Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Robert E. Wolfe v. Warner Ranch Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-11-11
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert E. Wolfe Counsel —
Respondent Warner Ranch Association Counsel Chandler W. Travis

Alleged Violations

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1804(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the March 28, 2025, 'Kick Start' meeting was not an official HOA Board meeting because no HOA business was transacted and it was arranged prior to the new management company being fully contracted. Therefore, the 48-hour advance notice requirement under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) was not required.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D), as the meeting was concluded to be informal and not subject to the statutory notice requirements for official Board meetings.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA Board Meeting Notice Requirement

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) by holding a 'kick start' meeting on March 28, 2025, after notice was sent on March 26, 2025, failing to meet the 48-hour advance notice requirement for a Board meeting. The ALJ concluded the meeting was an informal 'meet and greet' arranged by the incoming management company and was not an official HOA Board meeting where business was transacted; thus, the statute did not apply.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in 25F-H062-REL is dismissed, and Petitioner bears the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1804(D)
  • 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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Governance, Board Meeting Notice, Open Meeting Law, Planned Communities Statute, Management Company Transition
Additional Citations:

  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1804(D)
  • 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

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H062-REL Decision – 1341648.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:06 (43.0 KB)

25F-H062-REL Decision – 1341651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:10 (6.4 KB)

25F-H062-REL Decision – 1347681.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:14 (59.7 KB)

25F-H062-REL Decision – 1355633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:18 (48.6 KB)

25F-H062-REL Decision – 1367124.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:26:24 (133.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H062-REL


Briefing Document: Wolfe v. Warner Ranch Association (Case No. 25F-H062-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key proceedings, arguments, and final judgment in the administrative case of Robert E. Wolfe v. Warner Ranch Association, Case No. 25F-H062-REL, adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Robert E. Wolfe, alleged that the Warner Ranch Association (HOA) violated Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804(D)) by failing to provide the requisite 48-hour advance notice for a “kickstart meeting” held on March 28, 2025.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately dismissed the petition. The central finding of the decision was that the event in question was not a formal HOA Board meeting at which official business was transacted. Instead, it was characterized as an informal “meet and greet” arranged by the incoming management company, Spectrum, prior to its official contract start date. Consequently, the 48-hour notice requirement for Board meetings was deemed not applicable. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, and he was ordered to bear the $500 filing fee.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Robert E. Wolfe, a resident and member of the Warner Ranch Association.

◦ Respondent: Warner Ranch Association (HOA), represented by board members and its management company, Spectrum Association Management.

• Case Number: 25F-H062-REL

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), following a referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Presiding Judge: Kay A. Abramsohn, Administrative Law Judge.

• Core Dispute: Whether the “kickstart meeting” held on March 28, 2025, constituted an official Board of Directors meeting subject to the 48-hour advance notice requirement under A.R.S. § 33-1804(D).

Procedural History

The case involved several procedural adjustments regarding the hearing format and date, primarily initiated by the petitioner. Notably, several of the petitioner’s requests were made without copying the respondent, a point of order noted by the ALJ.

Action

Outcome

Aug 11, 2025

Petitioner requests a continuance, citing unavailability.

Aug 21, 2025

An order is issued continuing the hearing to October 7, 2025, to be held virtually.

Aug 27, 2025

Petitioner agrees to the date but requests the hearing be conducted in-person.

Sep 7, 2025

An order is issued confirming the October 7 date and changing the format to in-person.

Sep 30, 2025

Respondent’s counsel requests a virtual option for an unavailable witness.

Sep 30, 2025

A final order is issued establishing a hybrid hearing format (in-person and virtual) for October 7, 2025.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments (Robert E. Wolfe)

The petitioner’s case was singularly focused on the alleged violation of the 48-hour notice rule for Board meetings.

• Core Claim: The HOA held a Board meeting on Friday, March 28, 2025, at 1:00 PM but provided notice less than 48 hours in advance, in direct violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(D).

• Evidence of Insufficient Notice:

◦ Email notifications for the meeting were sent on Wednesday, March 26, 2025.

◦ Documentary evidence showed computer-generated receipt times ranging from 1:36 PM to 1:45 PM on March 26, which is less than 48 hours before the 1:00 PM meeting on March 28.

◦ The petitioner himself did not receive the initial email notice and was forwarded a copy by the HOA President, Melanie Zimmer.

• Evidence the Event was a Board Meeting:

◦ The petitioner argued the event’s structure and attendance qualified it as a formal Board meeting. The meeting notification included a formal agenda with items such as “Call to Order,” “Establishment of a Quorum,” and “Adjournment.”

◦ He contended that the meeting minutes listed Board members as present, indicating a quorum was established.

◦ In his testimony, the petitioner stated, “when you have a quorum of board of directors, it requires notice of open meeting.”

◦ He summarized his position with an analogy:

• Requested Relief:

1. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

2. An order requiring that a copy of the open meeting law be given to each board member.

Respondent’s Position and Testimony (Warner Ranch Association & Spectrum)

The respondent’s defense centered on the informal nature and purpose of the meeting, arguing it did not constitute official Board business.

• Characterization of the Meeting: The event was consistently described as an “informal kickstart meeting” and a “meet and greet,” not a formal Board meeting.

• Purpose of the Meeting:

◦ The meeting was arranged by the incoming management company, Spectrum, to introduce its team to the Board and homeowners.

◦ This was deemed necessary due to severe operational issues with the previous management company, which was described as “very, very delinquent.”

• Absence of Official Business:

◦ Testimony from multiple representatives, including HOA President Melanie Zimmer and Spectrum’s Brenda Steel, asserted that no official Board business, decision-making, motions, or votes were conducted.

◦ The meeting minutes reflected discussions about the management transition, roles, and expectations, but contained no record of official Board actions.

• Context of Management Transition:

◦ The contract with Spectrum was signed prior to the “kickstart” meeting.

◦ However, Spectrum’s official management duties were not set to begin until April 1, 2025. The March 28 meeting occurred before Spectrum formally took over management.

• Acknowledgement of Procedural Issues:

◦ A Spectrum representative testified that the meeting “could have been noticed differently” and that they did not have a complete list of homeowner email addresses from the prior company.

◦ HOA Treasurer Bonnie S. acknowledged receiving her own notice late (36 minutes after the 48-hour mark) and offered an apology:

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s final decision, issued on November 11, 2025, sided with the respondent and dismissed the petition.

• Final Order:

◦ The petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H062-REL was ordered dismissed.

◦ The petitioner, Robert E. Wolfe, was ordered to bear the $500.00 filing fee.

• Key Finding: The ALJ concluded that the March 28, 2025 “Kick Start” meeting was not an official HOA Board meeting where business was transacted.

• Legal Rationale: Because the event was not a Board meeting as defined by statute, the 48-hour advance notice requirement stipulated in A.R.S. § 33-1804(D) did not apply.

• Evidentiary Basis for Decision:

◦ The finding was supported by testimony from the HOA and Spectrum characterizing the event as an informal “meet and greet.”

◦ A review of the meeting minutes confirmed that they “do not reflect any motions, votes, or actions taken by the Board at the meeting on behalf of the HOA.”

◦ The decision noted that Spectrum had also mailed a postcard regarding the meeting to each of the 803 HOA members.

