Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on April 10, 2019 by [email protected]

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)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
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. § 1-243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:08:27 (149.3 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The central issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to adequately fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

The initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in an April 10, 2019, decision in favor of the Association. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and thus the Association’s partial response (a summary table) did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following a successful appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner had followed prior express instructions from the Association regarding who to contact for records requests. Consequently, the ALJ issued a new decision on September 12, 2019, reversing the original order. The final ruling found the Association in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and was assessed a civil penalty of $500.

Case Overview

Case Numbers

No. 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)
No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

Petitioner

Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

Respondent

Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Central Issue

Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request for Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, requests, and approvals.

Initial Petition

Filed by Tom Barrs on December 17, 2018.

Initial Hearing

March 21, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Rehearing

August 27, 2019, before ALJ Jenna Clark.

Final Outcome

Petition granted in favor of Tom Barrs. The Association was found in violation of state law, ordered to reimburse the filing fee, and fined.

Key Individuals and Entities

Role / Affiliation

Tom Barrs

Petitioner; homeowner in the Desert Ranch subdivision.

Desert Ranch HOA

Respondent; homeowners’ association.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings.

Brian Schoeffler

Chairman of the Association’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC); appeared on behalf of the Association.

Catherine Overby

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Lori Loch-Lee

Vice President of Client Services at Associated Asset Management (AAM), the Association’s accounting/management company.

Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Attorney who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner at the rehearing.

The Records Request and Subsequent Dispute

The Initial Request

On November 1, 2018, at 9:40 p.m., Petitioner submitted an electronic records request to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee. The text of the request was as follows:

“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 Association’s Response and Petitioner’s Follow-Up

• November 2, 2018: Lori Loch-Lee from AAM notified the Petitioner she would forward his request to all Board members, noting that AAM was only the Association’s accounting firm.

• November 18, 2018: The Petitioner received a summary table listing some EDC actions, not the complete set of communications and documents requested. At this time, he was advised by Brian Schoeffler that he “needed to copy all Board members on records requests.”

• March 6, 2019: The Petitioner sent a follow-up email, accusing the Association of willful failure and clarifying the specific records he sought beyond the summary table, including “copies of the communications (letters, emails, and application forms) relating to Environmental Design Review (EDC) submissions, requests, complaints and approvals (or denials).”

• March 11, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler replied, arguing that the request had been complied with on November 18, 2018, and directed the Petitioner to “submit a new request” for the additional information.

• March 17, 2019: Mr. Schoeffler reiterated that the original request was only sent to two of four Board members and stated that providing additional documents could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

As of the rehearing date (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Hearing and Decision (April 10, 2019)

In the first hearing, the dispute centered on the validity of the request submission and the adequacy of the Association’s response.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barrs): Argued the Association acted in bad faith and willfully failed to fulfill the request, noting a similar dispute had been previously adjudicated. He was concerned with the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

• Respondent (HOA): Argued it had complied with the request by providing a summary table, consistent with its handling of a previous dispute with the Petitioner. Mr. Schoeffler testified that the response was untimely (provided on the 11th business day) but asserted it was otherwise sufficient.

ALJ Conclusion: The Judge ruled in favor of the Association, denying the Petitioner’s petition. The key finding was that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request.

“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.”

The decision also noted that the statute does not legally obligate an HOA to email copies of records.

Rehearing and Final Decision (September 12, 2019)

After the Petitioner’s appeal was granted, a rehearing introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome.

New Evidence and Concessions:

• July 19, 2017 Instruction: Evidence showed Association President Catherine Overby had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s “primary records request contact.”

• July 18, 2018 Instruction: Evidence showed Ms. Overby had also instructed the Petitioner to direct requests to the management company, AAM.

• Association Concessions: The Respondent conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests and that its own bylaws regarding submission forms are not adhered to or enforced.

ALJ’s Reversed Conclusion: The Judge reversed the prior decision and granted the Petitioner’s petition. The new evidence proved the Petitioner had followed express instructions from the Association.

“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.”

The Judge concluded that the partial response was a clear violation of the law.

“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 and Penalties

The Administrative Law Judge’s Final Order on September 12, 2019, which is binding on the parties, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Respondent (Desert Ranch HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on April 10, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
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. § 1-243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:55 (149.3 KB)

Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

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

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “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…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “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.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL

Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?

4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?

6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?

7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?

8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?

10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.

2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.

4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.

5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.

6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.

7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.

8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.

9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.

10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.

1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.

2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.

3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”

4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.

Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

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

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
Jonathan Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.

Respondent Side

Brian Schoeffler (respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Also identified as a Board Director.
Catherine Overby (HOA president / board member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
Lori Loch-Lee (property manager)
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Vice President of Client Services.
Amanda Shaw (property manager)
AAM LLC
Contact for Respondent.
B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
ADRE
HOA Coordinator.

