Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Anne F. Segal vs Prince Court Homeowners Association, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-05-22
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anne F. Segal Counsel —
Respondent Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R Amendment, Written Consent, Executive Session, Statutory Interpretation, Planned Community, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
  • CC&Rs Article VII
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:43 (53.7 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:47 (7.8 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:51 (54.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:55 (7.9 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:01 (48.1 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:08 (51.6 KB)

25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:15 (206.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H032-REL


Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.

The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.

Case Overview

The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.

The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.

Key Parties and Witnesses

Name / Entity

Key Contributions

Anne F. Segal

Petitioner, Homeowner

Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.

Prince Court Homeowners Association

Respondent

Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.

Mary Beth Snyder

President, HOA Board

Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.

Susan Matheson

Vice President, HOA Board

Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.

David Zinfeld

Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court

Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.

Dr. Robert Segal

Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager

Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.

Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent

Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.

——————————————————————————–

Central Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Core Allegations

The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.

• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”

• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.

• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.

• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.

• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.

• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”

• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”

• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”

• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.

——————————————————————————–

Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision

On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.

Findings of Fact

The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:

• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.

• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.

• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.

• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.

• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.

• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.

• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.

Conclusions of Law

The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:

1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.

2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.

3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.

4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.

5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.






Study Guide – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H032-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anne F. Segal (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf.
  • David Zeinfeld (witness)
    Original developer and declarant of the subdivision.
  • Robert J. Seagull (witness)
    Petitioner's husband and property manager.

Respondent Side

  • Wendy Ehrlich (HOA attorney)
    Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mary Beth Snyder (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    President of the Association and witness.
  • Susan Matheson (board member)
    Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Vice President of the Association and witness.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Dianna Tidle (observer)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

AZNH Revocable Trust V. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner AZNH Revocable Trust Counsel John F. Sullivan
Respondent Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by providing the electronic data lists received from the voting vendor (Vote HOA Now), as the statute requires storage of 'electronic votes' not necessarily 'electronic ballots' (images).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide voting records (electronic ballots) for inspection

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide all voting materials, specifically images of each actual online ballot, in response to the February 28, 2024, inspection request, arguing this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Voting Records, Electronic Voting, HOA Records Inspection, Statutory Interpretation, ARS 33-1812
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1240168.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:21 (184.8 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1330098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:24 (48.9 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1330115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:27 (6.2 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1338932.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:32 (56.6 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1340272.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:37 (53.7 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1357165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:41 (59.5 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 1358023.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:09:45 (12.1 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 2026-03-07_attorney_email_thread_aznh_revocable_trust.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-09T16:45:57 (492.6 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 2026-03-07_superior_court_complaint_special_action_cv2025-036466.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-09T16:46:03 (973.0 KB)

24F-H047-REL Decision – 2026-03-07_superior_court_motion_for_judgment_cv2025-036466.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-09T16:46:07 (212.7 KB)

Questions

Question

If I challenge my HOA's election procedures, do I have to prove they did something wrong, or do they have to prove they did it right?

Short Answer

The burden of proof falls on the homeowner (Petitioner) to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated the relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Procedure

Question

Is my HOA required to provide me with the actual visual image of every electronic ballot cast in an election?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is only required to store and provide 'electronic votes,' typically in data list format, not the visual 'ballot' image.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that statutes require the storage of 'electronic votes' for inspection, but this does not mean the HOA must retain a visual image of the specific screen or ballot seen by the voter. Data lists that document the vote satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)(4) requires storage of 'electronic votes' not electronic ballots.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • Records Inspection

Question

Does a spreadsheet or data list of votes count as a valid record of 'ballots' for inspection purposes?

Short Answer

Yes. Data lists generated by voting software are considered compliant records of electronic ballots.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA uses a third-party vendor for online voting, retaining the data lists provided by that vendor (which show member information and votes cast) satisfies the statutory requirement to retain materials in an 'electronic format'.

Alj Quote

Association is in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by retaining the Vote HOA Now data lists which demonstrate the electronic ballots 'in electronic … format.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(7)

Topic Tags

  • Records Inspection
  • Electronic Voting

Question

How long must an HOA keep election materials like ballots and sign-in sheets?

Short Answer

The HOA must retain these materials for at least one year.

Detailed Answer

State law mandates that ballots, envelopes, sign-in sheets, and related materials be kept and made available for member inspection for a minimum of one year following the election.