• Conclusion on Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ ruled that this burden was not met.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert E. Wolfe (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Melanie Zimmer (board president)
    Warner Ranch Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Bonnie Strike (board member)
    Warner Ranch Association
    Treasurer
  • Brenda Steel (community manager/witness)
    Spectrum Association Management
    HOA Community Manager
  • Elizabeth Wicks (legal services manager/witness)
    Spectrum Association Management
  • Diana Treantos (division president/witness)
    Spectrum Association Management
  • Chandler W. Travis (HOA attorney)
    The Travis Law Firm PLC
    Counsel for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • dmorehouse (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission

Other Participants

  • Renee Malcolm (HOA member/recipient)
    Warner Ranch Association
    Referenced in testimony regarding notice delivery timing
  • Bill Carlson (HOA member/recipient)
    Warner Ranch Association
    Referenced in testimony regarding notice delivery timing (one of the Carlsons)

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1336348.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:33 (157.7 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1348020.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:37 (43.9 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1380164.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:41 (51.8 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384549.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:45 (49.0 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1384804.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:23:50 (7.5 KB)

25F-H050-REL Decision – 1393862.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:19:32 (59.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H050-REL


Briefing Document: Fogelsong vs. Park Townhouses Homeowners Association (Docket No. 25F-H050-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the legal dispute between Marilyn J. Fogelsong (“Petitioner”) and the Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The Petitioner, a co-owner of a unit in the eight-unit Park Townhouses community, filed a petition on or about March 31, 2025, alleging four distinct violations by the HOA board. These allegations included failure to disclose a conflict of interest in hiring an HOA manager, violating the community’s CC&Rs by pursuing projects for individual units, violating state open meeting laws, and failing to act in good faith as fiduciaries.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 16, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing, and the Petitioner provided sole testimony.

On August 5, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for three of the four issues. The fourth issue was dismissed on the grounds that the OAH lacked the jurisdiction to enforce the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 10-830). A subsequent request for a rehearing filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the OAH as it was submitted to the incorrect office after the OAH’s jurisdiction had ended.

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H050-REL

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Nicole Robinson

Petitioner

Marilyn J. Fogelsong

Respondent

Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, Inc.

Subject Property

Park Townhouses, an 8-unit planned community in Tucson, AZ

Petition Filed

On or about March 31, 2025

Hearing Date

July 16, 2025

Decision Issued

August 5, 2025

Final Outcome

Petition DENIED

The Parties and Property

• Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong: A partial owner of unit 2467 East 1st Street since April 2021, co-owning with her 39-year-old son who resides in the unit. Fogelsong previously served as the HOA board president for three years, with her last term ending in September 2024.

• Respondent Park Townhouses HOA: A planned community association for an eight-unit townhouse development in Tucson, Arizona. Each unit owner is responsible for their own structure and lot.

• The Property: The community consists of two buildings, each with four townhouses facing each other across a 20-foot wide common driveway.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

During the July 16, 2025 hearing, Ms. Fogelsong, representing herself, presented testimony on the four issues outlined in her petition. The HOA did not appear.

Issue #1: Conflict of Interest (A.R.S. § 33-1811)

The Petitioner alleged that the HOA failed to disclose conflicts of interest when hiring Tucson Realty & Trust Company (TRT) as the HOA property manager, rendering the contract void.

• Core Allegation: On February 17, 2025, the HOA board presented only one proposal—from TRT—and asked homeowners to approve the hire without disclosing pertinent conflicts.

• Identified Conflicts:

◦ TRT’s property management division manages two units within the community (2463 and 2467) owned by then-current board members Mark Schlang (Treasurer) and Gerald Schwarzenb[erger] (Secretary).

◦ Both the property management and HOA management divisions of TRT operate under the same broker, Deborah Garcia.

• History of Misconduct by TRT: The Petitioner testified to a history of issues with TRT that she believed constituted conflicts of interest:

◦ TRT collected parking violation fines from a tenant but failed to remit them to the HOA.

◦ TRT failed to provide tenant contact information to the HOA upon request, which is a violation of Arizona law.

◦ TRT’s attorney, BL Edmonson, sent a “cease and desist” letter to Fogelsong and then invoiced the HOA for the legal fees, which Fogelsong, as president at the time, rejected. The invoice was resubmitted to the HOA 18 months later.

Issue #2: CC&R Violation (Paragraph 19)

The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Paragraph 19 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by directing the HOA manager to pursue an “unsanctioned project for individual townhouses.”

• Core Allegation: The HOA manager (TRT) met with a painting company on March 31, 2025, to solicit bids for painting the exteriors of all townhouses. The Petitioner argued this action is beyond the scope of the HOA’s authority, which is limited to maintaining common areas.

• Supporting Evidence:

◦ The Petitioner cited a legal opinion she obtained from an HOA attorney, Jason Smith, which concluded that the HOA does not have the right to conduct repairs on individual units.

◦ She referenced a past incident where another homeowner, David Zinfeld, paid an assessment for awning wood repair “under protest” because the funds were being used for an individual unit, not a common area.

Issue #3: Open Meeting Law Violations (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The Petitioner claimed the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws through multiple actions.

• Secret Meeting: The board held a private meeting to approve TRT as the manager before the February 17, 2025, homeowners meeting where the vote occurred. No notice of this prior board meeting was given to homeowners.

• Failure to Provide Information: The Petitioner made multiple requests for documents that were ignored. She requested management proposals on February 4, 2025, and later requested minutes, financial statements, and property management agreements, none of which were provided.

• Disregarded Standing: In its written response to the petition, the HOA claimed the Petitioner lacked “sufficient standing” due to her “limited ownership stake,” a position the Petitioner refutes based on her recorded deed.

Issue #4: Failure to Act in Good Faith (A.R.S. § 10-830A)

The Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform its duties with the care an “ordinarily prudent person” would exercise.

• Dereliction of Duties:

◦ The board, elected in September 2024, waited 10 weeks to meet and elect officers.

◦ The board failed to take control of the HOA bank account until March 2025, approximately six months into its one-year term.

◦ It failed to schedule a required annual backflow test for the irrigation system, resulting in the water being shut off.

◦ It failed to replace a dead tree that was on the agenda for replacement in fall 2024.

◦ It failed to check the HOA’s post office box, leading to the return of dues checks from homeowners.

◦ It did not abate new graffiti for six weeks, at which point the Petitioner did so herself after receiving permission.

Respondent’s Position

Although the HOA was not present at the hearing, its positions were articulated in a five-page written response submitted to the Department of Real Estate on May 8, 2025, and were referenced during the hearing.

• Denial of Claims: The Respondent denied all of the Petitioner’s claims.

• Challenge to Standing: The HOA’s formal position was that Ms. Fogelsong lacked sufficient standing due to her “limited ownership stake.”

• Allegation of Ulterior Motive: The Respondent accused the Petitioner of a “calculated and systematic attempt to devalue the property and agitate the owners to possibly sell their respective units to Miss Fogong [sic] and her son at a below market value.” They claimed several owners could testify to her “repeated suggestions and solicitations to sell.”

• Claim of Non-cooperation: The HOA stated that the Petitioner had “not been fully cooperative in the transition process” regarding missing documentation after her term as president ended.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

On August 5, 2025, ALJ Nicole Robinson issued a decision denying the petition. The core finding was that the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Findings on Each Issue

• Issue #1 (Conflict of Interest): No Violation Found. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the hiring of TRT constituted a conflict of interest as defined by A.R.S. § 33-1811. The evidence showed that a prior management company (McElwain) also managed individual units while serving as the HOA manager, suggesting this was an established practice. The statute specifically addresses benefits to board members or their families, which was not sufficiently established by the evidence presented.

