The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.
Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.
Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.
Key Issues & Findings
Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.
Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 21F-H2121046-REL
Select all sources
912007.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
21F-H2121046-REL
1 source
This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.
What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 11:01 AM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Fisenko(petitioner) Testified on behalf of Petitioners
Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko(petitioner)
Laurence Stevens(petitioner attorney) Stevens & Van Cott, PLLC
Respondent Side
Jamie Palfai(HOA attorney) O’Hagan Meyer LLC
Samuel Truett(witness) Bellvue Homeowners Association Witness for Bellvue Homeowners Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The petition was denied because Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof that the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03, as the issue regarding a special meeting was found to be unripe. Other alleged statutory violations were inapplicable.
Why this result: Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on the Bylaws violation because the condition precedent (requesting or holding a special meeting) had not occurred, rendering the issue unripe. The statutory violations cited were inapplicable to the Association.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc. violated Community Bylaws 3.03 and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B), and 33-1261(D).
Petitioner alleged the Association violated Community Bylaws 3.03 when it drafted and posted a letter directed to Petitioner on its online platform, in response to private correspondence (a draft special meeting request) that had not yet been submitted to the Board, which Petitioner perceived as an attempt to dismantle a platform for discussion and retaliate against her.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Community Bylaws 3.03
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Planned Community, Bylaws Violation, Jurisdiction, Unripe Issue, Special Meeting, Filing Fee Paid
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1248(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1261(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
Community Bylaws 3.03
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2121048-REL Decision – 906190.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:43 (117.4 KB)
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-08-23
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other grievances I mention during the hearing?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for and filed.
Detailed Answer
If a petitioner only pays the filing fee for the adjudication of one issue, the Administrative Law Judge cannot address other issues raised in the petition or during testimony.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the issues Petitioner raised in her petition or during her testimony.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
procedure
jurisdiction
filing fees
Question
What happens if I cite Condominium statutes in a dispute regarding a Planned Community?
Short Answer
The claims will likely be dismissed as moot or inapplicable.
Detailed Answer
Different statutes regulate Condominiums (Title 33, Chapter 9) and Planned Communities (Title 33, Chapter 16). If a homeowner alleges violations of statutes that do not govern their specific type of association, the burden of proof is not met and the concerns are rendered moot.
Alj Quote
However, because Petitioner’s amended petition specifically alleges violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A), 33-1248(B) and 33-1261(D), which are inapplicable as the Association is not subject to governance or regulation by these statutes, the concerns are rendered moot.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9 vs. Chapter 16
Topic Tags
legal standards
statutes
planned communities
Question
Does the HOA posting my private correspondence on the community website violate bylaws regarding special meetings?
Short Answer
No. Public dissemination of private letters does not violate bylaws strictly governing the calling of meetings.
Detailed Answer
While a homeowner may feel that publishing private correspondence is retaliatory or malicious, it does not constitute a violation of bylaws specifically designed to regulate the calling and holding of special meetings.
Alj Quote
Instead, Petitioner’s grievance is the Association’s public dissemination and address of her private correspondence; which is not a violation of Bylaws Section 3.03.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Section 3.03
Topic Tags
privacy
bylaws
communications
Question
Can the ADRE hear claims regarding my constitutional rights or general 'rights as a homeowner'?
Short Answer
No. The Department's jurisdiction is limited to violations of community documents and specific statutes.
Detailed Answer
The Department lacks jurisdiction over broad claims such as constitutional rights, general homeowner rights, or fiduciary responsibilities unless they are framed as specific violations of the community documents or relevant statutes.
Alj Quote
Petitioner also alleged no less than four (4) additional violations in her Amended Petition that the Department has no jurisdiction over or she lacked standing to bring, such as (1) 'my rights as a homeowner,' (2) 'my constitutional rights as an American citizen'…
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
constitutional rights
adre authority
Question
Can I claim the HOA violated the rules for calling a special meeting if I never formally requested one?
Short Answer
No. The issue is considered 'unripe' if no meeting was actually requested or held.