Alj Quote

Ballots, envelopes and related materials, including sign-in sheets if used, shall be retained in electronic or paper format and made available for member inspection for at least one year after completion of the election.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Topic Tags

  • Record Retention
  • Elections

Question

What specific features must an online voting system have to be legal?

Short Answer

It must authenticate identity, ensure validity, send a receipt, and store votes.

Detailed Answer

An online voting system is legally permitted if it authenticates the member's identity, ensures the vote is not altered in transit, transmits a receipt to the voter, and stores the electronic votes for recount or inspection.

Alj Quote

online voting system that does all of the following: a. Authenticates the member's identity; b. Authenticates the validity of each electronic vote… c. Transmits a receipt… and d. Stores electronic votes for recount, inspection and review purposes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I use 'secret ballots' if I am voting by mail or absentee?

Short Answer

Yes, but your name/address must still appear on the envelope.

Detailed Answer

If community documents allow for secret ballots, the ballot itself does not need the voter's signature, but the outer envelope must contain the name, address, and signature to verify eligibility.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Voting Rights
  • Privacy

Question

How does the law define 'preponderance of the evidence' in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof requires evidence that has the most convincing force and inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Case Law (Morris K. Udall)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions

Case

Docket No
24F-H047-REL
Case Title
AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-11-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I challenge my HOA's election procedures, do I have to prove they did something wrong, or do they have to prove they did it right?

Short Answer

The burden of proof falls on the homeowner (Petitioner) to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated the relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Procedure

Question

Is my HOA required to provide me with the actual visual image of every electronic ballot cast in an election?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is only required to store and provide 'electronic votes,' typically in data list format, not the visual 'ballot' image.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that statutes require the storage of 'electronic votes' for inspection, but this does not mean the HOA must retain a visual image of the specific screen or ballot seen by the voter. Data lists that document the vote satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)(4) requires storage of 'electronic votes' not electronic ballots.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • Records Inspection

Question

Does a spreadsheet or data list of votes count as a valid record of 'ballots' for inspection purposes?

Short Answer

Yes. Data lists generated by voting software are considered compliant records of electronic ballots.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA uses a third-party vendor for online voting, retaining the data lists provided by that vendor (which show member information and votes cast) satisfies the statutory requirement to retain materials in an 'electronic format'.

Alj Quote

Association is in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by retaining the Vote HOA Now data lists which demonstrate the electronic ballots 'in electronic … format.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(7)

Topic Tags

  • Records Inspection
  • Electronic Voting

Question

How long must an HOA keep election materials like ballots and sign-in sheets?

Short Answer

The HOA must retain these materials for at least one year.

Detailed Answer

State law mandates that ballots, envelopes, sign-in sheets, and related materials be kept and made available for member inspection for a minimum of one year following the election.

Alj Quote

Ballots, envelopes and related materials, including sign-in sheets if used, shall be retained in electronic or paper format and made available for member inspection for at least one year after completion of the election.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Topic Tags

  • Record Retention
  • Elections

Question

What specific features must an online voting system have to be legal?

Short Answer

It must authenticate identity, ensure validity, send a receipt, and store votes.

Detailed Answer

An online voting system is legally permitted if it authenticates the member's identity, ensures the vote is not altered in transit, transmits a receipt to the voter, and stores the electronic votes for recount or inspection.

Alj Quote

online voting system that does all of the following: a. Authenticates the member's identity; b. Authenticates the validity of each electronic vote… c. Transmits a receipt… and d. Stores electronic votes for recount, inspection and review purposes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I use 'secret ballots' if I am voting by mail or absentee?

Short Answer

Yes, but your name/address must still appear on the envelope.