• Issue #2 (CC&R Violation): No Violation Found. The decision stated that the Petitioner failed to submit the entirety of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, providing only “snippets.” Without the complete governing documents, the tribunal could not definitively determine the scope of the HOA’s authority regarding projects on individual units. Furthermore, the evidence only showed that a bid was solicited for painting; there was no evidence that work was actually performed.

• Issue #3 (Open Meeting Law): No Violation Found. The ALJ found that the February 17, 2025, meeting was properly noticed via email. Regarding a March 5, 2025, email the Petitioner did not receive, the evidence showed her co-owner son did receive it, meaning the unit was properly notified. A December 2024 meeting was deemed emergent, for which the statute does not require prior notice.

• Issue #4 (Failure to Act in Good Faith): No Jurisdiction. The ALJ concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to enforce A.R.S. § 10-830. The OAH’s authority is limited by statute to adjudicating violations of Title 33 (Planned Communities and Condominiums) and community documents, not Title 10 (Corporations and Associations).

Post-Decision Events

• On August 26, 2025, the Petitioner filed a request for a rehearing.

• On September 8, 2025, the OAH issued a Minute Entry stating that the request would not be considered because it was “inappropriately sent to the Office of Administrative Hearings.”

• The OAH’s jurisdiction over the matter had concluded with the August 5 decision. The Petitioner was advised to address any further requests to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marilyn J. Fogelsong (petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Represented herself; former HOA President/Treasurer
  • Levi Benjamin Lazarus (co-owner/son of petitioner)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Co-owner of petitioner's unit
  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Consulted by petitioner regarding CC&R interpretation for unit repairs

Respondent Side

  • Gerald Schwarzenb (board member/Secretary)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Mark Schlang (board member/Treasurer/architect)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Current HOA board member; his unit managed by TRT
  • Deborah Garcia (broker/HOA manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Broker of TRT; homeowners voted to accept her as HOA manager
  • Andrew Viscara (HOA property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    TRT representative designated for Park Townhouses HOA management
  • Mary Lord Lr (property manager)
    TRT Property Management
    Property manager for unit 2465
  • B.L. Edmonson (attorney)
    TRT Property Management
    Wrote cease and desist letter to petitioner; billed HOA

Neutral Parties

  • Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • David Zinfeld (homeowner/former Treasurer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Property owner; prior treasurer during self-managed period; paid assessment under protest
  • Ray Floyd (former board member)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Served on board with petitioner during self-managed period
  • Sasha Flores (bank account signer)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Wife of Rick Flores; co-signer on HOA bank account
  • Rick Flores (homeowner/delegate)
    Park Townhouses HOA
    Delegated authority to wife Sasha Flores for bank account deeds

Marilyn J Fogelsong

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Marilyn J Fogelsong vs Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-08-05
Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marilyn J. Fogelsong Counsel —
Respondent Park Townhouses Homeowners Association, INC. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (A) and (F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was DENIED because Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged violations, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the alleged violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on all four issues. Issues 1, 2, and 3 lacked sufficient evidentiary support or statutory violation proof. Issue 4 was dismissed due to lack of OAH jurisdiction over ARS § 10-830.

Key Issues & Findings

The HOA failed to disclose conflicts-of-interest when hiring an HOA property manager to manage the HOA which is a violation of ARS 33-1811.

Petitioner alleged that the hiring of TRT (Tucson Realty & Trust Company, Management Services, LLC) as the HOA manager constituted an undisclosed conflict of interest because TRT also managed individual townhouses within the community.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811

The HOA has violated paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs by directing an HOA property manager to pursue an unsanctioned project for individual townhouses which is beyond the scope of HOA management for common areas.

The HOA manager solicited bids to paint the exteriors of all townhouses. Petitioner argued the HOA lacked authority to manage improvements for individual units, as Paragraph 19 limits HOA authority to common areas.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 19 of the CC&Rs

The board has violated the open meeting laws of ARS 33-1804 (A) and (F) by holding a private board meeting without notice; failing to provide material information, minutes, financial statements, and a budget upon request; and by failing to communicate via the designated representative.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and failing to provide requested documentation (minutes, financial statements, etc.).

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

The board has violated ARS 10-830(A) by failing to act in good faith with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would act by failing to perform their duties.

Petitioner alleged the board failed to perform required duties in a timely or prudent manner, including failing to elect officers, manage the bank account, check the post office box, and schedule a backflow test.

Orders: N/A

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Management, Conflict of Interest, Open Meeting Law, Jurisdiction, Planned Community, CC&Rs, Director Duty, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1811
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-830
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Park Association

Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-07-13
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicholas Thomas Counsel —
Respondent Tanglewood Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the two-issue Petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tanglewood Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Management Agreement. The HOA was declared the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Regarding the plumbing maintenance (Issue #1), the HOA demonstrated they took action but were legally constrained by contract limitations requiring Board approval/owner vote for costly repairs ($5,000 threshold). Regarding the failure to hire a property manager (Issue #2), the governing documents were vague, and the violation was not proven.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to maintain Association standards of acceptable living standards and make proper repairs to plumbing in the properties.

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging HOA failed to timely fix a major plumbing issue (Issue #1) that caused flooding/sink backup, making his unit uninhabitable and resulting in lost rent. The second issue (Issue #2) alleged the HOA failed to hire a property management company, which Petitioner claimed led to the untimely handling of Issue #1. The HOA responded that repairs were delayed due to financial constraints requiring a successful special assessment vote.

Orders: The Petition was denied, and the HOA was determined to be the prevailing party. Petitioner was ordered to bear his filing fees. OAH cannot award damages, such as lost rent reimbursement.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Page 2, Section A
  • Management Agreement, Pages 33-34, Clause Four, subsection a., b., and f.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Plumbing, CC&R, Self-Managed, Special Assessment, Filing Fee, Damages Denied
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1300705.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:44 (49.8 KB)

25F-H037-REL Decision – 1327762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:48 (147.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H037-REL


Briefing Document: Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association (Case No. 25F-H037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of Case No. 25F-H037-REL, a dispute between property owner Nicholas Thomas (Petitioner) and the Tanglewood Association (HOA/Respondent). The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, with a final decision issued on July 13, 2025.

The Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging that the HOA (1) failed in its duty to perform timely plumbing repairs, rendering his unit uninhabitable, and (2) failed to hire a professional property management company, leading to systemic financial and operational issues.

The HOA countered that the repair delays were not due to inaction but to severe financial constraints and the procedural necessity of securing a majority vote from homeowners for a special assessment. This funding was required for the extensive and costly repairs needed for the property’s aging infrastructure. The HOA highlighted that the Petitioner had never participated in these critical votes.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition in its entirety, finding that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proof. The decision concluded that the HOA’s actions were constrained by its financial reality and governing documents, not a breach of duty. The delays were attributed to the failed attempts to secure owner-approved funding via special assessment votes in prior years. The HOA was determined to be the prevailing party, and the Petitioner was ordered to bear his own filing fees.

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 25F-H037-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Nicholas Thomas, owner of Unit 141, Building 4

◦ Respondent: Tanglewood Association (HOA), represented by Co-President Hector Saavedra

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

• Timeline:

◦ Petition Filed: February 7, 2025

◦ Hearing Date: May 16, 2025

◦ Decision Issued: July 13, 2025

The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs by failing to maintain the property and by not hiring professional management. The matter was referred to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

II. Complaint #1: Failure to Repair Plumbing Issue

Petitioner’s Position

The central claim was that the HOA failed to address a severe plumbing issue in a timely manner, which stemmed from common lines outside the Petitioner’s unit.