Other Participants

Gerard Manieri (observer)
Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
Peter Ashkin (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Stephen Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Noah Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.
Abraham Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.

Thomas Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on December 28, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-27
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Barrs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Brian Schoeffler

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Thomas Barrs' petition against the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 in any of the remaining seven allegations related to record access. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on all claims. In several instances, the Respondent either cured any potential breach (Issue 2), timely complied (Issue 1), or was under no legal obligation to fulfill the request in the manner demanded (emailing records, Issues 3, 6, 7).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)

Petitioner requested records (insurance policies, budget, EDC actions) be emailed. Respondent offered examination and purchase of copies. Petitioner declined the offers and blocked the attorney's emails. The ALJD determined the statute does not mandate emailing records.

Orders: Petitioner failed to prove Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding requests for emailed documents, as the statute requires records to be made reasonably available for examination or purchase of copies, not emailed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H181708-REL Decision – 608861.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:04:22 (120.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H181708-REL

Briefing Document: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1817008-REL, involving Petitioner Thomas Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA). The central outcome of the December 1, 2017 hearing was the complete dismissal of Mr. Barrs’ petition. The ALJ determined that Mr. Barrs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1805 regarding member access to association records.

The decision hinged on a key statutory interpretation: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 requires an HOA to make records “reasonably available for examination” and to provide copies upon request, but it does not obligate the association to email documents to members. The Judge found that the HOA’s offers to allow Mr. Barrs to inspect records in person were legally sufficient. The failure to access records was ultimately attributed to the petitioner’s own actions, including a self-initiated communication breakdown with a key Board member and a subsequent refusal of the HOA’s offers for in-person inspection. The Judge concluded that for each of the contested allegations, the HOA had either fulfilled its statutory duty, the requested records did not exist, or its attempts to provide access were declined by the petitioner.

Case Overview

Case Name

Thomas Barrs (Petitioner) v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)

Case Number

18F-H1817008-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

December 1, 2017

Decision Date

December 27, 2017

Central Allegation

The Petitioner alleged nine instances where the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to accommodate requests to inspect or receive via email various HOA records.

Final Disposition

The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Allegations and Findings

The petition, filed on September 4, 2017, contained nine specific allegations of statutory violations by the HOA. These issues and the ALJ’s findings are detailed below.

Summary of Allegations

Request

Date of Request

Finding of Fact

View April 29, 2017 Board election documents

May 19, 2017

No violation; request fulfilled within statutory time limit.

View March 18, 2017 Board election documents

June 17, 2017

No violation; HOA cured any potential breach with offers to inspect, which were declined.

Email copies of insurance policies

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Insurance company phone number & policy number

Aug 26, 2017

No violation; Petitioner acknowledged receipt of information.

Email Secretary’s shorthand notes from March 18 meeting

July 11, 2017

No violation; the requested notes do not exist.

Email the annual budget

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Email written record of EDC actions after July 2016

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Email name of EDC chairperson

July 11, 2017

Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.

Email list of Board meeting dates

July 11, 2017

Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.

Detailed Findings by Issue

At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his allegations concerning the name of the EDC chairperson (Issue 8) and the list of past Board meeting dates (Issue 9).

• Issue 4 (Insurance Information): The Judge noted that Mr. Barrs “effectively acknowledged that he has received the insurance company’s phone number and the policy number.” No violation was found.

• Issue 5 (Shorthand Meeting Notes): The evidence demonstrated that no shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting exist. The Board had previously informed Mr. Barrs of this fact. Consequently, the Judge found no violation.

The petitioner requested to view documents related to the April 29, 2017, election via an email sent at 8:59 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. The Judge determined that this request was effectively received on the next business day, Monday, May 22, 2017. Under the statute, the HOA had ten business days, until June 5, 2017, to fulfill the request. The HOA made the documents available for Mr. Barrs’ inspection on June 3, 2017, which was within the required timeframe. The decision also dismissed related claims by Mr. Barrs regarding a “late ballot” (which was actually a nomination petition) and “undeliverable ballots” (which did not exist as mailing envelopes had no return address). The Judge concluded the HOA did not violate the statute.

These issues center on a series of requests made in June and July 2017 and a significant communication failure initiated by the Petitioner.

Background: In March 2017, after HOA Board member Brian Schoeffler asked to be removed from a resident email thread, Mr. Barrs ceased all email communication with Mr. Schoeffler and blocked his email address, preventing him from receiving any emails sent by Mr. Schoeffler.

Timeline of Events:

• June 17, 2017: Mr. Barrs requested to view the March 18 election ballots (Issue 2). On June 19, Board President Catherine Overby informed him the materials were with Mr. Schoeffler and that he should contact him.