Detailed Answer

If community documents allow for secret ballots, the ballot itself does not need the voter's signature, but the outer envelope must contain the name, address, and signature to verify eligibility.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Voting Rights
  • Privacy

Question

How does the law define 'preponderance of the evidence' in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof requires evidence that has the most convincing force and inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Case Law (Morris K. Udall)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions

Case

Docket No
24F-H047-REL
Case Title
AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-11-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John F. Sullivan (Attorney)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Counsel for Petitioner
  • Susan Sullivan (Petitioner Trustee)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Filed motion for peremptory change of judge

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (HOA attorney)
    MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
    Counsel for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
  • Kathy Fowers (General Manager)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Custodian of Records; Present at hearing
  • Paul Minda (board member)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Board President
  • Mar (board member)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Vice President (Partial name identified)
  • Cathy Braun (Association Secretary/Treasurer)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Exchanged emails with Petitioner regarding inspection request

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge McKish (Judge)
    Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who handled remand; also referred to as Judge McKittish

Other Participants

  • Mrs. Holden (witness)
    Present at Superior Court argument with Respondent representatives

AZNH Revocable Trust V. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H047-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-11-05
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner AZNH Revocable Trust Counsel John F. Sullivan
Respondent Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by providing the electronic data lists received from the voting vendor (Vote HOA Now), as the statute requires storage of 'electronic votes' not necessarily 'electronic ballots' (images).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide voting records (electronic ballots) for inspection

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to provide all voting materials, specifically images of each actual online ballot, in response to the February 28, 2024, inspection request, arguing this violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Voting Records, Electronic Voting, HOA Records Inspection, Statutory Interpretation, ARS 33-1812
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1240168.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:22 (184.8 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:26 (48.9 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1330115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:30 (6.2 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1338932.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:35 (56.6 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1340272.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:38 (53.7 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1357165.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:42 (59.5 KB)

24F-H047-REL-RMD Decision – 1358023.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:10:50 (12.1 KB)

Questions

Question

If I challenge my HOA's election procedures, do I have to prove they did something wrong, or do they have to prove they did it right?

Short Answer

The burden of proof falls on the homeowner (Petitioner) to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated the relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Procedure

Question

Is my HOA required to provide me with the actual visual image of every electronic ballot cast in an election?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is only required to store and provide 'electronic votes,' typically in data list format, not the visual 'ballot' image.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that statutes require the storage of 'electronic votes' for inspection, but this does not mean the HOA must retain a visual image of the specific screen or ballot seen by the voter. Data lists that document the vote satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)(4) requires storage of 'electronic votes' not electronic ballots.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • Records Inspection

Question

Does a spreadsheet or data list of votes count as a valid record of 'ballots' for inspection purposes?

Short Answer

Yes. Data lists generated by voting software are considered compliant records of electronic ballots.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA uses a third-party vendor for online voting, retaining the data lists provided by that vendor (which show member information and votes cast) satisfies the statutory requirement to retain materials in an 'electronic format'.

Alj Quote

Association is in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by retaining the Vote HOA Now data lists which demonstrate the electronic ballots 'in electronic … format.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(7)

Topic Tags

  • Records Inspection
  • Electronic Voting

Question

How long must an HOA keep election materials like ballots and sign-in sheets?

Short Answer

The HOA must retain these materials for at least one year.

Detailed Answer

State law mandates that ballots, envelopes, sign-in sheets, and related materials be kept and made available for member inspection for a minimum of one year following the election.

Alj Quote

Ballots, envelopes and related materials, including sign-in sheets if used, shall be retained in electronic or paper format and made available for member inspection for at least one year after completion of the election.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Topic Tags

  • Record Retention
  • Elections

Question

What specific features must an online voting system have to be legal?

Short Answer

It must authenticate identity, ensure validity, send a receipt, and store votes.

Detailed Answer

An online voting system is legally permitted if it authenticates the member's identity, ensures the vote is not altered in transit, transmits a receipt to the voter, and stores the electronic votes for recount or inspection.

Alj Quote

online voting system that does all of the following: a. Authenticates the member's identity; b. Authenticates the validity of each electronic vote… c. Transmits a receipt… and d. Stores electronic votes for recount, inspection and review purposes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I use 'secret ballots' if I am voting by mail or absentee?

Short Answer

Yes, but your name/address must still appear on the envelope.

Detailed Answer

If community documents allow for secret ballots, the ballot itself does not need the voter's signature, but the outer envelope must contain the name, address, and signature to verify eligibility.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Voting Rights
  • Privacy

Question

How does the law define 'preponderance of the evidence' in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof requires evidence that has the most convincing force and inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Case Law (Morris K. Udall)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions

Case

Docket No
24F-H047-REL
Case Title
AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-11-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If I challenge my HOA's election procedures, do I have to prove they did something wrong, or do they have to prove they did it right?