Detailed Answer
A violation regarding the calling of a special meeting cannot be established if the homeowner never submitted the request for the meeting prior to filing the petition. The tribunal cannot rule on a hypothetical refusal.
Alj Quote
No violation of Bylaws Section 3.03 exists because the issue is unripe. Here, the record reflects that a special meeting was not held, nor had Petitioner requested one prior to the filing of her petition in this matter.
Legal Basis
ripeness doctrine
Topic Tags
meetings
procedural requirements
violations
Question
What is the standard of proof required for a homeowner to win an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that their contention is 'more probably true than not.' It requires superior evidentiary weight, not necessarily a greater number of witnesses.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
evidence
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a legal contract between me and the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. CC&Rs form an enforceable contract that binds the owner upon purchase.
Detailed Answer
When a party purchases a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, creating a contractual relationship.
Alj Quote
Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.
Legal Basis
Contract Law Principles
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contracts
enforcement
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121048-REL
Case Title
Nancy Bender vs. Foothills Townhomes Association, Inc.
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition following a rehearing. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8, as that section applies only to the Association's notice obligation to members and not to assessment payments sent by members to the Association.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof because the CC&R provision cited was inapplicable to the dispute. Additionally, the Petitioner was found to have inadvertently caused delays in payment receipt by using restricted delivery, contrary to instructions.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8 by failing to handle his monthly assessment payments correctly, resulting in late fees and threats of foreclosure. The ALJ found that Section 14.8 governs the Association's notice obligations to members and is inapplicable to the Petitioner's delivery of assessment payments to the Association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied on rehearing.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Assessments, Late Fees, Notice Provision, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020049-REL Decision – 811290.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:01 (131.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020049-REL
Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro HOA: Case Analysis and Legal Findings
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative legal case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL). The central dispute arose when Mr. Stoltenberg, a homeowner, was assessed late fees on his monthly dues after unilaterally altering his payment method. He began sending payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific volunteer board member, which resulted in significant processing delays and non-deliveries.
The petitioner alleged the Association was acting in “bad faith” and violating Section 14.8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively found that Section 14.8, which governs notices sent from the Association to its members, was entirely inapplicable to payments sent by a member to the Association. The ALJ determined that the petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions were the direct cause of the payment delays and subsequent late fees.
The petitioner’s initial petition was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was granted, but the rehearing affirmed the original decision. The ALJ reiterated that the cited CC&R section was inapplicable, noted a lack of jurisdiction over other statutes the petitioner raised, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof in either proceeding.
Case Background and Procedural History
Parties and Governing Documents
• Petitioner: Michael J. Stoltenberg, a condominium owner within the Rancho Del Oro development and a member of the homeowners’ association.
• Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (“the Association”), a condominium association in Yuma, Arizona, governed by its CC&Rs and overseen by a Board of Directors.
• Governing Authority: The CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner. The specific provision at the center of the dispute is Section 14.8 of the Bylaws, titled “Notices.” This section has remained unamended since the original CC&Rs were recorded on August 30, 1985.
Initial Petition and Jurisdictional Scope
On March 2, 2020, Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.” The petition cited violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, as well as Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Mr. Stoltenberg sought an order compelling the Association to comply with these regulations and the issuance of a civil penalty.
Upon filing, the Department advised the petitioner that the HOA Dispute Process lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Consequently, the case was narrowed to a single issue, and the petitioner was assessed a $500 filing fee. The sole issue for the hearing was formally defined as: “Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.”
Chronology of Legal Proceedings
Outcome
March 2, 2020
Petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg.
The case is initiated.
July 14, 2020
Initial evidentiary hearing is held.
Both parties present arguments.
August 3, 2020
Amended ALJ Decision is issued.
The petitioner’s petition is denied.
August 28, 2020
Petitioner submits a rehearing request.
Grounds cited: errors of law and an arbitrary decision.
September 9, 2020
Rehearing request is granted.
A new hearing is scheduled.
February 16, 2021
Rehearing is held.
The same issue is re-examined.