• July 11, 2017: Mr. Barrs emailed the Board (excluding Mr. Schoeffler) requesting that the insurance policies (Issue 3), annual budget (Issue 6), and EDC records (Issue 7) be emailed to him.

• July 12, 2017: Ms. Overby responded that she would forward the request to Mr. Schoeffler and later stated that Mr. Barrs should go to Mr. Schoeffler’s house to view the records. On the same day, Mr. Schoeffler emailed Mr. Barrs—an email Mr. Barrs did not receive—offering to meet and provide copies.

• July 25, 2017: Mr. Barrs informed the Board for the first time that he had blocked Mr. Schoeffler’s emails.

• July 28, 2017: Mr. Schoeffler sent another email, offering dates to meet and explaining that the statute required only that documents be made “reasonably available.”

• July 29, 2017: Mr. Barrs responded to the Board, stating he “will not stipulate to the preconditions” set by Mr. Schoeffler and concluding that the documents were “apparently” not available.

Finding: The Judge found that the Board responded to the July 11 requests in a timely manner (on July 12) and continued to try and accommodate them. However, Mr. Barrs “initially delayed matters by refusing to contact Mr. Schoeffler and he then declined Respondent’s offers.” For Issue 2, the Judge concluded that even if the HOA had initially failed to provide access within ten days, it had “cured its breach” with the subsequent offers of inspection on July 12 and July 28, which Mr. Barrs declined.

Central Legal Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions of law regarding statutory interpretation and the burden of proof.

• Burden of Proof: Mr. Barrs, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The Judge concluded that he failed to meet this standard on all counts.

• Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A): This was the pivotal legal finding. The statute reads, in part:

• The ALJ concluded that this language does not obligate an HOA to email records to a member. The statutory requirement is satisfied when the association makes the records “reasonably available” for in-person inspection and allows the member to purchase copies (for a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page).

• Application to the Case: The HOA’s offer for Mr. Barrs to examine the requested documents at Mr. Schoeffler’s residence and to have copies made fulfilled its legal duty. Mr. Barrs’ insistence on receiving documents via email and his ultimate refusal of the in-person inspection offer were the reasons he did not gain access to the records.

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:

“IT IS ORDERED that Thomas Barrs’ petition is dismissed.”

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

Thomas Barrs vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on December 28, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-12-27
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Barrs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Brian Schoeffler

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to provide records or copies, specifically via email (Issues 3, 6, 7)

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: records request, HOA records access, A.R.S. 33-1805, right to inspect, email delivery

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130, 133, 407 P.2d 91, 94 (1965)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H181708-REL Decision – 608861.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:24 (120.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 18F-H181708-REL

Briefing Document: Administrative Law Judge Decision in Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

Case Overview

Case Name

Thomas Barrs (Petitioner) v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent)

Case Number

18F-H1817008-REL

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

December 1, 2017

Decision Date

December 27, 2017

Central Allegation

The Petitioner alleged nine instances where the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to accommodate requests to inspect or receive via email various HOA records.

Final Disposition

The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Allegations and Findings

The petition, filed on September 4, 2017, contained nine specific allegations of statutory violations by the HOA. These issues and the ALJ’s findings are detailed below.

Summary of Allegations

Request

Date of Request

Finding of Fact

View April 29, 2017 Board election documents

May 19, 2017

No violation; request fulfilled within statutory time limit.

View March 18, 2017 Board election documents

June 17, 2017

No violation; HOA cured any potential breach with offers to inspect, which were declined.

Email copies of insurance policies

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Insurance company phone number & policy number

Aug 26, 2017

No violation; Petitioner acknowledged receipt of information.

Email Secretary’s shorthand notes from March 18 meeting

July 11, 2017

No violation; the requested notes do not exist.

Email the annual budget

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Email written record of EDC actions after July 2016

July 11, 2017

No violation; HOA offered inspection, which fulfills statutory duty.

Email name of EDC chairperson

July 11, 2017

Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.

Email list of Board meeting dates

July 11, 2017

Withdrawn by Petitioner at the hearing.

Detailed Findings by Issue

At the hearing, the Petitioner withdrew his allegations concerning the name of the EDC chairperson (Issue 8) and the list of past Board meeting dates (Issue 9).

These issues center on a series of requests made in June and July 2017 and a significant communication failure initiated by the Petitioner.

Timeline of Events:

• July 11, 2017: Mr. Barrs emailed the Board (excluding Mr. Schoeffler) requesting that the insurance policies (Issue 3), annual budget (Issue 6), and EDC records (Issue 7) be emailed to him.

• July 25, 2017: Mr. Barrs informed the Board for the first time that he had blocked Mr. Schoeffler’s emails.

• July 28, 2017: Mr. Schoeffler sent another email, offering dates to meet and explaining that the statute required only that documents be made “reasonably available.”

