limits the use of the property and prohibits certain uses.

Waiver

The intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right. The petitioner argued that the VHA, through its inaction, had waived its right to enforce the parking rule.

Why This Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against Her HOA Was Doomed From the Start: 3 Critical Lessons

The frustration is real. You see your neighbors breaking the rules—parking on the street, letting their lawn go—and it feels like your Homeowners’ Association (HOA) is doing nothing about it. This sense of inconsistent enforcement is one of the most common complaints homeowners have. For Wendy Ellsworth, this frustration led her to file a legal petition against the Vincenz Homeowners’ Association (VHA).

Her case, however, was dismissed. It wasn’t lost on a minor technicality or a surprise piece of evidence. It was doomed from the start because of fundamental strategic errors. By examining where she went wrong, we can uncover three powerful lessons for any homeowner considering a similar fight.

Lesson 1: You Must Accuse the Right Party of the Right Violation

Ms. Ellsworth’s core grievance was that the VHA was not enforcing its own on-street parking rules against other residents. Her formal petition, however, made a critical mistake: it accused the HOA itself of violating the community’s parking rule, CC&R Article 10 § 10.11.1.

This was a fatal flaw. That specific rule governs the actions of homeowners—prohibiting them from parking automobiles or trucks on roadways except in designated areas. It places no duty on the HOA. In her legal filing, Ms. Ellsworth failed to point to any specific rule that the HOA, as an entity, had actually broken. Her petition essentially accused the HOA of illegally parking a car, which was not her complaint at all. The judge noted this fundamental disconnect:

“Ms. Ellsworth did not even allege that VHA parked an automobile or a truck in a roadway, garage, or in an area that has not been designated for parking by the Board.”

A viable petition would have needed to identify a completely different rule—one that placed a specific duty on the HOA Board to enforce the community documents—and then allege that the Board had violated that duty. This fundamental error of misidentifying the violation was compounded by the fact that she was asking the tribunal for a remedy it had no power to grant. Accusing the wrong party of breaking the wrong rule can cause an entire case to be dismissed before its merits are even considered.

Lesson 2: The “Burden of Proof” is More Than Just a Legal Phrase

In any legal action, the person making the claim (the “petitioner”) has the “burden of proof.” This means it is their responsibility to present evidence that convinces the judge their claim is true. Ms. Ellsworth, as the petitioner, was responsible for proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

The court defined this standard as:

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

Making an accusation is easy; proving it is hard. Ms. Ellsworth’s own testimony failed to meet this standard. At the hearing, she initially testified that the VHA had never enforced the parking rule. However, when questioned further during cross-examination, she admitted that she was “unsure” whether the HOA had ever enforced it. This admission transformed her claim from an assertion of fact into mere speculation. In court, “I’m unsure” is the equivalent of having no evidence at all on that point, making it impossible for the judge to conclude her version of events was “more probably true than not.”

The lesson here is that winning requires more than just a belief you are right. You must present evidence that is solid, consistent, and more convincing than the other side’s. Weak or self-contradictory testimony undermines your own credibility and makes it nearly impossible to meet the burden of proof.

Lesson 3: You Have to Knock on the Right Legal Door

The legal system is highly specialized, and different courts and tribunals have the authority—or “jurisdiction”—to hear different types of cases. A major part of Ms. Ellsworth’s petition was the request for a “declaratory judgment,” essentially asking the judge to declare that the VHA had waived its right to enforce the parking rule in the future because of its alleged past non-enforcement.

The problem was that she brought this request to the wrong venue. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is designed to answer a simple question: “Did the HOA violate an existing rule?” Ms. Ellsworth was asking a far more complex question: “Based on past behavior, should the court declare that this rule is no longer enforceable in the future?” That forward-looking request for a “declaratory judgment” belongs in a court of general jurisdiction (like a state Superior Court), which has broader powers to interpret contracts and establish future rights, not in a specialized administrative tribunal.

