The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to fulfill records request
Petitioner alleged the Association failed to fulfill his request for copies of records within the statutory 10-day period because the Association improperly required him to inspect the documents first. The ALJ found the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, as the statute does not permit an HOA to mandate prior inspection before providing requested copies.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and ordered to henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
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)
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
22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:34 (139.0 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.
Alj Quote
Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
inspection
homeowner rights
Question
How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?
Short Answer
The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.
Alj Quote
On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
records request
HOA obligations
Question
What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records request
costs
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records review
homeowner rights
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
reimbursement
penalties
legal costs
Question
Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, if you designate them in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
representation
records request
homeowner rights
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure
Question
Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.
Detailed Answer
The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.
Alj Quote
Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
excuses
mailing
HOA obligations
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.
Alj Quote
Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
inspection
homeowner rights
Question
How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?
Short Answer
The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.
Alj Quote
On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
records request
HOA obligations
Question
What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records request
costs
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records review
homeowner rights
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
reimbursement
penalties
legal costs
Question
Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, if you designate them in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
representation
records request
homeowner rights
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure
Question
Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.
Detailed Answer
The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.
Alj Quote
Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
excuses
mailing
HOA obligations
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford Burnes(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also identified as Clifford (Norm) Burnes or Norm Burnes,,,.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(respondent attorney) Farley, Choate & Wood Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,,.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Listed as Administrative Law Judge.
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Signed the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission of the Decision.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
Other Participants
Joseph Martinez(unknown) Petitioner verbally notified him regarding the undelivered certified mail package.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to fulfill a records request
Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
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
21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:10 (114.1 KB)
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
Topic Tags
records request
exclusions
privacy
Question
Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?
Short Answer
No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.
Alj Quote
Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)
Topic Tags
records request
employees
privacy
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.
Detailed Answer
Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.
Alj Quote
Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 18
Topic Tags
evidence
records request
burden of proof
Question
Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.
Detailed Answer
Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.
Alj Quote
Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Topic Tags
board members
directors
inspection rights
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
timelines
HOA obligations
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?
Short Answer
No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.
Detailed Answer
State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
homeowner rights
Question
How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.
Detailed Answer
While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
records request
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
Topic Tags
records request
exclusions
privacy
Question
Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?
Short Answer
No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.
Alj Quote
Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)
Topic Tags
records request
employees
privacy
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?
Short Answer
You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
hearing procedure
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?
Short Answer
No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.
Detailed Answer
Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.
Alj Quote
Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 18
Topic Tags
evidence
records request
burden of proof
Question
Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?
Short Answer
Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.
Detailed Answer
Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.
Alj Quote
Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.
Legal Basis
Association Bylaws Article 11.3
Topic Tags
board members
directors
inspection rights
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael E Palacios(petitioner) Property owner and member of the Association; was appointed to the Board,
Respondent Side
Quinten T. Cupps(HOA attorney) Represented El Rio Community Association
Denise Ferreira(property manager, witness) D & E Management Owns D & E Management and was the manager for the Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Section 5
Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.
Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and legal proceedings in the case of Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The dispute, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), centered on a four-issue petition filed by the Burnes on July 17, 2020. The allegations concerned construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), specifically violations of architectural rules, failure to collect a construction deposit, violations of open meeting laws, and failure to fulfill a records request.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the Respondent on the first three issues, concluding that the association had not violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding architectural control, had properly honored a waiver for the construction deposit, and had not violated state open meeting laws. However, the ALJ found that the Respondent did violate Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the statutory 10-day deadline and by providing an incomplete set of documents.
Following the initial decision, the Petitioners were granted a rehearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and an allegedly arbitrary decision. The rehearing affirmed the original findings, as the Petitioners conceded they possessed no new evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing.
The final order requires the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee, to comply with the records request statute moving forward, and to provide the specific missing documents from the original request.
Case Background and Procedural History
The case involves property owners Clifford (Norm) and Maria Burnes, who own Lot 6 in the Saguaro Crest subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, and their homeowners’ association. The dispute arose from the construction of a new home on the adjacent Lot 7.
• July 17, 2020: The Petitioners filed a four-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• August 11, 2020: The Respondent HOA filed its answer, denying all four claims.
• August 19, 2020: The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• December 2020 & March 2021: Hearings were conducted before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.
• March 22, 2021: The initial ALJ Decision was issued, denying the Petitioners’ claims on three issues but granting their petition on the fourth issue concerning the records request.
• April 28, 2021: The Petitioners filed a Dispute Rehearing Request on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• May 21, 2021: The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.
• July 20, 2021: The rehearing was conducted.
• August 09, 2021: A Final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, affirming the original decision in its entirety.
Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The findings for each are detailed below, based on the evidence presented in the hearings.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without the required submission of documents to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval, specifically concerning modifications to the originally approved plans.
• Key Evidence:
◦ Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the ARC that unanimously approved the initial construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ On October 21, 2018, and again on April 14, 2020, Mr. Burnes expressed concerns to the HOA Board that the placement of the home on Lot 7 deviated from the approved plans, negatively impacting the view and privacy of his own home on Lot 6.
◦ In a letter, Mr. Burnes stated, “Mr. Martinez did not honer the approved plan and has placed the house in the original position,” which he claimed was disharmonious and destroyed his view.
◦ The evidence showed that no additional or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review after the initial January 2018 approval.
◦ The construction plans for Lot 7 were approved by Pima County on May 4, 2018.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ concluded that the “ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Since no modified plans were ever presented, the ARC did not violate the CC&Rs. The decision also noted that the construction complied with the local government’s building authority.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000 refundable Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Key Evidence:
◦ In a meeting on May 3, 2020, the HOA Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family (owners of Lot 7).
◦ The rationale for such waivers was that they were granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases in the subdivision.
◦ Crucially, the HOA “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ determined that it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record explaining the details of the waiver was acknowledged but considered moot because it was not a specifically “noticed issue” in the petition.
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA Board conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes, violating state open meeting laws.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Mr. Burnes requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the following day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted via unanimous written consent, as permitted under A.R.S § 10-3821, to restrict Mr. Burnes’s participation as an ARC member only on matters related to Lot 7.
◦ The Board’s written consent stated, “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.” This action was taken due to Mr. Burnes’s personal complaints against the Lot 7 owner, creating a conflict of interest.
• Conclusion:No violation found. The ALJ found that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was an excused exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it as an urgent matter. The action on May 20 was not an illegal meeting but a permissible action taken via written consent without a meeting. Furthermore, the Board did not remove Mr. Burnes from the ARC entirely, but only restricted his involvement on the specific issue where he had a conflict.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Allegation: The Petitioners claimed the HOA failed to fulfill a records request in accordance with state law.
• Key Evidence:
◦ On June 4, 2020, the Petitioners submitted a comprehensive request to review “ALL of the documents of the HOA” and for copies of documents falling into 17 specific categories, demanding fulfillment within 10 days.