Central Legal Conclusions

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions of law regarding statutory interpretation and the burden of proof.

• Interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(A): This was the pivotal legal finding. The statute reads, in part:

Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order:

“IT IS ORDERED that Thomas Barrs’ petition is dismissed.”

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

Study Guide – 18F-H181708-REL

Study Guide: Case No. 18F-H1817008-REL, Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Thomas Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. It covers the key facts, legal arguments, and the final judgment as detailed in the source document.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, drawing exclusively from the provided case information.

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

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statutes did Thomas Barrs allege the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association had violated?

3. Describe the communication issue involving Mr. Barrs and Mr. Schoeffler that complicated the records requests made in July 2017.

4. What was the Judge’s finding regarding Mr. Barrs’ request for the Secretary’s shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting (Issue 5)?

5. Explain why the Judge determined that the Respondent’s handling of the May 19, 2017 request for election documents (Issue 1) was compliant with the statute.

6. According to the Judge’s Conclusions of Law, what does ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805 require of an association regarding requests for records? Does this include emailing them?

7. Which of his initial nine allegations did Mr. Barrs withdraw during the hearing?

8. How did Mr. Barrs respond to Mr. Schoeffler’s July 28, 2017 email, which offered dates to meet and review documents?

9. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party bears the burden of meeting it?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Thomas Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Barrs filed a petition alleging violations by the HOA, while the HOA, represented by Brian Schoeffler, disputed the allegations.

2. Mr. Barrs alleged that the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 33-1805 and 33-1812. The case focused on nine specific instances where Mr. Barrs alleged the HOA failed to accommodate his requests for records under section 33-1805.

3. In March 2017, Mr. Schoeffler asked to be removed from a group email thread. In response, Mr. Barrs stopped sending emails to Mr. Schoeffler and also blocked incoming emails from him, which prevented him from receiving Mr. Schoeffler’s direct offers to inspect the requested documents.

4. The Judge found that the preponderance of the evidence showed that no shorthand notes from the March 18, 2017 meeting existed. The Board had informed Mr. Barrs of this fact shortly after he made his request, and therefore the Respondent did not violate the statute.

5. Mr. Barrs’ request was emailed after business hours on Friday, May 19, 2017, making its effective receipt date Monday, May 22. The Respondent fulfilled the request on June 3, 2017, which was within the ten-business-day timeframe required by law.

6. ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805 requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that copies be provided upon request within ten business days. The Judge concluded that this statute does not legally obligate the Respondent to email copies of records.

7. During the hearing, Mr. Barrs withdrew his allegations regarding the request for the name of the EDC chairman (Issue 8) and the request for a list of Board meeting dates from the prior year (Issue 9).

8. On July 29, 2017, Mr. Barrs responded that he “will not stipulate to the preconditions” Mr. Schoeffler placed on his ability to review the documentation. He stated that “apparently” the documents were not available, effectively declining the offer to examine them.

9. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, to show that the Respondent committed the alleged violations.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Thomas Barrs’ petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each, citing specific facts from the decision.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1805. How did the distinction between making records “reasonably available” for examination versus the petitioner’s demand for them to be emailed shape the outcome of Issues 3, 6, and 7?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Select two of Mr. Barrs’ allegations that the Judge found were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and explain the specific facts that led to that conclusion.

3. Examine the communication breakdown between Thomas Barrs and Brian Schoeffler. How did the actions of both individuals (specifically, Mr. Schoeffler’s request in March and Mr. Barrs’ subsequent blocking of emails) directly contribute to the dispute and influence the Judge’s findings?

4. Trace the timeline and events surrounding the request to view ballots from the March 18, 2017 election (Issue 2). Explain the Judge’s reasoning for concluding that even if the Respondent had initially failed to grant access, it had “cured its breach.”

5. Evaluate the actions of the Respondent, Desert Ranch HOA, in response to Mr. Barrs’ multiple requests. Based on the Findings of Fact, construct an argument that the HOA made sufficient and reasonable efforts to comply with its statutory obligations.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (in this case, Thomas Shedden) who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Sections 33-1805 and 33-1812 were central to this case.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, Mr. Barrs bore the burden of proof.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the decision where the Judge applies the relevant laws and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a judgment.

An apparent committee within the HOA (“Environmental Design Committee” is a common name, though not specified). Mr. Barrs requested written records of all actions taken by the EDC after July 2016.

Findings of Fact

The section of the decision that outlines the factual determinations made by the Judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

Hearing

The formal proceeding where the Petitioner and Respondent present their cases before the Administrative Law Judge. This hearing took place on December 1, 2017.

The final, legally binding ruling of the Judge. In this case, the order was to dismiss the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Thomas Barrs was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this matter. It is 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. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association was the Respondent.

Blog Post – 18F-H181708-REL

Select all sources

608861.pdf