The Administrative Law Judge made this point unequivocally:

“To the extent that Ms. Ellsworth is requesting a declaratory judgment that VHA has waived its right to enforce CC&R Article 10, Section 10.11.1., this tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make such a determination.”

Even if her argument about waiver had merit, it was brought before a body that was legally powerless to grant her request. This serves as a crucial reminder: filing a case in the wrong court is an automatic loss. Understanding the specific jurisdiction of the court or tribunal you are petitioning is a non-negotiable step in legal strategy.

Conclusion: Thinking Like a Lawyer, Not Just a Homeowner

Ms. Ellsworth’s case failed not because of three separate errors, but because of a single, comprehensive breakdown in legal strategy. The “what” (the specific accusation), the “how” (the burden of proof), and the “where” (the legal venue) were all fundamentally misaligned with her ultimate goal. This misalignment created a case that was legally impossible to win, regardless of how valid her underlying frustration may have been.

While a homeowner’s anger may be entirely justified, this case demonstrates that passion alone doesn’t win lawsuits. A sound legal strategy is essential. Before you challenge your HOA, have you moved past the frustration to build a case that can actually win?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Wendy Ellsworth (petitioner)
    Testified at hearing
  • Brian Hatch (petitioner attorney)
    Brian A. Hatch PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Loraine Brokaw vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Loraine Brokaw Counsel —
Respondent Sin Vacas Property Owners Association Counsel Sean K Moynihan, Esq. and Jason E Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803; Bylaws Article IV, Section 6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association’s interpretation of the Bylaws requiring uniform assessment for all CR-1 lots was incorrect or unlawful, as her lots remained separate parcels according to the county map.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements.

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% (full rate for two lots) based on the Association's interpretation that the Bylaws require uniform assessment rates for all CR-1 lots, arguing the new rate violated a long-standing prior Board Order (2003) granting her a reduced rate.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Bylaws Article IV, Covenant For Maintenance Assessments, Section 6

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Assessment Dispute, Uniform Assessment Rate, Bylaws Interpretation, Planned Community, Governing Document Precedence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:43 (137.2 KB)

19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:53 (137.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918017-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Loraine Brokaw versus the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (POA). The central conflict concerned the POA Board’s decision to increase Ms. Brokaw’s annual assessment from 150% to 200% for a single residence constructed across two separate lots.

The Petitioner, Ms. Brokaw, argued that this increase was unlawful and capricious, violating a nearly thirty-year practice that had been formalized by a 2003 Board decision granting her a reduced assessment. The POA contended that its action, taken on the advice of counsel, was necessary to comply with the Association’s governing documents, which mandate uniform assessments for all lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the homeowner’s petition. The decision established a critical legal precedent for the Association: the unambiguous language of the governing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) takes precedence over any past Board decisions, informal agreements, or long-standing practices, regardless of their duration. Because the Petitioner owns two distinct, legally unconsolidated lots, the ALJ found that the Board’s action to assess each lot at the full, uniform rate was not a violation, but rather a correct and required application of the community’s Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties: Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent).

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 19F-H1918017-REL.

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

• Hearing Date: March 25, 2019.

• Decision Date: April 01, 2019.

II. Central Issue of the Dispute

The hearing was convened to address the following issue, as stated in the NOTICE OF HEARING:

“Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements based on utterly flawed legal theory, which, in fact, changed from attorney to attorney.”

The core of the dispute was the Association Board’s decision in 2017 to increase the annual assessment for the Petitioner’s property—a single home built across two adjacent lots—from 150% to 200% of the standard single-lot assessment rate. The Petitioner sought to compel the Board to revert to the 150% assessment schedule and reimburse her for costs associated with the petition.

III. Petitioner’s Position and Key Testimony

• Property History: The Petitioner testified that her husband first bought property in Sin Vacas in 1979. In 2003, the couple purchased an adjacent lot and constructed a new home that spanned across both properties (Lots 156 and 157).

• Claim of Lot Combination: The Petitioner claimed to have legally combined the two lots but presented no supporting documentation to the tribunal.