• Timeline of Events:

◦ October 2024: The Petitioner first became aware of a plumbing issue causing the kitchen sink to back up. A private plumber determined the issue was external to the unit.

◦ November 18, 2024: The HOA was formally notified of the problem.

◦ January/February 2025: Communication from the HOA ceased, prompting the Petitioner to file his complaint.

◦ February 18, 2025: The Petitioner canceled the lease with his tenants as the unit was deemed “uninhabitable” due to flooding and a non-functional sink.

• Consequences: The Petitioner cited damage to the kitchen floor and walls, the loss of rental income, and the ongoing uninhabitable state of the unit. The water line to the sink was eventually capped in February 2025 to stop the flooding, but this did not resolve the underlying issue.

• Key Quote: “The plumbing issue has been in place for 7 months. It has not been addressed. The house is currently unlivable, uninhabitable, still has damage in it. Um, and I do believe the HOA has failed in its required responsibilities to address this issue.” – Nicholas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to fix the plumbing with a specific timeline.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

3. Reimbursement for lost rent.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA argued that the delay was a direct result of financial insolvency and procedural requirements stipulated in its governing documents, not negligence.

• Systemic Problem: The plumbing issues were not isolated to the Petitioner’s unit but were part of a larger problem with the property’s aging infrastructure, dating back to 1965. A similar issue in another building cost $15,000 to repair two years prior.

• Financial & Procedural Hurdles: The estimated cost for the current repairs was initially $15,000 but rose to $50,000. The HOA stated it was “flat broke” with minimal reserves. The CC&Rs mandate a majority vote of over 50% (50.1%) of owners to approve a special assessment for such funding.

• Key Quote: “It should be noted that the board cannot increase the dues of the HOA or or ask for an special assessment unless we have a 50.01% vote from the owners. Mr. Thomas hasn’t voted in two three years and the things that he’s been asking for need their vote to make them happen.” – Hector Saavedra

• Voting History: Attempts to pass a special assessment failed in 2022 and 2023 due to a lack of owner participation. The Petitioner acknowledged he had never voted.

• Eventual Success: In 2025, after significant effort, the HOA secured a 50.35% vote to approve a $70,000 special assessment. This was structured in three phases to ease the financial burden on owners.

• Current Action Plan: At the time of the hearing, the HOA had collected approximately $40,000, made a $15,000 down payment to a plumbing contractor, and was scheduling the work. The repairs were set to begin with Building 4, which includes the Petitioner’s unit and was identified as having the most severe damage.

III. Complaint #2: Lack of Professional Management

Petitioner’s Position

This complaint asserted that the root cause of the HOA’s problems was its self-managed, volunteer-run structure, which was incapable of handling the property’s complex needs.

• Core Argument: A volunteer board lacks the time, expertise, and resources for effective financial management, enforcement of dues collection (including foreclosure on delinquent owners), and timely handling of maintenance. The Petitioner’s brother, Lucas Thomas, testified that in his 15 years as a property manager, he has consistently seen self-managed HOAs fail to operate correctly.

• Alleged Financial Mismanagement: The Petitioner argued the HOA should have been proactively increasing dues up to the 20% annual limit allowed by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1803) without an owner vote, which would have built necessary reserves.

• Key Quote: “Every time that there is a self-managed HOA, the volunteers just don’t have the knowledge or the knowhow or the connections to locals that they need to properly facilitate a giant management especially for 42 units.” – Lucas Thomas

• Requested Relief:

1. An order for the HOA to hire a professional property management company.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 portion of the filing fee for this complaint.

Respondent’s Position (Tanglewood HOA)

The HOA acknowledged the challenges of a volunteer board but maintained that its primary obstacle was financial, not a lack of willingness to act.

• Affordability: The board had discussed hiring a professional management company but concluded it could not afford the expense. They feared that passing the cost to owners would result in even greater delinquency in dues payments.

• Volunteer Effort and Investment: The board is comprised of unpaid owner volunteers who live on the property and are personally impacted by the issues. Mr. Saavedra noted the immense personal time and stress involved, stating, “We are working we understand there’s around seven units right now that are vacant just like Mr. Thomas’s. We understand the pain of not being able to collect money from that from rent.”

• Invitation to Participate: The HOA extended an invitation to Mr. Thomas to join the board and contribute to finding solutions.

IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision & Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petitioner’s petition on all counts, finding the evidence did not support a conclusion that the HOA had violated its duties.

• Final Order:

◦ The Petitioner’s Petition is denied.

◦ The HOA is the prevailing party.

◦ The Petitioner shall bear his own filing fees ($1,000.00).

◦ The OAH does not have the authority to award damages, such as lost rent.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #1 (Plumbing Repair):

◦ The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving the HOA was not performing its duties.

◦ The evidence demonstrated that upon receiving complaints, the HOA hired a vendor and investigated the issue. The subsequent delay was a direct result of the high cost of repair and the HOA’s lack of funds.

◦ The HOA’s governing documents prevent a property manager or agent from spending more than $5,000, even in an emergency, without Board approval. Therefore, an immediate, large-scale repair was contractually and financially impossible without the owner-approved special assessment. The delay was thus a consequence of procedural and financial constraints, not a failure of duty.

• Rationale for Denying Complaint #2 (Professional Management):

◦ The ALJ found the hearing record to be “simply vague” on this issue.

◦ It could not be determined whether the HOA ever had a property manager in the past or to whom the “Management Agreement” clauses in the CC&Rs currently apply. Without a clearer record, a violation could not be established.

V. Key Participants & Testimony

Participant

Key Testimony & Contributions

Nicholas Thomas

Petitioner, Owner of Unit 141

Outlined the 7-month timeline of the plumbing failure, the resulting uninhabitability of his unit, and the financial losses incurred. Argued for professional management and acknowledged he had never voted in HOA elections or assessments.

Hector Saavedra

Respondent, Co-President of Tanglewood HOA

Explained the HOA’s financial insolvency, the procedural requirement for a majority owner vote to pass special assessments, and the history of failed votes. Detailed the successful 2025 vote and the current plan to begin repairs. Invited the Petitioner to join the board.

Carl Kesler

Petitioner’s Property Manager

Corroborated the timeline of events and communications with the HOA. Confirmed the plumbing issue was localized to the kitchen and stemmed from a mainline sewer problem. Stated he had never been to the unit in person and did not forward all HOA correspondence to the Petitioner.

Lucas Thomas

Petitioner’s Brother, Former Property Manager

Testified from his 15 years of experience that self-managed HOAs are typically ineffective. Argued that a professional firm is necessary for proper financial management and maintenance, citing a past lawsuit where he forced another HOA to hire a management company, which turned the property around.