Short Answer

The burden of proof falls on the homeowner (Petitioner) to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated the relevant statutes.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(7).

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Procedure

Question

Is my HOA required to provide me with the actual visual image of every electronic ballot cast in an election?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is only required to store and provide 'electronic votes,' typically in data list format, not the visual 'ballot' image.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that statutes require the storage of 'electronic votes' for inspection, but this does not mean the HOA must retain a visual image of the specific screen or ballot seen by the voter. Data lists that document the vote satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708(F)(4) requires storage of 'electronic votes' not electronic ballots.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • Records Inspection

Question

Does a spreadsheet or data list of votes count as a valid record of 'ballots' for inspection purposes?

Short Answer

Yes. Data lists generated by voting software are considered compliant records of electronic ballots.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA uses a third-party vendor for online voting, retaining the data lists provided by that vendor (which show member information and votes cast) satisfies the statutory requirement to retain materials in an 'electronic format'.

Alj Quote

Association is in compliance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(7) by retaining the Vote HOA Now data lists which demonstrate the electronic ballots 'in electronic … format.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(7)

Topic Tags

  • Records Inspection
  • Electronic Voting

Question

How long must an HOA keep election materials like ballots and sign-in sheets?

Short Answer

The HOA must retain these materials for at least one year.

Detailed Answer

State law mandates that ballots, envelopes, sign-in sheets, and related materials be kept and made available for member inspection for a minimum of one year following the election.

Alj Quote

Ballots, envelopes and related materials, including sign-in sheets if used, shall be retained in electronic or paper format and made available for member inspection for at least one year after completion of the election.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)

Topic Tags

  • Record Retention
  • Elections

Question

What specific features must an online voting system have to be legal?

Short Answer

It must authenticate identity, ensure validity, send a receipt, and store votes.

Detailed Answer

An online voting system is legally permitted if it authenticates the member's identity, ensures the vote is not altered in transit, transmits a receipt to the voter, and stores the electronic votes for recount or inspection.

Alj Quote

online voting system that does all of the following: a. Authenticates the member's identity; b. Authenticates the validity of each electronic vote… c. Transmits a receipt… and d. Stores electronic votes for recount, inspection and review purposes.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 10-3708(F)

Topic Tags

  • Electronic Voting
  • HOA Obligations

Question

Can I use 'secret ballots' if I am voting by mail or absentee?

Short Answer

Yes, but your name/address must still appear on the envelope.

Detailed Answer

If community documents allow for secret ballots, the ballot itself does not need the voter's signature, but the outer envelope must contain the name, address, and signature to verify eligibility.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • Voting Rights
  • Privacy

Question

How does the law define 'preponderance of the evidence' in these hearings?

Short Answer

It means the claim is 'more probably true than not'.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof requires evidence that has the most convincing force and inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn't remove all doubt.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Case Law (Morris K. Udall)

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Definitions

Case

Docket No
24F-H047-REL
Case Title
AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2024-11-05
Alj Name
Kay A. Abramsohn
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John F. Sullivan (Petitioner Attorney)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Counsel for Susan Sullivan/AZNH Trust
  • Susan Sullivan (Petitioner Trustee)
    AZNH Revocable Trust

Respondent Side

  • Chad M. Gallacher (Respondent Attorney)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Affiliated with MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
  • Kathy Fowers (General Manager/Witness)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Custodian of Records
  • Cathy Braun (Association Secretary/Treasurer)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Referenced in emails regarding documents inspection
  • Paul Minda (Board President/Board Member)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Present at rehearing
  • Mar (Board Vice President/Board Member)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Partial name only; present at rehearing
  • Mrs. Holden (Affiliate/Witness)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Present at Superior Court argument

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judge McKish (Superior Court Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Presided over appeal/remand process
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name
  • mneat (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name
  • lrecchia (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name
  • gosborn (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of electronic transmission; partial name

ROBERT J. GARING v. PRESCOTT LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H012-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert J. Garing Counsel —
Respondent Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. Counsel Adrianne A. Speas, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Association's voting system constituted permissible delegate voting, which is not prohibited by the Planned Community Act. The prohibition in ARS § 33-1812 against proxy voting applies only when votes are “allocated to a unit,” which is not the case for Director elections where votes are allocated to the Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates.

Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Petitioner alleged that the Association's use of a voting delegate system, where Voting Members cast votes for unit owners who did not respond to neighborhood polls, constitutes proxy voting prohibited under ARS § 33-1812.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Planned Community Act, Delegate Voting, Proxy Voting, Board Election, ARS 33-1812, Nonprofit Corporation Act
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3708
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-211(B)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H012-REL Decision – 1115010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:58 (162.7 KB)





Study Guide – 24F-H012-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 24F-H012-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H012-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert J. Garing v. Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2023-11-20”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Is a delegate voting system considered the same as illegal proxy voting in Arizona HOAs?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ determined that a delegate voting system is distinct from proxy voting and is not prohibited by the Planned Communities Act.”, “detailed_answer”: “While Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1812) explicitly prohibits proxy voting in planned communities after the period of declarant control, the Administrative Law Judge found that the legislature did not prohibit ‘delegate voting.’ In a delegate system, votes are allocated to the elected Voting Member (delegate) rather than directly to the individual unit for that specific election, meaning the prohibition on casting unit votes via proxy does not apply.”, “alj_quote”: “Here, the relevant and credible evidence of record establishes that while proxy voting is explicitly prohibited under the Planned Community Act, the legislature made no such bar regarding delegate voting as a form of HOA governance.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “proxies”, “delegates”, “elections” ] }, { “question”: “Can my HOA allow neighborhood representatives to vote on behalf of owners?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the governing documents establish a delegate system where votes are allocated to the representative rather than the unit.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision upholds a system where neighborhoods elect ‘Voting Members’ who then cast votes for the Board of Directors. The ALJ reasoned that the Planned Communities Act prohibits proxy voting only when votes are ‘allocated to a unit.’ Under the delegate system described, the votes for directors were allocated to the Voting Members, not the individual units.”, “alj_quote”: “The Planned Community Act does not regulate who is authorized to vote in planned community elections. Instead, it prohibits proxy voting when votes have been ‘allocated to a unit.’ Regarding the election of Board Directors, there are no votes ‘allocated to a unit.’ Instead, all votes are allocated to Neighborhood Voting Members as delegates…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “board of directors”, “governing documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can neighborhood delegates cast votes for homeowners who did not participate in the poll?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, provided the governing documents allow the delegate to cast unreceived votes at their discretion.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that Voting Members in this case had the discretion to cast votes for units that did not respond to the neighborhood poll. This practice was found not to violate the statutory prohibition on proxies because it was part of a valid delegate voting structure.”, “alj_quote”: “Voting Members do not have complete discretion when casting votes. They only have discretion to cast unreceived votes.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1812”, “topic_tags”: [ “voting”, “discretionary voting”, “absentee ballots” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging their HOA in an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statute. The standard used is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the homeowner must show that their contention is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “administrative hearing”, “legal procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Nonprofit Corporation Act apply to HOAs in Arizona?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, unless the Planned Communities Act specifically exempts the HOA from a provision.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ reasoned that because the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from some parts of the Nonprofit Act but was silent on delegate voting, the Nonprofit Act’s allowance of such systems remains relevant context for HOA governance.”, “alj_quote”: “In fact, the legislature specifically exempted planned communities from certain enumerated provisions of the Nonprofit Act, but did not address delegate voting within the Planned Community Act in any capacity.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “corporate law”, “statutory interpretation”, “nonprofit act” ] }, { “question”: “If I disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, what can I do?”, “short_answer”: “You can appeal to the Superior Court within 35 days of being served the order.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision is binding, but parties have the right to seek judicial review. This appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within a strict 35-day window following the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “A party wishing to appeal this order must seek judicial review as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H) and title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Any such appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date when a copy of this order was served upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H); A.R.S. § 12-904(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “appeals”, “judicial review”, “superior court” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert J. Garing (petitioner)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc. member
    Also served as alternate Voting Member for 2 years
  • James Thomas Joan (witness)
    Also listed as Jimmy Yiannis

Respondent Side

  • Adrianne A. Speas (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Appeared as counsel for Respondent
  • Robert Sisley (board president; witness)
    Prescott Lakes Community Association, Inc.
    Also Alternate Voting Member for Parkside; served as the association representative
  • Catherine Black (assistant community manager; witness)
    Homeco
    Homeco is the HOA management company for Respondent
  • Lynn M. Krupnik (HOA attorney)
    Krupnik & Speas, LLC
    Counsel listed for Respondent in distribution