• Historical Assessment Practice: The Petitioner testified that as of 2003, the Association’s practice was to assess properties as follows:

◦ 100%: For a home on a single lot.

◦ 25%: For an undeveloped vacant lot.

◦ 150%: For a residence situated on two lots.

• 2003 Board Decision: On March 24, 2003, the Petitioner received written confirmation from the Board that it had voted to grant her a reduced assessment of 150%, formalizing the existing practice for her property.

• 2017 Assessment Change: On or about December 4, 2017, the Petitioner received a letter from the Association’s management company advising that the Board had decided to raise her assessment to 200%, citing “advice of counsel.”

• Rationale for Increase: The Petitioner stated she was given varying reasons for the change but was ultimately informed that the Board determined all plats needed to be assessed uniformly according to the Association’s governing documents. She was also told that to be assessed as a single lot, she would need to formally combine the lots on the county plat map, a process estimated to cost between $3,000 and $10,000 and require the permission of every other homeowner in the community.

IV. Respondent’s Position

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association declined to present witnesses or exhibits. Its position at the hearing was that the dispute arose from differing interpretations of the language within the governing Bylaws. The Association’s counsel stated that the matter would be resolved based on the tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant governing texts.

V. Analysis of Governing Documents

The decision rested heavily on the interpretation of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), recorded on April 13, 1978.

Document Section

Key Provision

Relevance to the Case

Bylaws Article I, Section 5

Defines a “Lot” as “any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties.”

This established that the Petitioner’s two properties, being separately numbered on the subdivision map, constitute two distinct lots for assessment purposes.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 6

“Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”

This clause was central to the Judge’s decision. It establishes a clear mandate for uniformity in assessments across all lots of the same type (CR-1), which the 150% rate violated by treating two CR-1 lots differently from others.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 7

States the Board of Directors shall “fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot.”

This empowers the Board to set assessments but reinforces that they must do so on a per-lot basis, consistent with the uniformity requirement.

VI. Judge’s Findings and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge made the following key determinations, leading to the denial of the petition:

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated community documents or Arizona statutes.

• Undisputed Material Facts: The Judge found it undisputed that:

1. The Petitioner owns two distinct CR-1 lots (Lot 156 and Lot 157).

2. The lots have never been legally combined or consolidated on the Pima County Assessor’s plat map.

3. The Petitioner’s residence is constructed across both lots.

• Primacy of Governing Documents: The central conclusion of the decision was that the Association’s governing documents supersede any past Board decisions or long-standing informal agreements. The Judge stated:

• Uniformity is Mandatory: The Bylaws require that the Association assess all developed CR-1 lots at a uniform rate. By assessing both of the Petitioner’s lots at the same full rate as every other developed CR-1 lot, the Association was found to be complying with the Declaration.

• Board’s Action as Corrective: The 2017 Board’s action was not a breach of contract or an unlawful act. Instead, it was an appropriate correction of the previous Board’s 2003 order, which was inconsistent with the Bylaws’ uniformity mandate. The Petitioner’s argument that the 2003 order should supersede the 2017 order was deemed inaccurate.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings and legal conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

The decision affirmed that the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate Arizona state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803) or the Association’s Bylaws.

Study Guide: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

This guide reviews the key facts, legal arguments, and final ruling in the administrative hearing case No. 19F-H1918017-REL, Loraine Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in the hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Office of Administrative Hearings?

3. What specific action taken by the Respondent prompted the Petitioner to file her petition?

4. Describe the assessment practice that the Sin Vacas Board had in place for the Petitioner’s property from 2003 until the change in 2017.

5. What was the Association’s stated reason for increasing the Petitioner’s assessment from 150% to 200%?

6. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what is the rule for how special assessments must be fixed and apportioned?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the Petitioner owned two separate lots?

8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and did the Petitioner successfully meet it?