March 8, 2021
Final ALJ Decision is issued.
The petitioner’s petition is denied again; the order is binding.
Factual Analysis of the Dispute
Payment Instructions and Petitioner’s Actions
On January 4, 2016, the petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366. The correspondence explicitly stated, “Please send your payments to the above address.”
Despite these clear instructions, beginning in November 2019, the petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to this P.O. Box via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for pickup by board member Rhea Carlisle only.
The petitioner’s stated rationale for this change was a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company (PMC) had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments. However, the petitioner was aware of several key facts:
• The Association employed a PMC to pick up its mail.
• Ms. Carlisle was an unpaid volunteer board member, not an employee of the PMC.
• Diana Crites was the Association’s listed Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020.
Consequences of Restricted Delivery
The petitioner’s unilateral decision to restrict delivery caused significant disruption to the receipt of his payments. This led to his assessments being recorded as untimely, which in turn resulted in the Association assessing late fees against his account. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence “in danger of foreclosure by the Association.”
A timeline of payment delivery issues presented as evidence includes:
Payment Period
USPS Action
December 2019
Picked up.
January 25, 2020
Returned to petitioner by USPS.
January 30, 2020
Picked up.
February 26, 2020
Picked up.
April 17, 2020
Picked up.
June 8, 2020
Returned to petitioner by USPS.
Legal Rulings and Core Arguments
Central Legal Text: CC&Rs Section 14.8 (“Notices”)
The entire case hinged on the interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws. The text reads:
“Any notice permitted or required by this Declaration or the Bylaws may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after a copy of the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each person at the current address given by such person to the secretary of the Board or addressed to the Unit of such person if no address has been given to the secretary.”
ALJ’s Interpretation: In both the initial decision and the rehearing decision, the ALJ found the language of Section 14.8 to be clear, “neither vague nor ambiguous,” and definitively inapplicable to the case. The ruling stated that the “language of Section 14.8 speaks specifically to the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information. Section 14.8 has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.”
Arguments Presented
• He had always technically mailed his monthly payments on time to the correct P.O. Box.
• He filed the petition out of concern over incurring late fees and the potential loss of his home.
• During the rehearing, he argued that the initial decision failed to properly interpret Section 14.8 and should have also applied ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842 (concerning standards of conduct for nonprofit officers).
• Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was entirely inapplicable to the facts presented, as it governs the Association’s outbound notice obligations, not a member’s inbound payments.
• The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings lack jurisdiction under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT.
• The petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show a violation.
Final Conclusions and Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were definitive. The core conclusions of law were as follows:
1. Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs and failed to meet this burden.
2. Inapplicability of CC&Rs Section 14.8: The provision cited by the petitioner was found to be wholly irrelevant to the matter of a homeowner mailing payments to the Association.
3. Assignment of Responsibility: The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s own choices were the cause of the issue. The decision states, “By restricting the delivery of his monthly assessment payments, Petitioner inadvertently caused delay in their ability to be picked up by the Association.” There was “no credible evidence in the record to suggest that the action(s) Petitioner volitionally took are Respondent’s responsibility.”
4. Rehearing Findings: In the final decision, the ALJ noted that the petitioner “did not introduce any evidence tending to suggest that there was an ‘error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law…'” or that the prior decision was arbitrary or capricious.
Final Order: Based on the foregoing, the ALJ ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied. The order issued on March 8, 2021, was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court within 35 days.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, Case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, including the initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing. It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the facts, legal arguments, procedures, and outcomes presented in the official decisions.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing information exclusively from the provided legal documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship to one another?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. What specific action did the Petitioner take regarding his monthly assessment payments starting in November 2019?
4. According to the Association, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs not applicable to the Petitioner’s complaint?
5. What were the negative consequences the Petitioner faced as a result of his payments being received late by the Association?
6. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and did the judge find he had met it?
7. What were the two grounds upon which the Petitioner requested a rehearing after the initial decision?
8. Why was the Petitioner’s citation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 10-3842 dismissed during the proceedings?