◦ The statutory deadline for the HOA to comply with both the review and copy requests was June 18, 2020.
◦ The HOA made the documents available for review on June 16, 2020 (within the deadline).
◦ However, the HOA provided copies of the documents only on June 24, 2020, six days past the statutory deadline.
◦ Upon receiving the copies, Mr. Burnes notified the HOA the same day that “[S]ome of the attachments for some emails are not included within in this package from this documentation.” [sic]
• Conclusion:Violation found. The ALJ determined that the HOA violated the statute, which requires copies of requested records to be provided within ten business days. The Respondent’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline was explicitly rejected. The decision also noted that the documents provided were incomplete.
The Rehearing
The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was granted, but it did not alter the case’s outcome.
• Grounds for Rehearing: The request was based on claims of newly discovered evidence and that the original findings on issues 1-3 were arbitrary or capricious.
• Rehearing Proceedings: During the rehearing, the “Petitioners offered no ‘new’ evidence and instead conceded that they wished to present evidence which they had in their possession during the prior hearing, that they markedly had decided not to present.”
• Outcome: Because no new evidence was presented, the Petitioners were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits. The ALJ found no basis to alter the original findings and affirmed the March 22, 2021, decision.
Final Order
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated August 9, 2021, affirmed the original order. The Respondent, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, is mandated to perform the following actions:
1. Denial and Granting of Petitions: The Petitioners’ petition is denied for Issues 1, 2, and 3. The petition is granted for Issue 4.
2. Reimbursement: The Respondent must reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00, to be paid in certified funds.
3. Future Compliance: The Respondent must henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.
4. Provision of Documents: The Respondent must provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020, records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following ten questions based on the provided source documents. Each answer should be approximately two to three sentences.
1. Identify the primary parties in this legal dispute and describe their relationship within the Saguaro Crest community.
2. What were the four specific allegations the Petitioners filed against the Respondent on July 17, 2020?
3. Explain Petitioner Norm Burnes’s initial role with the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and how the Board of Directors later altered his participation.
4. Describe the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit for the construction on Lot 7.
5. What was the central grievance expressed by the Petitioners regarding the placement and construction of the new home on Lot 7?
6. What action did the Board of Directors take on May 20, 2020, without a formal, noticed meeting, and under what legal authority did they act?
7. Summarize the timeline and outcome of the Petitioners’ June 4, 2020, records request to the Association.
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule in favor of the Petitioners on Issue 4, regarding the violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805?
9. On what grounds did the Petitioners request a rehearing, and what was the judge’s finding regarding the “new evidence” they wished to present?
10. What was the final, affirmed order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Clifford (Norm) S. and Maria Burnes (the “Petitioners”) and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Respondent”). The Petitioners are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision, making them members of the Association, which is the governing body for the community.
2. The Petitioners alleged that the Association (1) improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC approval in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) allowed this construction without the required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804; and (4) failed to fulfill a records request in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
3. Petitioner Norm Burnes was named to serve as an Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member effective December 5, 2017, and he participated in the unanimous approval of the Lot 7 construction plans. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors restricted his participation as an ARC member for all matters concerning Lot 7 due to his personal complaints, which created a conflict of interest.
4. The Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines require a refundable $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit. The Board decided to honor a discretionary waiver for Lot 7, which was said to have been granted during an economic downturn to incentivize purchases, though the Association possessed no corporate record of the waiver being granted.
5. The Petitioners’ central grievance was that the house on Lot 7 was placed too close to their backyard (on Lot 6), destroying their views, violating their privacy, and causing stress. They contended that the owner of Lot 7 did not honor the approved plan and built the house in its original, unapproved position.
6. On May 20, 2020, the Board of Directors acted without a noticed meeting to restrict Petitioner Norm Burnes’s participation on the ARC for matters related to Lot 7. They acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821, which permits action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, which they obtained via individual signatures.
7. On June 4, 2020, Petitioners requested to review all Association records and receive copies of documents from 17 specific categories. The Association offered a review on June 16 (within the 10-day limit), but did not provide the requested copies until June 24, which was after the statutory deadline of June 18. Furthermore, the copies provided were incomplete, missing some email attachments.
8. The Judge ruled a violation occurred because the Association failed to provide copies of the requested records within the ten business days mandated by the statute. The Judge rejected the Association’s argument that the Petitioner’s clarification on June 16 reset the deadline, stating the Association was obligated to timely clarify and provide the documents.
9. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of “Newly discovered material evidence” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The judge found that the Petitioners offered no new evidence, but rather wished to present evidence they had possessed but strategically chose not to use in the original hearing.
10. The final, affirmed order granted the Petitioners’ petition regarding Issue 4 and denied it for Issues 1-3. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for ¼ of their filing fee ($500.00), comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 going forward, and provide the missing email attachments from the records request within 10 business days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal concept of “burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. Explain why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioners successfully met this burden for the records request violation but failed to do so for their allegations concerning the CC&Rs, the construction deposit, and the open meeting laws.
2. Discuss the role, authority, and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as depicted in the source documents. Evaluate the Saguaro Crest ARC’s actions and failures to act regarding the construction on Lot 7, and explain why the Judge determined that no violation of CC&Rs Section 5 had occurred.
3. Examine the conflict of interest involving Petitioner Norm Burnes’s dual roles as an aggrieved neighbor and a member of the ARC. Detail how this conflict emerged, the specific actions the Board of Directors took to address it, and the legal justification for those actions.
4. Trace the full timeline of events related to the Board of Directors’ meetings in April and May 2020. Analyze the Petitioners’ claim that these constituted a violation of Arizona’s open meeting laws (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804) and the Judge’s legal reasoning for concluding that no violation was established.
5. Evaluate the Petitioners’ request for a rehearing. Based on the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, explain the legal standard for granting a rehearing based on “newly discovered material evidence” and why the Petitioners’ offer of proof failed to meet this standard.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders in the case.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee established by the Association’s CC&Rs, charged with implementing Architectural Guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards within the community. In this case, Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Specific statutes, such as § 33-1804 (open meeting laws) and § 33-1805 (records access), were central to this case.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The overseeing body of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, comprised of a President, Vice President, and Treasurer.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Saguaro Crest community that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling aspects of property use.
Construction Compliance Deposit (CCD)
A refundable $5,000.00 deposit required by Section 4.0 of the Association’s Architectural Design Guidelines, which became a point of contention regarding Lot 7.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona where the evidentiary hearings for this case were held.
Petitioners
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes and Maria Burnes, the property owners of Lot 6 who filed the petition against the Homeowners Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not true.