Study Guide – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H037-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H037-REL”, “case_title”: “Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-07-13”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I get monetary damages (like lost rent) from my HOA through an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) does not have the legal authority to award damages.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the OAH can order an HOA to follow its governing documents, it cannot award financial compensation for losses such as lost rent or property damage.”, “alj_quote”: “OAH does not have authority to award damages.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “damages”, “jurisdiction”, “compensation” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA fails to make repairs due to lack of funds, is it considered a violation?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the HOA is taking steps to secure funding through a special assessment.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that the HOA could not be held in violation for failing to make immediate repairs when it lacked the necessary funds and was actively seeking a special assessment vote from owners to cover the costs.”, “alj_quote”: “Given its financial situation, HOA determined the overall plumbing issues could not be repaired absent a special assessment to cover those specific and projected expenses… Therefore, the hearing record demonstrates that more immediate action to repair either Petitioner’s plumbing issues or the overall plumbing issues could not have been taken.”, “legal_basis”: “Governing Documents / Financial Feasibility”, “topic_tags”: [ “repairs”, “finances”, “special assessment” ] }, { “question”: “Who acts as the ‘burden of proof’ in a hearing against an HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated its community documents or relevant statutes.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent HOA violated the alleged CC&R provisions.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standard”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can I force my HOA board to hire a professional property management company?”, “short_answer”: “Likely no, unless you can prove a specific requirement in the governing documents is being violated.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the homeowner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the HOA was violating its duties by not hiring a property manager, noting the evidence regarding the requirement was vague.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that HOA was not timely performing ‘their duties outlined’ in CC&Rs Page 2, Section A; and Management Agreement… regarding property management, the hearing record is simply vague.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs / Management Agreement”, “topic_tags”: [ “property management”, “board duties”, “self-management” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA manager have unlimited spending power for emergency repairs?”, “short_answer”: “No, governing documents often place specific dollar limits on spending without board/association approval.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites a management agreement that limits emergency repair spending (e.g., to $5,000) without prior approval from the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Agent shall not incur liabilities (direct or contingent) which will at any time exceed the aggregate of $5,000.00 … without first obtaining the approval of the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Management Agreement Contracts”, “topic_tags”: [ “spending limits”, “emergency repairs”, “budget” ] }, { “question”: “If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the petition is denied, the petitioner is typically responsible for their own filing fees.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner bear his own filing fees after Tanglewood Association was determined to be the prevailing party.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall bear his filing fees.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “costs”, “penalties” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nicholas Thomas (petitioner)
    Represented self; Unit owner
  • Carl Kesler (property manager)
    Managed Petitioner's unit; testified as witness
  • Lucas Thomas (witness)
    Brother of Petitioner; former property manager of the unit

Respondent Side

  • Hector Saavedra (board member)
    Tanglewood Association
    Co-President; represented the Respondent Association

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Also referred to as K. Abramson
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the decision

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 5.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied
Additional Citations:

  • 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. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R 5.3




Briefing Doc – 25F-H036-REL


Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. 25F-H036-REL, held before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved an allegation by the Petitioner that the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Article 5.3 of its Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which mandates that its Architectural Committee (ARC) “shall consist of three (3) regular members.”

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, asserting that the ARC was operating with only two members, thereby violating the governing documents. The Petitioner argued that this violation had persisted for an extended period and that the HOA Board had ignored his own application to fill the vacancy, constituting punitive behavior that warranted civil penalties.

The Respondent, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, contended that the governing documents allow for flexibility and that no violation occurred while the Board was actively recruiting a third member. The HOA argued that its interpretation was practical, in the best interest of the homeowners, and consistent with the practices of previous boards.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay A. Abramsohn, ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision, issued on June 8, 2025, found that the HOA was in violation of CC&R 5.3 at the time the petition was filed. The ruling was narrowly focused on the number of ARC members and explicitly declined to address secondary arguments about the validity of member appointments, as those were outside the scope of the single-issue petition. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H036-REL

Petitioner

John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Hearing Date

May 14, 2025

Decision Date

June 8, 2025

Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3

The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).

Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:

“After such time as the rights of Declarant to appoint the members of the Architectural Committee expire or are relinquished by the Declarant, the Architectural Committee shall consist of three (3) regular members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Board. In the event the Board does not appoint an Architectural Committee for any reason, the Board shall exercise the authority granted to the Architectural Committee under this Declaration…”

The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.

Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:

• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.

• Prolonged Non-Compliance: The ARC operated with only two members for approximately 17 months, from at least October 2023 until March 17, 2025. Krahn further argued the period of non-compliance was potentially 42 months, claiming ARC member Mike Ackerly was never lawfully appointed by a formal Board vote in an open meeting.

• Failure to Correct: The HOA Board acknowledged the vacancy at a November 19, 2024 meeting and called for volunteers. Krahn submitted his resume the next day but his application was never discussed or voted upon. He contended this was a missed opportunity to bring the ARC into compliance.

• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.

• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.

Key Testimony (Krahn): “This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It’s a binary question of fact and by respondent’s own admission are operating for many months with other than three members.”

Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments

The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:

• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.

• Active Recruitment: The Board was actively recruiting for the vacant position, as evidenced by the public call for volunteers. During this recruitment period, the two-member committee’s continued function was reasonable and in the community’s best interest.

• Board Authority: The Board has the authority under CC&R 12.5 to interpret the governing documents. Its interpretation that the committee could function with two members during a vacancy was a valid exercise of that authority.

• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.

• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.

Key Testimony (Jolivette): “Our position is that two members is not not necessarily a violation of 5.3 if and when you’re actively recruiting for another member… Nothing in the governing document states that an appointment is equivalent to a vote.”

Hearing and Procedural Timeline

Nov 19, 2024

The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.

Nov 20, 2024

Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.

Jan 22, 2025

The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.

Feb 5, 2025

The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar 17, 2025

The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.

May 14, 2025

An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

June 8, 2025

The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

June 29, 2025

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.

• Violation Confirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner met the burden of proof to demonstrate that as of the petition’s filing date (February 5, 2025), the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the ARC. This constituted a violation of CC&R 5.3.

• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.

• Limitation of Scope: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of Mike Ackerly’s appointment process were not addressed. The ruling was confined to the single issue presented in the original petition: whether the ARC had the required number of members. The decision stated, “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the appointment process are not addressed.”

The ALJ issued a three-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H036-REL was granted on the grounds that the HOA had not appointed a third member to the ARC to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.

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

3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc was later issued on June 29, 2025, to correct a clerical error in the original decision, changing the record of admitted evidence from “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 22” to “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 26.” This correction was retroactive to the date of the original decision.


Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs state a committee 'shall' have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?

Short Answer

Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of 'shall consist' in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.

Legal Basis

CC&R 5.3

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Committee Requirements
  • Governance

Question

If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.

Legal Basis

Administrative Law Standards

Topic Tags

  • Procedural
  • Compliance
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.

Detailed Answer

Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Remedies
  • Costs

Question

Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?

Short Answer

Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.

Detailed Answer

Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.

Alj Quote

Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Committee
  • Board of Directors
  • Statutory Requirements

Question

Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?

Short Answer

No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Remedies
  • Civil Penalty

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… '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

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Rehearing
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No

25F-H036-REL

Case Title

John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Decision Date

2025-06-08

Alj Name

Kay A. Abramsohn

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs state a committee 'shall' have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?

Short Answer

Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of 'shall consist' in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.

Legal Basis

CC&R 5.3

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Committee Requirements
  • Governance

Question

If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?

Short Answer

Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.

Alj Quote

The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.

Legal Basis

Administrative Law Standards

Topic Tags

  • Procedural
  • Compliance
  • Dispute Resolution

Question

Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.

Detailed Answer

Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Remedies
  • Costs

Question

Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?

Short Answer

Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.

Detailed Answer

Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.

Alj Quote

Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Topic Tags

  • Architectural Committee
  • Board of Directors
  • Statutory Requirements

Question

Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?