9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on March 08, 2021, following the rehearing?
10. After the final order was issued, what was the Petitioner’s sole remaining avenue for appeal?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Michael J Stoltenberg, the Petitioner, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Mr. Stoltenberg was a condominium owner and a member of the Association, which governed the residential development where he lived.
2. In his petition filed on March 2, 2020, Stoltenberg alleged the Association violated Section 14.8 of its CC&Rs and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801. He specifically claimed the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly assessment payments to the Association’s P.O. Box via restricted delivery from the United States Postal Service. He specified that the mail was for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only, despite knowing she was a volunteer and not an employee of the property management company that handled mail.
4. The Association argued that Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs was inapplicable because it governs the Association’s notice obligations to its members. The judge agreed, stating the section has no binding authority over how homeowners send mail to the Association.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence placed his residence in danger of foreclosure.
6. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing the contention is more probably true than not. The judge concluded in both decisions that the Petitioner failed to sustain this burden of proof.
7. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding” and because “[t]he findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
8. The citation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations, was dismissed because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s HOA Dispute Process. The Petitioner was advised of these jurisdictional limitations when he filed his petition.
9. The final ruling issued on March 8, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s petition once again. The judge affirmed the original findings, concluding there was no violation of Section 14.8 and that the Petitioner had not introduced any evidence to support his grounds for a rehearing.
10. After the final order resulting from the rehearing, the Petitioner’s only remaining recourse was to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal had to be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis. Formulate a comprehensive essay response for each prompt, using specific evidence and details from the source documents to support your arguments.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning of Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark in her interpretation of Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs. Explain why this section was deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s situation and how this interpretation was central to the case’s outcome in both the hearing and rehearing.
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain who held the burden, what the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required, and why the Petitioner ultimately failed to meet this standard in the judgment of the court.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, starting from the initial petition. Detail the key dates, filings (petition, answer, rehearing request), hearings, and decisions, explaining the significance of each step in the administrative legal process from March 2020 to March 2021.
4. Examine the actions of the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, beginning in November 2019. Evaluate his rationale for unilaterally changing his payment method, the specific steps he took, and how his choices directly led to the late fees and risk of foreclosure he sought to avoid.
5. Explain the roles and jurisdictional limitations of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in this dispute. Why were certain statutes cited by the Petitioner, such as those under Title 10 of the ARIZ. REV. STAT., dismissed by the court as being outside its purview?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, and issues decisions for state agencies.
Answer
The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on March 24, 2020, denying all items in the Petitioner’s complaint.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings regarding disputes within homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.)
The collection of laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature. Specific statutes were cited by the Petitioner and referenced by the court.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association responsible for governing the real estate development and enforcing its CC&Rs.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The governing body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce evidence that proves the claims they have made against the other party.
An acronym for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the judge’s decision that details the factual background, procedural history, and evidence presented during the hearing.
Hearing
A formal proceeding before an administrative law judge where parties present evidence and arguments. In this case, hearings were held on July 14, 2020, and February 16, 2021.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Department’s jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to disputes arising from Title 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency that provides administrative law judges to conduct hearings for other state agencies, ensuring impartiality.
The final, binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg.
Petition
The formal legal document filed by the Petitioner on March 2, 2020, to initiate the hearing process with the Department.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Rehearing
A second hearing granted to a party to re-examine the issues of a case, typically requested on grounds of legal error or an unjust decision. The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing was granted.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restricted Delivery
A service offered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) that ensures mail is delivered only to a specific addressee or their authorized agent.
Statutory Agent
An individual or entity designated to receive legal notices and service of process on behalf of a corporation or association. For the Association, this was Diana Crites.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL
Select all sources
811290.pdf
861466.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
2 sources
These documents contain the Administrative Law Judge Decisions stemming from a dispute between a homeowner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association regarding the timely delivery of monthly assessment payments. The initial decision in August 2020 denied the homeowner’s petition, finding that the Association did not violate Section 14.8 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), as that provision governs the Association’s notice obligation to members, not homeowners’ mail to the Association. Following a granted request for rehearing due to alleged errors of law, the subsequent March 2021 decision affirmed the original ruling, concluding that the homeowner’s self-imposed restriction on mail delivery caused the delays and that the relevant CC&R section was inapplicable to the petitioner’s complaint. Both decisions noted that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over one of the statutes cited by the petitioner.