Respondent
The Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., the non-profit corporation governing the subdivision and the party against whom the petition was filed.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
He Sued His HOA and Won… Sort Of. 4 Shocking Lessons from a Neighbor vs. HOA Showdown
Introduction: The Neighbor’s Nightmare
It’s a scenario that sparks anxiety for any homeowner: you look out your window and see the first signs of a new construction project on the property next door. The questions immediately flood your mind. Will it block my view? Will I lose my privacy? Will this new structure change the character of the neighborhood I love?
When a decision by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) feels threatening, the impulse to fight back is strong. But what does that fight actually look like, and what does it mean to “win”?
The real-life case of the Burnes family versus the Saguaro Crest HOA in Arizona provides a masterclass in the unexpected realities of neighbor-versus-HOA disputes. They took their fight to an administrative hearing, and the official legal decision reveals surprising and counter-intuitive lessons for any homeowner. Here are the four most impactful takeaways from that legal showdown—critical warnings for anyone who thinks going to battle with their HOA is a straightforward affair.
1. He Helped Approve the Plans He Grew to Hate
In a turn of profound irony, the petitioner leading the charge against the HOA, Mr. Norm Burnes, was a serving member of the very committee that set the entire conflict in motion: the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC).
On January 3, 2018, the ARC, including Mr. Burnes, unanimously approved the construction plans for the neighboring home on Lot 7. At the time, they were just plans on paper. But more than two years would pass before Mr. Burnes raised an alarm—long after the abstract lines on a page had become concrete and steel next door. On April 14, 2020, with construction underway, the reality of the new build became a personal grievance. Mr. Burnes wrote to the board, explaining that the new house was a “constant source of stress” for his family, that his privacy was “violated / gone,” and that his cherished views were “destroyed.”
In his own words, the impact was devastating:
“A large part of the value to me for my house was the view from the back patio. That’s gone now. The view from my kitchen and bedroom windows are destroyed.”
This is a powerful lesson in unintended consequences. It reveals how abstract plans can become deeply personal issues once construction begins. More importantly, it highlights the inherent conflict that can arise when a homeowner acts in an official capacity for the community while also trying to protect their own personal interests.
2. The HOA Won on Substance, But Lost on a Technicality
The Burnes family filed a formal petition with four distinct allegations against their HOA. In a striking outcome, the judge sided with the HOA on the three major, substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.
• Construction Plans: The judge found the HOA was not at fault for the final build. No modified plans were ever submitted for the ARC to review after the initial approval, and the construction itself complied with the local government’s authority.
• $5,000 Deposit: The judge concluded that the Lot 7 owner had been granted a waiver for the required construction deposit, even though the HOA lacked a formal record of it—a stroke of luck for the board that highlights the critical importance of meticulous record-keeping.
• Improper Meeting: The judge determined that the Board had not improperly removed Mr. Burnes from the ARC; they had only “removed [him] as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7,” a targeted recusal due to his direct conflict of interest, not a full removal from the committee. Furthermore, the meeting Mr. Burnes complained about was deemed a valid emergency meeting held at his own request.
Despite winning on these core points, the HOA was found in violation of the law on the fourth issue: a simple procedural error. The HOA had violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide copies of requested records within the legally mandated 10-business day deadline. While the HOA allowed the Burnes family to review the documents on time (on June 16, within the June 18 deadline), they failed to provide the physical copies until June 24, four business days past the legal deadline.
This demonstrates a critical lesson for any organization. An entity can win the arguments on major issues but still be found in violation of the law for a minor administrative slip-up. Procedural diligence isn’t just good practice; it’s a legal requirement that can define the outcome of a case.
3. A Legal “Victory” Doesn’t Always Solve the Real Problem
So, what did the Burnes family “win” after their long and stressful legal battle? The judge’s final order was clear and specific. They received:
• A reimbursement of 1/4 of their filing fee ($500).
• An order for the HOA to provide the missing email attachments from their records request.
• An order for the HOA to comply with the records-request law in the future.
This outcome stands in stark contrast to Mr. Burnes’s original, deeply personal complaint. His fight began because the new house was a “constant source of stress” and had destroyed his backyard view. The legal ruling, however, did nothing to halt or alter the construction on Lot 7. The neighbor’s house, the very source of the entire conflict, remained exactly where it was.
This is a sobering look at the difference between a legal remedy and a practical solution. Winning in an administrative hearing is defined strictly by the letter of the law. The legal system addresses violations of statutes and governing documents, which may not align with—or offer any solution for—the personal grievance that ignited the conflict in the first place.
4. You Don’t Get a Do-Over for a Bad Strategy
Unhappy with the initial decision, the petitioners filed for a rehearing. The official grounds they cited were serious: they claimed to have “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.”
But when the rehearing began, the reality was quite different. As stated in the final decision, the petitioners conceded that they possessed no new evidence at all. Instead, they admitted they had strategically chosen not to present certain evidence during the first hearing and were now asking for a second chance to do so.
The judge’s response was swift and decisive. The petitioners were “precluded from recalling… witnesses, or offering additional exhibits,” and the original decision was affirmed.
This serves as a stark reminder that legal proceedings are formal and final. A trial or administrative hearing is not a practice run. The petitioners’ admission that they deliberately withheld evidence was a fatal strategic error, turning their request for a second chance into a confirmation of their first failure.
Conclusion: The Letter vs. The Spirit of the Law
The showdown between the Burnes family and the Saguaro Crest HOA is a compelling story of unintended consequences, procedural missteps, and strategic blunders. But taken together, the lessons reveal a single, powerful truth: the legal system is designed to correct violations of law, not to soothe personal grievances. The family won on a paperwork technicality but lost on every issue that mattered to their quality of life. The HOA won on the substance of the dispute but was penalized for failing to follow administrative rules.
The case leaves us with a critical question to consider. When you find yourself in a dispute, is it more important to be legally ‘right,’ or to find a practical resolution? As the Burnes family discovered, the two are not always the same thing.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford Burnes(petitioner/ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Also known as Norm S. Burnes
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Cynthia F. Burnes(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Jacob A. Kubert(petitioner attorney) Counsel for Petitioners
Debora Brown(witness) Witness for Petitioners
Respondent Side
John Crotty(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent
Kelsea Dressen(respondent attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood Counsel for Respondent (also listed as Kelsey P. Dressen)
Esmerelda Martinez(board member/witness) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Vice President
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Treasurer
Raul Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Ramona Martinez(lot owner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. Owner of Lot 7
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jamie Argueta(ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of order transmission (listed as DGardner)
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted decision/order
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)
Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:27 (167.3 KB)
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)
21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120020-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.
The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.
Case Overview
Entity
Details
Case Number
21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Petitioners
Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes
Respondent
Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Central Allegation
Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Final Order Date
February 2, 2022
Outcome
Petition Denied.
Chronology of Key Events
• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.
• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.
• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.
• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.
• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.
• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.
• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.
• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.
• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.
• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.
• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.
• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.
• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.
• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.
Central Legal Arguments
The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.
Petitioners’ Position
• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.
• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”
• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.
• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”
Respondent’s Position
• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.
• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.
• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”
• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order
The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.
Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.
2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.
4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.
5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120020-REL
Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?
2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?
3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?
4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?
5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.
6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?
7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?
8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?
10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.
2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.
3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.
4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.
5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.
6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.
7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.
8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.
1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.
2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.
3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?
4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.
5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in the Context of the Document
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.
Association / Respondent
The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.
Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)
A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
Petitioners
Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.
Redacted
Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.
Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)
The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120020-REL
Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.
Introduction: The Fight for Transparency
As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”
1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”
The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.
Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.
This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.
2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense
The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.
This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:
The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.
This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.
3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole
The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.
• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.
• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.
In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.
Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story
This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.
In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Sandra Swanson(petitioner)
Robert Barnes(petitioner)
Kristin Roebuck Bethell(petitioner attorney) Horne Siaton, PLLC Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,
Respondent Side
Jeremy Johnson(respondent attorney) Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
Samantha Cote(respondent attorney) Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
Patricia Ahler(witness) Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Amanda Stewart(witness) Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Jennifer Amundson(witness) Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Regis Salazar(witness) Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Clint Goodman(HOA attorney) Vision Community Management, LLC Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner during initial decision phase
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
Dan Gardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,
The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
CC&Rs Section 5
Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.
Orders: Petition denied.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821
Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805
Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.
Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.
Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 866263.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:10 (268.5 KB)
21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:42 (239.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120002-REL
Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.
Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.
However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.
I. Background and Procedural History
The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.
Procedural Timeline
July 17, 2020
Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
August 11, 2020
Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.
Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021
An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
March 22, 2021
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.
April 28, 2021
Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.
May 21, 2021
The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
July 20, 2021
The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.
August 09, 2021
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.
Key Parties
Name / Entity
Clifford & Maria Burnes
Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.
Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Counsel for Petitioners.
Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.
Respondent.
John Crotty, Esq.
Counsel for Respondent.
Norm Burnes
Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.
Raul & Ramona Martinez
Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings
The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.
• Factual Record:
◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.
◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.
◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.
• Factual Record:
◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.
◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.
◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.
Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.
• Factual Record:
◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.
◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”
◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”
• Conclusion of Law:No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.
Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)
• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.
• Factual Record:
◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.
◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.
◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.
◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.
◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”
• Conclusion of Law:Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.
III. Final Order and Directives
The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.
• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).
• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.
• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.
• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL
Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case, and what is their fundamental relationship?
2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.
3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?
4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?
5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?
6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.
7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?
8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?
9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?
10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.
5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.
6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.
7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.
8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.
9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.
10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?
2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.
3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.
4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?
5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)
The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Offer of Proof
A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioners
The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL
🧑⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
1 source
The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
Maria Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
Jacob A. Kubert(attorney)
Cynthia F. Burnes(attorney)
Debora Brown(witness)
Respondent Side
John Crotty(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Kelsea Dressen(attorney) Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Martinez(board president; witness) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors President of the Board
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Vice President of the Board
Julie Stevens(board member) Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors Treasurer of the Board
Raul Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7 and 13 Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
Ramona Martinez(property owner) Owner of Lot 7
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Sadot Negreté(observer)
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE contact) Arizona Department of Real Estate Also listed as DGardner
c. serrano(administrative staff) Office of Administrative Hearings
Other Participants
Jamie Argueta(ARC member; property seller) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
Joseph Martinez(ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Jesus Carranza(substitute ARC member) Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Key Issues & Findings
Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request
Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.
Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)
Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120006-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association
Executive Summary
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.
Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.
The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.
Case Overview
Case Name
Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent
Case Number
21F-H2120006-REL
Jurisdiction
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Hearing Date
October 22, 2020
Decision Date
October 30, 2020
Key Parties
Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)
Core Dispute: The Records Request
The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.
Breakdown of the Records Request:
• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.
• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.
• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.
• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.
HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)
• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.
• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.
• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.
• Requested Relief:
1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.
3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)
• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.
• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”
• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.
• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”
• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.
Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion
The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.
• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”
• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.
• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.
• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Final Order
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:
Outcome
Petitioner’s Petition
Denied
Request for Civil Penalty
Denied
Reimbursement of Filing Fee
Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)
The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.
Study Guide – 21F-H2120006-REL
Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?
2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?
3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?
4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?
5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?
6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?
8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?
10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.
3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.
4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.
5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.
6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.
7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.
8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.
9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.
10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.
3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?
4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.
5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.
Burden of Proof
The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.
Department of Real Estate (“Department”)
The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.
Hidden Valley Association (HVA)
The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
HOAMCO
The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.
Blog Post – 21F-H2120006-REL
Select all sources
834142.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2120006-REL
1 source
The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.
What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?
Audio Overview
Video Overview Video Overview
Mind Map Mind Map
Reports Reports
Flashcards Flashcards
Quiz Quiz
00:00 / 00:00
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Douglas E. Kupel(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Timothy Butterfield(HOA attorney) Hidden Valley Association Represented Respondent
Gary Freed(board member) Hidden Valley Association Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Received service of the Order
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Baillio
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.
Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).
Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Individuals
Tom Barrs
Petitioner, Homeowner
Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.
Respondent, HOA
Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
Brian Schoeffler
Witness for Respondent
Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
Catherine Overby
Association President
Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
Lori Loch-Lee
VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.
Core Legal Issue
The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.
Timeline of Key Events
July 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
November 1, 2018
Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.
November 18, 2018
The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.
December 17, 2018
Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
March 6, 2019
Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.
March 11, 2019
Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.
March 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
April 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.
June 10, 2019
Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.
August 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
September 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)
• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”
• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.
• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.
• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)
• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.
• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.
• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.
• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.
Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)
• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.
• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.
——————————————————————————–
Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)
Basis for Rehearing
The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.
New Evidence and Revised Testimony
• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.
• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)
• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
• Final Order:
1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Judicial Quotes
On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”
On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?
4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?
5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?
7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?
8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?
9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?
10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.
4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.
5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.
7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.
8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.
9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.
10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?
2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.
3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.
1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System
Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word
The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.
Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon
Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.
The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”
This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.
4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”
Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.
This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.
But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance
The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:
• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.
• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.
6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact
The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.
How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner/witness) Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
Jonathan Dessaules(attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(respondent)
Brian Schoeffler(EDC chairman/witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
Catherine Overby(HOA president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Association President; records request recipient
Lori Loch-Lee(VP Client Services) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Management company contact; records request recipient
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
full
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$500.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Counsel
B. Austin Baillio
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Tom Barrs' records request. The petition was granted, requiring the Association to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Why this result: The Association failed to provide the full requested documentation (EDC actions, written requests, and approvals) within the deadline, providing only a summary table,. The Association's justification for non-compliance based on improper submission was rejected because the Petitioner had been directed by the Association to send requests to the EDC Chairman.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.