Short Answer

No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Remedies
  • Civil Penalty

Question

What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… '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

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

  • Appeals
  • Rehearing
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No

25F-H036-REL

Case Title

John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association

Decision Date

2025-06-08

Alj Name

Kay A. Abramsohn

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust vs Tonto Forest

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-06-08
Administrative Law Judge Kay Abramsohn
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust Counsel —
Respondent Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R 5.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s single-issue petition because the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the Architectural Committee (ARC) to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, but no civil penalty was awarded.

Key Issues & Findings

Architectural Committee Composition Requirement

Petitioner alleged violation of CC&R Article 5.3, which mandates the Architectural Committee (ARC) shall consist of three regular members, because the HOA only had two members on the ARC as of the petition date (February 5, 2025). The Tribunal found the HOA failed to appoint a third member to the ARC until March 17, 2025, granting the petition.

Orders: Petition granted; Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was awarded.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 5.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Committee, ARC, CC&R Violation, Board Appointment, Filing Fee Reimbursement, Civil Penalty Denied
Additional Citations:

  • 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. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R 5.3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1294268.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:22 (45.3 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1295556.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:26 (40.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1314961.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:30 (144.4 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323845.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:34 (44.0 KB)

25F-H036-REL Decision – 1323922.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:18:38 (7.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H036-REL


Briefing Document: Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Case No. 25F-H036-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case John R Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association, Case No. 25F-H036-REL, held before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The central dispute involved an allegation by the Petitioner that the Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) violated Article 5.3 of its Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which mandates that its Architectural Committee (ARC) “shall consist of three (3) regular members.”

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, asserting that the ARC was operating with only two members, thereby violating the governing documents. The Petitioner argued that this violation had persisted for an extended period and that the HOA Board had ignored his own application to fill the vacancy, constituting punitive behavior that warranted civil penalties.

The Respondent, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, contended that the governing documents allow for flexibility and that no violation occurred while the Board was actively recruiting a third member. The HOA argued that its interpretation was practical, in the best interest of the homeowners, and consistent with the practices of previous boards.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Kay A. Abramsohn, ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The decision, issued on June 8, 2025, found that the HOA was in violation of CC&R 5.3 at the time the petition was filed. The ruling was narrowly focused on the number of ARC members and explicitly declined to address secondary arguments about the validity of member appointments, as those were outside the scope of the single-issue petition. Consequently, the HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty was denied.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Number

25F-H036-REL

Petitioner

John R Krahn Living Trust / Janet Krahn Living Trust (Represented by John R. Krahn)

Respondent

Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association (Represented by Dwight Jolivette, Board President)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

Hearing Date

May 14, 2025

Decision Date

June 8, 2025

Central Dispute: Violation of CC&R Article 5.3

The core of the dispute was the interpretation and application of CC&R Article 5.3 concerning the composition of the Architectural Committee (ARC).

Relevant Text of CC&R 5.3:

“After such time as the rights of Declarant to appoint the members of the Architectural Committee expire or are relinquished by the Declarant, the Architectural Committee shall consist of three (3) regular members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Board. In the event the Board does not appoint an Architectural Committee for any reason, the Board shall exercise the authority granted to the Architectural Committee under this Declaration…”

The Petitioner filed a single-issue petition on February 5, 2025, alleging the HOA was in violation of this article by operating the ARC with only two members.

Petitioner’s Position and Key Arguments

The Petitioner, John R. Krahn, who previously served as ARC Chairman (2019-2021) and Board Secretary (2019-2021), presented the following arguments:

• Mandatory Requirement: The term “shall” in CC&R 5.3 creates a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation for the ARC to have exactly three members.

• Prolonged Non-Compliance: The ARC operated with only two members for approximately 17 months, from at least October 2023 until March 17, 2025. Krahn further argued the period of non-compliance was potentially 42 months, claiming ARC member Mike Ackerly was never lawfully appointed by a formal Board vote in an open meeting.

• Failure to Correct: The HOA Board acknowledged the vacancy at a November 19, 2024 meeting and called for volunteers. Krahn submitted his resume the next day but his application was never discussed or voted upon. He contended this was a missed opportunity to bring the ARC into compliance.

• Punitive Behavior: The Board’s failure to consider his candidacy was described as “personal retaliation” and “punitive governance,” for which a civil penalty was warranted.

• Corrective Action as Admission: The Board’s appointment of a third member on March 17, 2025—after the complaint was filed—was presented as proof of the underlying violation.

Key Testimony (Krahn): “This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It’s a binary question of fact and by respondent’s own admission are operating for many months with other than three members.”

Respondent’s Position and Key Arguments

The HOA, represented by Board President Dwight Jolivette, countered with the following arguments:

• Reasonable Interpretation: No board has ever interpreted CC&R 5.3 to mean the ARC is non-viable or must be dissolved if it temporarily falls below three members.

• Active Recruitment: The Board was actively recruiting for the vacant position, as evidenced by the public call for volunteers. During this recruitment period, the two-member committee’s continued function was reasonable and in the community’s best interest.

• Board Authority: The Board has the authority under CC&R 12.5 to interpret the governing documents. Its interpretation that the committee could function with two members during a vacancy was a valid exercise of that authority.

• Appointment Process: The governing documents require members to be “appointed by the Board” but do not explicitly mandate a formal vote.

• Past Precedent: Jolivette argued that the ARC had operated with fewer than three members under prior boards, including one on which Krahn himself served.

Key Testimony (Jolivette): “Our position is that two members is not not necessarily a violation of 5.3 if and when you’re actively recruiting for another member… Nothing in the governing document states that an appointment is equivalent to a vote.”

Hearing and Procedural Timeline

Nov 19, 2024

The HOA Board acknowledges an ARC vacancy and calls for volunteers.

Nov 20, 2024

Petitioner John Krahn submits his resume for the ARC position.

Jan 22, 2025

The HOA’s Community Manager confirms in an email that the ARC has two members: Steve Gauer and Mike Ackerly.

Feb 5, 2025

The Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Mar 17, 2025

The HOA Board formally appoints Alan Damon to the ARC via motion and vote, bringing its membership to three.

May 14, 2025

An evidentiary administrative hearing is held virtually before ALJ Kay Abramsohn.

June 8, 2025

The Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

June 29, 2025

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc is issued to correct the number of admitted petitioner exhibits in the original decision.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ’s decision, issued on June 8, 2025, resolved the dispute by granting the petition but denying the request for a civil penalty.

• Violation Confirmed: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner met the burden of proof to demonstrate that as of the petition’s filing date (February 5, 2025), the HOA Board had not appointed a third member to the ARC. This constituted a violation of CC&R 5.3.

• Corrective Action Timing: The decision noted that a third member was not appointed until March 17, 2025, more than a month after the petition was filed.

• Limitation of Scope: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of Mike Ackerly’s appointment process were not addressed. The ruling was confined to the single issue presented in the original petition: whether the ARC had the required number of members. The decision stated, “Petitioner’s arguments regarding the appointment process are not addressed.”

The ALJ issued a three-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition in case 25F-H036-REL was granted on the grounds that the HOA had not appointed a third member to the ARC to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.

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

3. Civil Penalty Denied: No civil penalty was awarded.

An Order Nunc Pro Tunc was later issued on June 29, 2025, to correct a clerical error in the original decision, changing the record of admitted evidence from “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 22” to “Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 26.” This correction was retroactive to the date of the original decision.