What were the legal and procedural reasons for granting the rehearing request?
How did the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8 resolve the core dispute?
What was the Petitioner’s basis for claiming a violation against the Association?
Based on 2 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared telephonically for Respondent
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020
Lydia Peirce Linsmeier(attorney contact) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Recipient of electronic transmission for Respondent in initial decision
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Section 14.8. The provision was determined to be inapplicable, governing the Association’s obligation to provide notice, not the methods homeowners must use to send payments.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. CC&Rs Section 14.8 was inapplicable, and Petitioner's chosen restricted delivery method for assessment payments caused delays, which were not the responsibility of the Respondent.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 concerning notice obligations.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8 by improperly handling or failing to receive his monthly assessment payments, which he sent via restricted delivery to a board member despite receiving instructions to mail payments to the Association's designated P.O. Box address.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied because he failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the undisputed material facts supported the finding that the Association's actions were authorized by the governing documents (CC&Rs Articles II and VI) and did not deny or impede member access or use of the Common Areas.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged that the Board's decision to paint pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players, thereby violating CC&Rs Article III section 1.
Orders: The ALJ denied the petition (on rehearing), concluding that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The Association was authorized to manage and maintain Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, CC&Rs Interpretation, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092.05(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1061(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Decision Documents
20F-H2019026-REL Decision – 770924.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:18 (153.6 KB)
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association; Mark Sahl is used in some electronic transmissions
Charles Mitchell(board member/witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Board; testified as a witness in the original hearing
Arland Averell(board member/witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for twenty years; testified as a witness in the original hearing
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE transmissions
c. serrano(staff/clerk) OAH Staff noted on document transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Werner A Reis
Counsel
—
Respondent
Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Counsel
Edward O’Brien, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article III, section 1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's claim (on rehearing) finding that the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the Board acted within its authority to maintain and manage Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not infringed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III section 1 of the CC&Rs. The undisputed facts showed the Association had authority to paint the lines, access was maintained for all members, and one tennis court was always available for tennis use.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs Article III section 1 by painting pickleball lines on one tennis court, arguing this constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players by restricting use of the Common Area easement.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Article III section 1, and the petition was denied. The Association's governing documents authorized the Board to maintain and manage Common Areas, and Petitioner's easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, CC&Rs Interpretation, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner Werner A. Reis (Petitioner) and the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Respondent) concerning the modification of a common area tennis court. The core of the dispute, adjudicated under case numbers 20F-H2019026-REL and 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG, was the Association’s decision in June 2019 to paint pickleball lines on one of its two community tennis courts. The Petitioner alleged this action violated Article III, section 1 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), infringing upon his nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment. The Association contended that its Board of Directors acted within its authority, as granted by the CC&Rs, to manage, maintain, and improve common areas for the benefit of all members.
Following an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled decisively in favor of the Association. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Key findings established that the Board was fully authorized to make the modification without a member vote, that tennis play was not restricted, and that the Petitioner’s easement rights were not violated. The Petitioner’s arguments, based on a potential future conflict rather than an actual experienced impediment, were deemed “unfounded” and “without merit.” The final order, issued on July 14, 2020, denied the petition, affirming the Association’s right to manage the recreational facilities in this manner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter involves a formal complaint by a homeowner against his townhouse association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Whether the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents (CC&Rs Article III, section 1) by adding pickleball lines to one of two community tennis courts.
——————————————————————————–
II. Procedural History
The dispute progressed through a formal administrative hearing process, including a petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final order.
• November 18, 2019: Werner Reis files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• December 4, 2019: The Association files its ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• January 31, 2020: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• February 20, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding he failed to sustain his burden of proof.