Petitioner requested EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) for October 2017 through October 2018 on November 1, 2018,. The Association responded with only a summary table on November 18, 2018, which did not include the totality of the communications requested. The ALJ concluded that the Association's summary table provided was a violation of the statute,, especially since the Petitioner was not required to send the request to all Board members due to previous instructions.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A),.
Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.
An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.
Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Individuals
Tom Barrs
Petitioner, Homeowner
Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.
Respondent, HOA
Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.
Brian Schoeffler
Witness for Respondent
Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
Catherine Overby
Association President
Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
Lori Loch-Lee
VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.
Core Legal Issue
The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.
Timeline of Key Events
July 19, 2017
Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.
November 1, 2018
Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.
November 18, 2018
The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.
December 17, 2018
Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
March 6, 2019
Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.
March 11, 2019
Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.
March 21, 2019
The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
April 10, 2019
The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.
June 10, 2019
Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.
August 27, 2019
A rehearing is held at the OAH.
September 12, 2019
The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
——————————————————————————–
Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)
Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)
• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”
• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.
• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.
• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.
Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)
• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.
• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.
• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.
• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.
Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)
• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.
• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”
• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.
——————————————————————————–
Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)
Basis for Rehearing
The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.
New Evidence and Revised Testimony
• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.
• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.
Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)
• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
• Final Order:
1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.
3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.
Key Judicial Quotes
On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”
On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”
On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”
Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.
1. Who are the Petitioner and Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?
2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?
3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?
4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?
5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?
6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?
7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?
8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?
9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?
10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.
2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.
4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.
5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.
6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.
7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.
8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.
9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.
10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?
2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.
3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?
4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.
5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
A.R.S. § 33-1805
The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Environmental Design Committee (EDC)
A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.
1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System
Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.
2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word
The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:
“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”
The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.
Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.
3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon
Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.
The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”
This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.
4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”
Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.
This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.
But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.
5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance
The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:
• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.
• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.
6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact
The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.
How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner/witness) Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
Jonathan Dessaules(attorney) Dessaules Law Group Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(respondent)
Brian Schoeffler(EDC chairman/witness) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
Catherine Overby(HOA president) Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Association President; records request recipient
Lori Loch-Lee(VP Client Services) Associated Asset Management (AAM) Management company contact; records request recipient
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Architectural Committee meetings of the HOA were not 'regularly scheduled' within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, and therefore the HOA was not required to hold them open to association members.
Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove that the committee meetings met the requirement of being 'regularly scheduled' because the committee did not meet at fixed or uniform intervals, but rather considered applications as they were received.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Architectural Committee meetings are 'regularly scheduled' and thus required to be open to members.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings of its Architectural Committee (ARC). The ALJ found that because the ARC did not meet on a set schedule or at uniform intervals, it did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings as required by the statute, and thus was not required to be open.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Architectural Review Committee, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919047-REL Decision – 713039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:01 (89.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919047-REL
Briefing Document: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Victor L. Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL. The central issue was whether the homeowner association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in violation of Arizona state law by not holding open meetings for its members.
The petition, brought by Mr. Pattarozzi, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Judge found that since the ARC did not meet at fixed, uniform, or recurring intervals, but rather on an as-needed basis to review applications, its meetings were not “regularly scheduled” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the legal requirement for such meetings to be open to all association members did not apply. The Judge further determined that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings explicitly referenced only the association’s and board of directors’ meetings, not committee meetings, and therefore could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Case Overview
Case Number
19F-H1919047-REL
Petitioner
Victor L. Pattarozzi
Respondent
Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
May 16, 2019
Decision Date
June 5, 2019
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Allegation: The Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee (referred to as the Architectural Review Committee or ARC).
Defense: The Respondent association contended that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.”
Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”
The case revolved entirely around the interpretation of a key phrase within Arizona’s planned community statutes.
“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”
The core legal question was whether the ARC’s method of conducting business constituted “regularly scheduled” meetings.
Competing Arguments
• Petitioner’s Position (Mr. Pattarozzi):
◦ Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the association could hold weekly ARC meetings and simply cancel them if no applications were pending for review.
◦ He supplied dictionary definitions for “regular” and “regularly” to support his interpretation:
▪ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals”.
▪ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”.
◦ He also contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as outlined in subsection 33-1804(F), should be broadly construed to require ARC meetings to be open.
• Respondent’s Position (Estrella Vista HOA):
◦ The association maintained that its ARC meetings were not required to be open because they do not occur on a set schedule. Instead, they are convened only as needed when applications are received.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined the specific operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee.
• Composition and Process: The ARC consists of five members. It does not meet on a predetermined schedule. Instead, applications are forwarded by the management company to the Board President, Stuart Glenn.
• “Rubber Stamp” Approvals: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, such as solar panel installations and repainting with a pre-approved color. These requests are approved without further review by the full committee.
• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019. Of these, eight were subject to the “rubber stamp” approval process.
• Non-Standard Applications: For any application not meeting the rubber-stamp criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards it to the other four ARC members, who individually report back on their approval or disapproval.
Legal Reasoning and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law provided a detailed statutory interpretation that led to the dismissal of the petition.
Interpretation of “Regularly Scheduled”
The Judge determined that the legislature intentionally distinguished between different types of meetings. While the law mandates that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors must be open, it applies a specific qualifier—”regularly scheduled”—to committee meetings. This implies that not all committee meetings must be open.
The Judge adopted the Petitioner’s second definition of “regular”: “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” This interpretation was deemed to provide a fair and sensible result.
The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s first definition—”done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”—on the grounds that it would render the word “regular” redundant. The Judge reasoned that all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, so applying this definition would make the statutory language trivial.
Rejection of the “Open Meeting Policy” Argument
The Petitioner argued that subsection 33-1804(F), which declares a state policy in favor of open meetings, should apply. The Judge rejected this argument based on the specific text of the statute:
“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly ….”
The Judge noted that this policy statement explicitly references only meetings of the “members’ association” and the “board of directors,” and omits any mention of committee meetings. Therefore, the policy could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Final Order
Ruling: IT IS ORDERED that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition is dismissed.
Justification: The Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that the ARC “does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of” the statute.
Next Steps: The decision is binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1919047-REL
Study Guide: Pattarozzi v. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919047-REL, concerning a dispute between Victor L. Pattarozzi and the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association. The guide includes a quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific violation did Petitioner Victor L. Pattarozzi allege against the Respondent, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association?
3. What was the central argument made by the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association to defend its Architectural Review Committee’s meeting practices?
4. Describe the composition of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and its method for reviewing applications.
5. What was the “rubber stamp” process used by the ARC, and how many of the 12 applications received in 2019 were approved this way?
6. What suggestion did Mr. Pattarozzi offer for how the ARC could schedule its meetings to comply with his interpretation of the statute?