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Final decision authority/recipient of ALJ Decision

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-17
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6). The violation occurred because the Association's governing documents did not permit secret ballots, necessitating that the completed ballot contain the name, address, and signature of the voter, a requirement the distributed ballots failed to meet. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and comply with the statute henceforth.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of voting statute requiring name, address, and signature on completed ballot.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA's vote by written ballot was non-compliant because the individual ballots lacked the required name, address, and signature of the voter. The ALJ concluded that since the community documents did not permit secret ballots, the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) required the ballot itself (distinct from the envelope) to contain the name, address, and signature, and the HOA failed to meet this requirement.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 and henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Voting procedures, Secret ballot, Statutory interpretation, Dissolution vote
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3zvQyrzyXnPnq4xiANenbF

Decision Documents

23F-H030-REL Decision – 1037366.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:39 (47.2 KB)

23F-H030-REL Decision – 1049922.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:42 (128.9 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?

Short Answer

Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • governing documents

Question

What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.

Detailed Answer

Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.

Alj Quote

Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • compliance

Question

Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?

Short Answer

No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.

Alj Quote

Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • legal definitions

Question

Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?

Short Answer

No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.

Alj Quote

The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • agencies

Case

Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA use secret ballots where I only sign the envelope?

Short Answer

Only if the community's governing documents explicitly permit secret ballots.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an HOA cannot use secret ballots (where identification is only on the envelope) unless the community documents specifically permit them. If the documents are silent on the matter, the ballot itself must contain the voter's identification.

Alj Quote

The completed ballot shall contain the name, address and signature of the person voting, except that if the community documents permit secret ballots, only the envelope shall contain the name, address and signature of the voter… Nothing in the Association’s governing documents permitted secret ballots.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • governing documents

Question

What specific information must be written on an HOA ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must contain the voter's name, address, and signature.

Detailed Answer

Unless secret ballots are authorized by the governing documents, the ballot itself must include three specific items: the voter's name, the voter's address, and the voter's signature.

Alj Quote

Accordingly, the completed ballots in the vote at issue were required to contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • compliance

Question

Does signing my signature count as writing my name on a ballot?

Short Answer

No, a signature and a name are separate legal requirements.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that a signature does not satisfy the requirement to provide a name. The statute lists them separately, meaning both must be present on the ballot.

Alj Quote

Further, the plain language of the statute identifies that each ballot must contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting. The signature is a separate requirement from the name, and the ballot was required to have all three items.

Legal Basis

Statutory Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • legal definitions

Question

Can the HOA claim the envelope and ballot together count as a 'completed ballot'?

Short Answer

No, the law distinguishes between the ballot itself and the envelope.

Detailed Answer

The HOA cannot argue that the envelope is part of the ballot to satisfy identification requirements when secret ballots are not permitted. The statute treats the ballot and the envelope as distinct items.

Alj Quote

The plan language of the statute delineates between the ballot in a vote and the envelope in a secret ballot vote.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must provide enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the statute.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812(A)(6).

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • burden of proof

Question

If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the Administrative Law Judge rules in favor of the homeowner, they may order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee paid to the Department of Real Estate.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • reimbursement

Question

What agency handles disputes between homeowners and HOAs in Arizona?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can file petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes with the Department of Real Estate, which are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • agencies

Case

Docket No
23F-H030-REL
Case Title
Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date
2023-04-17
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Clifford Barnes. Appeared pro se, testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
    LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
    Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association. Referred to as Mr. Kate in transcript.
  • Esmeralda Serena Ayala-Martinez (HOA board president / witness)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Also referred to as Serena Martinez. Called as witness by Petitioner.
  • David Medil (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Dave Matt').
  • Joseph Martinez (board member)
    Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
    Listed as a board member in testimony (also referred to as 'Joseph Mar Martinez').

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as Tammy Igenir.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • A. Hansen (ADRE Staff Recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case transmission.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE Staff Recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case transmission.
  • D. Jones (ADRE Staff Recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case transmission.
  • L. Abril (ADRE Staff Recipient)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of case transmission.

Other Participants

  • Carolyn Wesen Mo (observer)
    Member of the public
    Present during the hearing.
  • Collin T. Welch (Attorney (Firm Principal))
    LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
    Name appears in firm name affiliation of Respondent's counsel.