Study Guide – 25F-H036-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H036-REL”, “case_title”: “John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-06-08”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the CC&Rs state a committee ‘shall’ have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of ‘shall consist’ in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R 5.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “Committee Requirements”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Compliance”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.”, “detailed_answer”: “Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner’s $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Filing Fees”, “Remedies”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.”, “alj_quote”: “Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Architectural Committee”, “Board of Directors”, “Statutory Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Civil Penalty” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… ‘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”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?”, “short_answer”: “30 days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Rehearing”, “Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H036-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H036-REL”, “case_title”: “John R. Krahn Living Trust/Janet Krahn Living Trust v. Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-06-08”, “alj_name”: “Kay A. Abramsohn”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the CC&Rs state a committee ‘shall’ have a specific number of members, is the HOA in violation if they operate with fewer?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. If the governing documents mandate a specific number of members (e.g., three), failing to appoint that number is a violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated the CC&Rs because the documents required the Architectural Committee to consist of three members, but the Board had failed to appoint a third member for a period of time. The use of ‘shall consist’ in the CC&Rs created a mandatory requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition in 25F-H036-REL be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC in order to comply with CC&R 5.3 until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R 5.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&Rs”, “Committee Requirements”, “Governance” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA fixes the violation after I file my complaint, do I still win the hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Correcting the issue after the petition is filed does not erase the fact that the violation existed at the time of filing.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner filed the petition in February. The HOA appointed the missing committee member in March (before the May hearing). The ALJ still granted the petition because the HOA was not in compliance at the time the dispute arose and the petition was filed.”, “alj_quote”: “The Tribunal concludes that that Petitioner has met his burden to demonstrate that, as of February 5, 2025, the newly elected HOA Board had not yet appointed a third member to the ARC… IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition… be granted because the newly elected HOA Board had yet appointed a third member to the ARC… until March 17, 2025.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Law Standards”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural”, “Compliance”, “Dispute Resolution” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA have to pay me back for the filing fee if I win?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ typically orders the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the homeowner prevails.”, “detailed_answer”: “Upon granting the petition and finding the HOA in violation, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the homeowner’s $500 filing fee as required by Arizona statute.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Filing Fees”, “Remedies”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Does the law require a Board member to serve on the Architectural Committee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Arizona statute mandates that at least one board member serve as the chairperson of the design review or architectural committee.”, “detailed_answer”: “Regardless of what the specific community documents say, Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1817) overrides them to require that a board member serve as the chairperson of the architectural committee.”, “alj_quote”: “Membership on a design review committee, an architectural committee or a committee that performs similar functions, however denominated, for the planned community shall include at least one member of the board of directors who shall serve as chairperson of the committee.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Architectural Committee”, “Board of Directors”, “Statutory Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Will I automatically be awarded civil penalties (fines against the HOA) if I prove a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No. Proving a violation does not guarantee that the judge will impose a civil penalty.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the homeowner successfully proved the HOA violated the CC&Rs regarding committee membership, the ALJ explicitly declined to award any civil penalties.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty is awarded.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Civil Penalty” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof for a homeowner in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove that their claim is ‘more probably true than not.’ It is based on the convincing force and superior weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R 5.3… ‘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”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How long do I have to request a rehearing if I am unhappy with the decision?”, “short_answer”: “30 days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Any party wishing to request a rehearing must file the request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.”, “alj_quote”: “Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09”, “topic_tags”: [ “Appeals”, “Rehearing”, “Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John R. Krahn (petitioner/representative)
    John R Krahn Living Trust
    Appeared on Petitioners’ behalf; former ARC Chairman and Board Secretary.
  • Janet Krahn (petitioner)
    Janet Krahn Living Trust
    Named party in the case title.

Respondent Side

  • Dwight Jolivette (board president/HOA representative)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Appeared on Respondent's behalf.
  • Barbara Bonilla (property manager)
    Ogden & Company
    Community Manager for the HOA.
  • Steve Gauer (board treasurer/ARC member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Became Board Treasurer in November 2024; served on ARC.
  • Mike Ackerly (ARC member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Joined the ARC in February 2022.
  • Alan Damon (ARC member)
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Appointed to the ARC on March 17, 2025.
  • Kenneth Riley (ARC member (former))
    Tonto Forest Estates Homeowners Association
    Indicated as an ARC member between July and November 2024.

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Other Participants

  • Joe Burns (attendee)
    Attended the hearing virtually; did not give testimony.
  • John Fris (ARC member (former))
    Mentioned as a former ARC member appointed in February 2021.
  • Brett (ARC member (former))
    Mentioned as a former ARC member whom John (Fris) replaced.

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

The remanded issue concerned whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests, specifically a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses, in violation of ARS § 33-1805. The parties stipulated that a violation of ARS § 33-1805 occurred.

Orders: Petitioner's remanded petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and pay a $25.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $25.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Membership Roster, Records Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Stipulation, Remand
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09(A)(1)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1280942.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:21 (50.9 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1285833.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:25 (107.0 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1286292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:30 (21.7 KB)

25F-H2222050-REL-RMD Decision – 1288559.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:27:36 (149.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


Briefing Document: The Matter of Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key events, legal arguments, and ultimate resolution of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD). The dispute, which progressed through the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the Maricopa County Superior Court, centered on a homeowner’s right to access association records, specifically the membership roster.

The case concluded on March 31, 2025, when the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) stipulated to a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. The HOA admitted it failed to timely fulfill a records request for the membership roster, which was submitted on October 21, 2021, and not fulfilled until May 2023—a delay of approximately 19 months.

The resolution required the HOA to pay petitioner Tom Barrs a total of $975.00, which included the reimbursement of a $500.00 filing fee. Citing the respondent’s “unconscionable conduct,” the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also levied a nominal civil penalty of $25.00 against the association.

A critical turning point in the case was a landmark ruling by the Maricopa County Superior Court on April 4, 2024. The Court reversed an earlier OAH decision, establishing that HOA membership lists containing names and property addresses do not qualify as exempt personal records. The Court reasoned that access to such information is “essential to having a homeowners association” and necessary for members “to actively participate in HOA affairs.” This ruling, however, specified that more private data, such as email addresses and phone numbers, are not subject to mandatory disclosure. The matter was subsequently remanded to the OAH on this single issue, leading to the final stipulated resolution.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

This administrative action details a prolonged dispute between a homeowner and his planned community association regarding access to records.

• Case Name: In the Matter of: Tom Barrs, Petitioner, vs. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

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

• Petitioner: Tom Barrs (Appeared pro per initially, later represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.)

• Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Represented by HOA President Michel Olley)

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

The case originated from four separate petitions filed by Mr. Barrs with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, each incurring a $500 filing fee.

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Document requests from Apr 2021, Nov 2021, and Feb 2022.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

• May 25, 2022: The Department of Real Estate consolidated the matters and referred them to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing.

• January 9-10, 2023: The consolidated hearing takes place before the OAH.

• February 21, 2023: The OAH issues an Administrative Law Judge Decision. It granted portions of the general document request petitions but denied the petitions regarding the audio recording and the membership roster in their entirety. The petitioner’s request for civil penalties was also denied.

• March 26, 2023: As the aggrieved party, Mr. Barrs files a timely Dispute Rehearing Petition with the Department of Real Estate.

• April 18, 2023: The Department of Real Estate issues an order denying the rehearing request.