7. Which of Mr. Pattarozzi’s proposed definitions for the word “regular” did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately accept as the most appropriate interpretation in this context?
8. According to the judge’s Conclusions of Law, why was Mr. Pattarozzi’s argument regarding the open meetings policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F) rejected?
9. Who bears the burden of proof in this matter, and what is the required standard of proof?
10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case, and on what date was it issued?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Pattarozzi appeared on his own behalf, while the HOA was represented by Andrew Apodaca, Esq. and its Board president, Stuart Glenn.
2. Mr. Pattarozzi alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1804 and 33-1805. His specific claim was that the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was failing to hold open meetings as required by section 33-1804.
3. The HOA’s position was that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to all members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.” The statute only mandates that “regularly scheduled committee meetings” must be open.
4. The ARC consists of five members and does not meet on a set schedule, instead considering applications as they are received. The Board president, Mr. Glenn, receives applications, determines if they meet “rubber-stamp” criteria, and if not, forwards them to the other four members for their agreement or disagreement.
5. The “rubber stamp” process was a pre-approved method for approving requests for solar panels and repainting using preapproved colors without further review. Of the twelve applications received by the ARC in 2019, eight were subject to this rubber-stamp approval.
6. Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the Respondent could schedule ARC meetings on a weekly basis. If there were no applications pending for a given week, the HOA could simply cancel the meeting.
7. The judge accepted Mr. Pattarozzi’s second definition of “regular,” which was “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” The judge concluded this meant only committee meetings scheduled on a recurring basis at uniform intervals must be open.
8. The argument was rejected because the policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F) explicitly references only the “meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors.” Because committee meetings were not mentioned in that specific subsection, the judge ruled that its strong policy in favor of open meetings did not apply to them.
9. The Petitioner, Mr. Pattarozzi, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to decide all issues in the matter is a “preponderance of the evidence.”
10. The final Order was that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition be dismissed. This Order was issued on June 5, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Discuss how the judge used principles of statutory interpretation, such as giving meaning to every word and considering legislative intent, to differentiate between board meetings and committee meetings.
2. Evaluate the strength of Victor L. Pattarozzi’s case. What were his key arguments, including his use of dictionary definitions and the policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F), and why did the judge ultimately find them unconvincing?
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Explain how this standard of proof applied to Mr. Pattarozzi’s petition and why he failed to meet it.
4. Examine the operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). How did the “rubber stamp” process and the ad-hoc nature of their meetings support the Respondent’s position that the meetings were not “regularly scheduled”?
5. Based on the judge’s reasoning, what specific changes would the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association’s Architectural Committee need to make for its meetings to be considered “regularly scheduled” and therefore required to be open to all members under Arizona law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
An official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal decisions and orders.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee of the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, consisting of five members, responsible for reviewing and approving member applications for things like solar panels and house painting.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a set of state regulations. In this case, § R2-19-119 established the standard of proof.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Sections 33-1804 and 33-1805 were the statutes central to this case.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Mr. Pattarozzi.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency with legal authority over this matter, which issued the initial Notice of Hearing.
Dismissed
The legal term for the final Order in this case, meaning the Petitioner’s petition was rejected and no action was taken against the Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The venue where the hearing for this case was held on May 16, 2019.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another. In this case, Victor L. Pattarozzi.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association.
Statutory Interpretation
The process by which judges interpret and apply legislation. The decision outlines several principles, such as giving words their ordinary meanings and ensuring no part of a statute is redundant.
Blog Post – 19F-H1919047-REL
Briefing Document: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Victor L. Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL. The central issue was whether the homeowner association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in violation of Arizona state law by not holding open meetings for its members.
The petition, brought by Mr. Pattarozzi, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Judge found that since the ARC did not meet at fixed, uniform, or recurring intervals, but rather on an as-needed basis to review applications, its meetings were not “regularly scheduled” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the legal requirement for such meetings to be open to all association members did not apply. The Judge further determined that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings explicitly referenced only the association’s and board of directors’ meetings, not committee meetings, and therefore could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Case Overview
Case Number
19F-H1919047-REL
Petitioner
Victor L. Pattarozzi
Respondent
Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
May 16, 2019
Decision Date
June 5, 2019
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Allegation: The Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee (referred to as the Architectural Review Committee or ARC).
Defense: The Respondent association contended that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.”
Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”
The case revolved entirely around the interpretation of a key phrase within Arizona’s planned community statutes.
“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”
The core legal question was whether the ARC’s method of conducting business constituted “regularly scheduled” meetings.
Competing Arguments
• Petitioner’s Position (Mr. Pattarozzi):
◦ Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the association could hold weekly ARC meetings and simply cancel them if no applications were pending for review.
◦ He supplied dictionary definitions for “regular” and “regularly” to support his interpretation:
▪ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals”.
▪ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”.
◦ He also contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as outlined in subsection 33-1804(F), should be broadly construed to require ARC meetings to be open.
• Respondent’s Position (Estrella Vista HOA):
◦ The association maintained that its ARC meetings were not required to be open because they do not occur on a set schedule. Instead, they are convened only as needed when applications are received.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined the specific operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee.
• Composition and Process: The ARC consists of five members. It does not meet on a predetermined schedule. Instead, applications are forwarded by the management company to the Board President, Stuart Glenn.
• “Rubber Stamp” Approvals: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, such as solar panel installations and repainting with a pre-approved color. These requests are approved without further review by the full committee.
• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019. Of these, eight were subject to the “rubber stamp” approval process.
• Non-Standard Applications: For any application not meeting the rubber-stamp criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards it to the other four ARC members, who individually report back on their approval or disapproval.
Legal Reasoning and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law provided a detailed statutory interpretation that led to the dismissal of the petition.
Interpretation of “Regularly Scheduled”
The Judge determined that the legislature intentionally distinguished between different types of meetings. While the law mandates that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors must be open, it applies a specific qualifier—”regularly scheduled”—to committee meetings. This implies that not all committee meetings must be open.
The Judge adopted the Petitioner’s second definition of “regular”: “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” This interpretation was deemed to provide a fair and sensible result.
The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s first definition—”done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”—on the grounds that it would render the word “regular” redundant. The Judge reasoned that all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, so applying this definition would make the statutory language trivial.
Rejection of the “Open Meeting Policy” Argument
The Petitioner argued that subsection 33-1804(F), which declares a state policy in favor of open meetings, should apply. The Judge rejected this argument based on the specific text of the statute:
“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly ….”
The Judge noted that this policy statement explicitly references only meetings of the “members’ association” and the “board of directors,” and omits any mention of committee meetings. Therefore, the policy could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Final Order
Ruling: IT IS ORDERED that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition is dismissed.
Justification: The Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that the ARC “does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of” the statute.