9. Why did the Judge rule that the 2003 Board Order reducing the Petitioner’s assessment was not a binding contract?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Loraine Brokaw, the Petitioner, who brought the action, and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. The Petitioner requested that the Association’s Board be compelled to honor the 30-year assessment schedule and charge her the 150% assessment rate. She also requested that the Board reimburse her for the costs of bringing the petition.

3. The Petitioner filed her petition after receiving a letter on or about December 4, 2017, from the Association’s management company. This letter advised her that the Board had decided to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% based on “advice of counsel.”

4. Beginning in 2003, the Association assessed a home on a single lot at 100%, an undeveloped vacant lot at 25%, and a residence spanning two lots, like the Petitioner’s, at 150%. The Petitioner received written confirmation of her reduced 150% assessment from the Board on March 24, 2003.

5. The Association’s Board increased the assessment after determining that all plats needed to be assessed uniformly, per the Association’s Restatement. The increase was meant to bring her two lots into compliance with the governing documents.

6. Bylaws Article IV, Section 6 states that “Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”

7. The Judge’s conclusion was based on the undisputed fact that the Petitioner’s two properties, Lots 156 and 157, have never been officially combined or consolidated into a single numbered lot on the Pima County Assessor’s Office plat map.

8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means proving a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof.

9. The Judge ruled that the 2003 Board Order was not a binding contract because the Petitioner provided no proof of consideration tendered to the Association. Therefore, the Association’s governing documents took precedence over the informal agreement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate state statutes or the Association’s Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs) and a Board Order, as interpreted in this case.

2. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” in the context of this hearing. How did the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard lead to the denial of her petition?

3. The Petitioner’s case relied heavily on past practice and a 2003 Board decision to grant her a reduced assessment. Discuss why this argument was ultimately insufficient to overcome the explicit language of the Association’s governing documents.

4. Examine the contractual nature of a homeowners’ association’s CC&Rs as described in the Findings of Fact. How does this contractual relationship between the Association and each property owner shape the obligations and rights of both parties?

5. The Respondent (Sin Vacas POA) declined to present witnesses or exhibits, taking a passive stance at the hearing. Discuss the potential legal strategy behind this approach and how the undisputed material facts of the case made this a viable option.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders.

Association

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, a homeowners’ association for the Sin Vacas subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, responsible for managing, maintaining, and improving the property.

Assessment

A fee levied by the Association on property owners to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents and for the improvement and maintenance of common areas and private streets.

Bylaws

The specific articles and sections within the CC&Rs that govern the Association’s operations, including definitions, assessment rules, and voting procedures.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents for the Association, recorded with Pima County on April 13, 1978. They form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties, with the exception of the Common Area. This case deals specifically with CR-1 lots.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers matters for evidentiary hearings. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret contracts between parties.

Petitioner

Loraine Brokaw, a property owner in the Sin Vacas subdivision and member of the Association who filed the petition against the Association.

Planned Community

A real estate development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of a nonprofit association and are required to pay assessments for the purpose of managing, maintaining, or improving the property.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the greater weight of evidence.

Respondent

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the entity against whom the petition was filed.

Select all sources
698354.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

19F-H1918017-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner challenged the Association’s decision to raise her annual assessment, arguing that the increase was arbitrary and contravened a decades-long practice of assessing her two lots at a combined 150% rate, rather than the new 200% rate. The decision outlines the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, confirming that the Association is governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws, which require uniform assessment rates for all developed lots. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated any community documents or statutes, reasoning that the governing documents take precedence over any prior informal agreement, and denied the Petitioner’s request.

1 source

What was the core legal basis for rejecting the petitioner’s assessment challenge?
How did the Association’s governing documents dictate uniform assessment requirements?
What legal implications arose from the Board’s decision to change long-standing practice?

Based on 1 source

00:00
00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Loraine Brokaw (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
  • Sean Moynihan (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Robert Brokaw (witness)
    Observed the hearing
  • Jack Juraco (witness)
    Observed the hearing