• June 6, 2023: The Department is notified that Mr. Barrs has appealed its decision to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

III. The Superior Court Ruling: A Key Decision on HOA Record Transparency

On April 4, 2024, the Superior Court issued a pivotal order that reversed the Department of Real Estate’s decision in part, focusing squarely on the issue of membership lists.

The Court concluded that the ALJ had erred in treating the membership roster as exempt personal records. It ruled that such lists, containing names and property addresses, must be made available to all members unless they qualify for a specific statutory exception.

“In this case, Desert Ridge has kept membership lists as a part of their records undoubtedly for a variety of reasons. Unless those records qualify for an exception, they must be made available to all members… Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records.”

The Court’s rationale was grounded in the principle of homeowner participation in association governance:

“In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”

The ruling drew a clear line between public-facing information and private contact details. It affirmed that while names and addresses are necessary for HOA functions, more personal data is not.

“The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association… Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature… While disclosure of names and property addresses… may be essential to having a homeowners association, the disclosure of email addresses and phone numbers is not.”

On August 2, 2024, the Court reaffirmed its ruling and remanded “only the reversed portion of the Department’s Decision” back to the OAH for “proceedings consistent” with its order. The petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees for his pro per work was denied.

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

Following the remand, the OAH scheduled a new hearing for March 31, 2025. A prehearing conference on March 18, 2025, revealed a significant disagreement between the parties on the scope of this new hearing.

• Petitioner’s Position: Mr. Barrs argued that the remand reopened all four of his original petitions for reconsideration.

• Respondent’s Position: Mr. Olley contended that the remand was narrowly focused on the single issue of the membership roster, as specified by the Superior Court.

ALJ Clark noted that the Department of Real Estate’s hearing notice was “deficient” because it failed to specify the issue for adjudication. To resolve the conflict, she issued a clarifying Minute Entry on March 24, 2025.

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

“IT IS ORDERED that the issue to be addressed at the hearing… is whether Respondent failed to timely fulfill records requests submitted by Petitioner… by providing Petitioner with a full roster of Association Member names and corresponding property addresses per his request(s) in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

The order further stated that in all other respects, the original ALJ Decision from February 21, 2023, “remains unchanged and in full force and effect,” thereby validating the respondent’s interpretation.

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

The remanded hearing convened on March 31, 2025. Before testimony could begin, the case moved swiftly to a resolution.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Olley, on behalf of the HOA, made a “motion for summary judgment,” conceding a violation of the statute regarding the withholding of the membership roster and offering to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. The ALJ treated this as a settlement offer and allowed the parties to confer off the record.

The parties returned having reached a full agreement, which was entered into the record. The key stipulated facts were:

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the membership roster.

Specific Request

The violation pertains to the request made by Mr. Barrs on October 21, 2021.

Untimeliness

The roster was not provided until May 2023, approximately 19 months after the request.

Monetary Settlement

The Association agreed to pay Mr. Barrs a total of $975.00.

Based on the parties’ stipulations, ALJ Clark issued a final decision on April 1, 2025, formalizing the outcome:

1. Petition Granted: The petitioner’s remanded petition was granted.

2. Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of $25.00 was assessed against the Respondent. In his closing argument, petitioner’s counsel argued this was warranted due to the HOA’s “unconscionable conduct” in delaying compliance for 19 months.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Respondent was ordered to reimburse the petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee, as per the stipulation and statute.

4. Finality: The decision reaffirmed that all other elements of the original February 21, 2023, OAH decision remain in effect.






Study Guide – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably 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. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H2222050-REL-RMD”, “case_title”: “Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2025-04-01”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners’ names and addresses?”, “short_answer”: “No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered ‘personal records’ that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.”, “alj_quote”: “Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Records Request”, “Membership List”, “Homeowner Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?”, “short_answer”: “No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.”, “detailed_answer”: “While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.”, “alj_quote”: “The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Privacy”, “Records Request”, “Personal Records” ] }, { “question”: “How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Timelines”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.”, “detailed_answer”: “The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.”, “detailed_answer”: “If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.”, “alj_quote”: “An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Fees”, “Records Request” ] }, { “question”: “What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.”, “alj_quote”: “Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Exceptions”, “Records Request”, “Privacy” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Enforcement”, “Timelines” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “Costs”, “Remedies” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably 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. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “Legal Standards”, “Procedure” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner)
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group

Respondent Side

  • Michael Olley (HOA President)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Also referred to as Michael Ali and Michel Olley.
  • B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan P.C.
    Counsel for Respondent in official correspondence.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Judge Mikitish (Superior Court Judge)
    Superior Court of Arizona – Maricopa County
    Issued minute entries in related Superior Court proceedings.
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • mneat (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • lrecchia (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence.

Other Participants

  • Brian Schoeffler (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed the hearing. Also referred to as Steven Bar and Steven Bars.

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. & Elizabeth

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24




Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.


Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Questions

Question

If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they 'missed' details in the plan?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they 'missed' a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee's oversight after approval has been granted.

Alj Quote

Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.

Legal Basis

Justifiable Reliance

Topic Tags

  • architectural approval
  • committee oversight
  • homeowner reliance

Question

Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?

Short Answer

Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community's design guidelines.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.

Alj Quote

This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.

Legal Basis

Exception to Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • guidelines
  • exceptions
  • compliance

Question

Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?

Short Answer

No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.

Alj Quote

Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.

Legal Basis

Reasonableness / Laches

Topic Tags

  • enforcement timing
  • stop work order
  • construction

Question

Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?

Short Answer

Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner's defense.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA's position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.

Alj Quote

Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.

Legal Basis

Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent

Topic Tags

  • selective enforcement
  • consistency
  • precedent

Question

If I submit an application and answer the committee's questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?

Short Answer

No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn't, the responsibility lies with them.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.

Alj Quote

Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project

Legal Basis

Due Process / Procedural Compliance

Topic Tags

  • application process
  • due diligence
  • homeowner obligations

Question

Do I have to pay the HOA's filing fees if they sue me and lose?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • penalties
  • costs

Case

Docket No

24F-H050-REL

Case Title

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel

Decision Date

2024-09-11

Alj Name

Adam D. Stone

Tribunal

OAH

Agency

ADRE

Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel, Rick Jr. &

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H050-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-09-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Counsel Daniel S. Francom
Respondent Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.

Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height

Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Review, Wall Height, Pony Wall, Approval Reliance, Burden of Proof, Unreasonable Delay
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
  • Guidelines Section 2.24

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:11:25 (132.2 KB)





Briefing Doc – 24F-H050-REL


Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.






Study Guide – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}






Blog Post – 24F-H050-REL


{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel S. Francom (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Law
    Represented Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association.
  • John Consalvo (board president, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Board
    President of the Association's Board; testified for Petitioner.
  • Judy Oliver (architectural committee member, witness)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Testified for Petitioner; member of the ARC.

Respondent Side

  • Rick Goebel Jr. (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on his own behalf; also referred to as Mr. Gobel/Goebel.
  • Elizabeth Goebel (respondent, homeowner)
    Testified on her own behalf; also referred to as Ms. Goebel.
  • Nancy Rozzo (architectural committee member, witness, former board member)
    Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
    Approved Respondent's plans; testified for Respondent. Referred to as Ms. Brazo/Rozo.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge assigned to the hearing.
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • M. Neat (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • L. Recchia (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
  • G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).

Other Participants

  • Katie Sand (property manager)
    Vision Community Management
    Former employee/property manager involved in initial communications; also referred to as Katie Tam and Katie Pan.