Next Steps: The decision is binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Victor L Pattarozzi(petitioner) Appeared and testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Andrew Apodaca(attorney) Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna, Enos & Treadwell-Rubin, P.C. Attorney for Respondent Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Stuart Glenn(board member) Estrella Vista Homeowners Association Board president who presented testimony for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal
Felicia Del Sol(Administrative Staff) Listed in the final section of the document
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Architectural Committee meetings of the HOA were not 'regularly scheduled' within the meaning of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804, and therefore the HOA was not required to hold them open to association members.
Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove that the committee meetings met the requirement of being 'regularly scheduled' because the committee did not meet at fixed or uniform intervals, but rather considered applications as they were received.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Architectural Committee meetings are 'regularly scheduled' and thus required to be open to members.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings of its Architectural Committee (ARC). The ALJ found that because the ARC did not meet on a set schedule or at uniform intervals, it did not hold 'regularly scheduled' meetings as required by the statute, and thus was not required to be open.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
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)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Architectural Review Committee, Statutory Interpretation, Regularly Scheduled
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
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)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
19F-H1919047-REL Decision – 713039.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:08 (89.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919047-REL
Briefing Document: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Victor L. Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL. The central issue was whether the homeowner association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in violation of Arizona state law by not holding open meetings for its members.
The petition, brought by Mr. Pattarozzi, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Judge found that since the ARC did not meet at fixed, uniform, or recurring intervals, but rather on an as-needed basis to review applications, its meetings were not “regularly scheduled” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the legal requirement for such meetings to be open to all association members did not apply. The Judge further determined that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings explicitly referenced only the association’s and board of directors’ meetings, not committee meetings, and therefore could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Case Overview
Case Number
19F-H1919047-REL
Petitioner
Victor L. Pattarozzi
Respondent
Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
May 16, 2019
Decision Date
June 5, 2019
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Allegation: The Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee (referred to as the Architectural Review Committee or ARC).
Defense: The Respondent association contended that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.”
Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”
The case revolved entirely around the interpretation of a key phrase within Arizona’s planned community statutes.
“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”
The core legal question was whether the ARC’s method of conducting business constituted “regularly scheduled” meetings.
Competing Arguments
• Petitioner’s Position (Mr. Pattarozzi):
◦ Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the association could hold weekly ARC meetings and simply cancel them if no applications were pending for review.
◦ He supplied dictionary definitions for “regular” and “regularly” to support his interpretation:
▪ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals”.
▪ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”.
◦ He also contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as outlined in subsection 33-1804(F), should be broadly construed to require ARC meetings to be open.
• Respondent’s Position (Estrella Vista HOA):
◦ The association maintained that its ARC meetings were not required to be open because they do not occur on a set schedule. Instead, they are convened only as needed when applications are received.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined the specific operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee.
• Composition and Process: The ARC consists of five members. It does not meet on a predetermined schedule. Instead, applications are forwarded by the management company to the Board President, Stuart Glenn.
• “Rubber Stamp” Approvals: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, such as solar panel installations and repainting with a pre-approved color. These requests are approved without further review by the full committee.
• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019. Of these, eight were subject to the “rubber stamp” approval process.
• Non-Standard Applications: For any application not meeting the rubber-stamp criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards it to the other four ARC members, who individually report back on their approval or disapproval.
Legal Reasoning and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law provided a detailed statutory interpretation that led to the dismissal of the petition.
Interpretation of “Regularly Scheduled”
The Judge determined that the legislature intentionally distinguished between different types of meetings. While the law mandates that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors must be open, it applies a specific qualifier—”regularly scheduled”—to committee meetings. This implies that not all committee meetings must be open.
The Judge adopted the Petitioner’s second definition of “regular”: “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” This interpretation was deemed to provide a fair and sensible result.
The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s first definition—”done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”—on the grounds that it would render the word “regular” redundant. The Judge reasoned that all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, so applying this definition would make the statutory language trivial.
Rejection of the “Open Meeting Policy” Argument
The Petitioner argued that subsection 33-1804(F), which declares a state policy in favor of open meetings, should apply. The Judge rejected this argument based on the specific text of the statute:
“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly ….”
The Judge noted that this policy statement explicitly references only meetings of the “members’ association” and the “board of directors,” and omits any mention of committee meetings. Therefore, the policy could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Final Order
Ruling: IT IS ORDERED that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition is dismissed.
Justification: The Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that the ARC “does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of” the statute.
Next Steps: The decision is binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Study Guide – 19F-H1919047-REL
Study Guide: Pattarozzi v. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919047-REL, concerning a dispute between Victor L. Pattarozzi and the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association. The guide includes a quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?
2. What specific violation did Petitioner Victor L. Pattarozzi allege against the Respondent, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association?
3. What was the central argument made by the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association to defend its Architectural Review Committee’s meeting practices?
4. Describe the composition of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and its method for reviewing applications.
5. What was the “rubber stamp” process used by the ARC, and how many of the 12 applications received in 2019 were approved this way?
6. What suggestion did Mr. Pattarozzi offer for how the ARC could schedule its meetings to comply with his interpretation of the statute?
7. Which of Mr. Pattarozzi’s proposed definitions for the word “regular” did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately accept as the most appropriate interpretation in this context?
8. According to the judge’s Conclusions of Law, why was Mr. Pattarozzi’s argument regarding the open meetings policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F) rejected?
9. Who bears the burden of proof in this matter, and what is the required standard of proof?
10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case, and on what date was it issued?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Pattarozzi appeared on his own behalf, while the HOA was represented by Andrew Apodaca, Esq. and its Board president, Stuart Glenn.
2. Mr. Pattarozzi alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1804 and 33-1805. His specific claim was that the HOA’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was failing to hold open meetings as required by section 33-1804.
3. The HOA’s position was that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to all members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.” The statute only mandates that “regularly scheduled committee meetings” must be open.
4. The ARC consists of five members and does not meet on a set schedule, instead considering applications as they are received. The Board president, Mr. Glenn, receives applications, determines if they meet “rubber-stamp” criteria, and if not, forwards them to the other four members for their agreement or disagreement.
5. The “rubber stamp” process was a pre-approved method for approving requests for solar panels and repainting using preapproved colors without further review. Of the twelve applications received by the ARC in 2019, eight were subject to this rubber-stamp approval.
6. Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the Respondent could schedule ARC meetings on a weekly basis. If there were no applications pending for a given week, the HOA could simply cancel the meeting.
7. The judge accepted Mr. Pattarozzi’s second definition of “regular,” which was “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” The judge concluded this meant only committee meetings scheduled on a recurring basis at uniform intervals must be open.
8. The argument was rejected because the policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F) explicitly references only the “meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors.” Because committee meetings were not mentioned in that specific subsection, the judge ruled that its strong policy in favor of open meetings did not apply to them.
9. The Petitioner, Mr. Pattarozzi, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof required to decide all issues in the matter is a “preponderance of the evidence.”
10. The final Order was that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition be dismissed. This Order was issued on June 5, 2019.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Discuss how the judge used principles of statutory interpretation, such as giving meaning to every word and considering legislative intent, to differentiate between board meetings and committee meetings.
2. Evaluate the strength of Victor L. Pattarozzi’s case. What were his key arguments, including his use of dictionary definitions and the policy statement in subsection 33-1804(F), and why did the judge ultimately find them unconvincing?
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Explain how this standard of proof applied to Mr. Pattarozzi’s petition and why he failed to meet it.
4. Examine the operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). How did the “rubber stamp” process and the ad-hoc nature of their meetings support the Respondent’s position that the meetings were not “regularly scheduled”?
5. Based on the judge’s reasoning, what specific changes would the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association’s Architectural Committee need to make for its meetings to be considered “regularly scheduled” and therefore required to be open to all members under Arizona law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge
An official, in this case Thomas Shedden, who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal decisions and orders.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
A committee of the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, consisting of five members, responsible for reviewing and approving member applications for things like solar panels and house painting.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE
The Arizona Administrative Code, a set of state regulations. In this case, § R2-19-119 established the standard of proof.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Sections 33-1804 and 33-1805 were the statutes central to this case.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this matter, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Mr. Pattarozzi.
Department of Real Estate
The Arizona state agency with legal authority over this matter, which issued the initial Notice of Hearing.
Dismissed
The legal term for the final Order in this case, meaning the Petitioner’s petition was rejected and no action was taken against the Respondent.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The venue where the hearing for this case was held on May 16, 2019.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another. In this case, Victor L. Pattarozzi.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association.
Statutory Interpretation
The process by which judges interpret and apply legislation. The decision outlines several principles, such as giving words their ordinary meanings and ensuring no part of a statute is redundant.
Blog Post – 19F-H1919047-REL
Briefing Document: Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL)
Executive Summary
This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Victor L. Pattarozzi vs. Estrella Vista Homeowners Association, Case No. 19F-H1919047-REL. The central issue was whether the homeowner association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in violation of Arizona state law by not holding open meetings for its members.
The petition, brought by Mr. Pattarozzi, was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the phrase “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” The Judge found that since the ARC did not meet at fixed, uniform, or recurring intervals, but rather on an as-needed basis to review applications, its meetings were not “regularly scheduled” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, the legal requirement for such meetings to be open to all association members did not apply. The Judge further determined that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings explicitly referenced only the association’s and board of directors’ meetings, not committee meetings, and therefore could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Case Overview
Case Number
19F-H1919047-REL
Petitioner
Victor L. Pattarozzi
Respondent
Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Presiding Judge
Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge
Hearing Date
May 16, 2019
Decision Date
June 5, 2019
Jurisdiction
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate
Allegation: The Petitioner, Victor L. Pattarozzi, alleged that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 by failing to hold open meetings for its Architectural Committee (referred to as the Architectural Review Committee or ARC).
Defense: The Respondent association contended that its ARC meetings were not required to be open to members because the meetings were not “regularly scheduled.”
Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Regularly Scheduled”
The case revolved entirely around the interpretation of a key phrase within Arizona’s planned community statutes.
“Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary, all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors, and any regularly scheduled committee meetings, are open to all members of the association….”
The core legal question was whether the ARC’s method of conducting business constituted “regularly scheduled” meetings.
Competing Arguments
• Petitioner’s Position (Mr. Pattarozzi):
◦ Mr. Pattarozzi argued that the association could hold weekly ARC meetings and simply cancel them if no applications were pending for review.
◦ He supplied dictionary definitions for “regular” and “regularly” to support his interpretation:
▪ Regularly: (1) “in a regular manner”; (2) “on a regular basis: at regular intervals”.
▪ Regular: (1) “constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”; (2) “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals”.
◦ He also contended that the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings, as outlined in subsection 33-1804(F), should be broadly construed to require ARC meetings to be open.
• Respondent’s Position (Estrella Vista HOA):
◦ The association maintained that its ARC meetings were not required to be open because they do not occur on a set schedule. Instead, they are convened only as needed when applications are received.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined the specific operational procedures of the Architectural Review Committee.
• Composition and Process: The ARC consists of five members. It does not meet on a predetermined schedule. Instead, applications are forwarded by the management company to the Board President, Stuart Glenn.
• “Rubber Stamp” Approvals: The ARC has a pre-approved “rubber stamp” process for certain requests, such as solar panel installations and repainting with a pre-approved color. These requests are approved without further review by the full committee.
• Application Volume: As of the May 16, 2019 hearing, the ARC had received twelve applications in 2019. Of these, eight were subject to the “rubber stamp” approval process.
• Non-Standard Applications: For any application not meeting the rubber-stamp criteria, Mr. Glenn forwards it to the other four ARC members, who individually report back on their approval or disapproval.
Legal Reasoning and Decision
The Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law provided a detailed statutory interpretation that led to the dismissal of the petition.
Interpretation of “Regularly Scheduled”
The Judge determined that the legislature intentionally distinguished between different types of meetings. While the law mandates that all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors must be open, it applies a specific qualifier—”regularly scheduled”—to committee meetings. This implies that not all committee meetings must be open.
The Judge adopted the Petitioner’s second definition of “regular”: “recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals.” This interpretation was deemed to provide a fair and sensible result.
The Judge explicitly rejected the Petitioner’s first definition—”done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline”—on the grounds that it would render the word “regular” redundant. The Judge reasoned that all committee meetings are presumed to be conducted according to established rules, so applying this definition would make the statutory language trivial.
Rejection of the “Open Meeting Policy” Argument
The Petitioner argued that subsection 33-1804(F), which declares a state policy in favor of open meetings, should apply. The Judge rejected this argument based on the specific text of the statute:
“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly ….”
The Judge noted that this policy statement explicitly references only meetings of the “members’ association” and the “board of directors,” and omits any mention of committee meetings. Therefore, the policy could not be used to compel the ARC meetings to be open.
Final Order
Ruling: IT IS ORDERED that Victor L. Pattarozzi’s petition is dismissed.
Justification: The Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Estrella Vista Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that the ARC “does not hold ‘regularly scheduled’ meetings within the meaning of” the statute.
Next Steps: The decision is binding unless a party files a request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Victor L Pattarozzi(petitioner) Appeared and testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Andrew Apodaca(attorney) Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna, Enos & Treadwell-Rubin, P.C. Attorney for Respondent Estrella Vista Homeowners Association
Stuart Glenn(board member) Estrella Vista Homeowners Association Board president who presented testimony for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Thomas Shedden(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal
Felicia Del Sol(Administrative Staff) Listed in the final section of the document