• March 26, 2020: The Petitioner submits a REQUEST FOR REHEARING to the Department.
• April 22, 2020: The Department grants the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.
• May 20, 2020: During a prehearing conference, both parties stipulate that no factual dispute exists and agree to adopt the prior hearing record and submit written closing arguments in lieu of a new hearing.
• June 24, 2020: Deadline for written closing arguments. The Association submits a 17-page argument; the OAH receives no closing argument from the Petitioner.
• July 14, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again denying the petition and ordering that the initial decision from February be the final order in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
III. Analysis of the Dispute
The central conflict was the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs regarding the Board’s authority to modify common areas versus a member’s right to their use and enjoyment.
Petitioner’s Position (Werner A. Reis)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise that adding pickleball as a competing use for a tennis court fundamentally diminished the rights of tennis-playing members.
• Core Allegation: The Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants every member a “nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment in and to the Common Areas.”
• Argument on Infringement: The Petitioner argued the Association created a situation where “Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play,” which he claimed “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment.”
• Impediment of Enjoyment: He contended that reducing the number of exclusively available tennis courts from two to one amounts to “an impediment of enjoyment rights.”
• Creation of Competition: He accused the Association of “creating a new class of people” (pickleball players) who could access the courts, creating new competition for members on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Hypothetical Conflict: The “crux” of his complaint was the possible future conflict between his desire to play two singles matches simultaneously and up to sixteen “outsiders playing a raucous game of pickleball on the other designated tennis court.”
• Requested Remedy: The Petitioner requested an order requiring the Association to designate the courts for tennis playing only.
Respondent’s Position (Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association)
The Association defended its decision as a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to manage community property for the benefit of all residents.
• Board Authority: The Board asserted that its decision was permitted by Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants it the authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” without requiring a member vote. Article VI further requires the Board to maintain and manage recreational facilities.
• Benefit to Community: The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests, and was also considered as a potential means to generate revenue.
• No Restriction of Use: The Association maintained that tennis play was not restricted. Both courts remained available seven days a week on a first-come, first-served basis, with no changes to the reservation system. One court remained available exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Nature of Modification: The modification involved painting lines and using portable nets, which must be detached after play. The permanent tennis nets on both courts remained in place.
——————————————————————————–
IV. Summary of Evidence and Testimony
Testimony from the Association’s representatives and the Petitioner established the key undisputed facts of the case.
Testimony for the Association (Charles Mitchell & Arland Averell)
• Board Authority Confirmed: Charles Mitchell, the Board Director, testified that CC&Rs Articles II and VI, along with the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including painting lines on the tennis courts.
• Historical Context: Arland Averell, a 20-year Board member, explained that a taped pickleball court had existed in 2015 but was damaged. The Board decided in April 2019 to reestablish it with painted lines in response to requests from several families.
• Practical Use: Pickleball is generally played only by a few families, typically on Saturday mornings. When pickleball is being played on the modified court, the other tennis court is always available.
• No Denial of Access: Director Mitchell confirmed that the Petitioner had never been denied access to the tennis courts at any time.
Testimony of the Petitioner (Werner A. Reis)
• Recent Homeowner: The Petitioner described himself as a “snowbird” who had purchased his townhouse in November 2019, shortly before filing his complaint.
• Conflict is Hypothetical: He admitted that he “has not played tennis in ‘years'” and, as a result, “has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.”
• No Direct Observation: The Petitioner testified that he had not personally observed contemporaneous tennis and pickleball games being played. His concerns about safety and inconvenience were speculative.
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions consistently found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally and factually unsupported.
Conclusions of Law
• Undisputed Facts: The Judge concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. The Association’s governing documents clearly authorize the Board to maintain, manage, and improve the Common Areas, including the recreational facilities.
• No Violation of Easement Rights: The ruling stated, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner’s easement rights have not been violated by the Association because the Board painted blue pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts.”
• Petitioner’s Arguments Dismissed: The Judge found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “unfounded” and “without merit.” Specifically, the claim that the availability of only one dedicated court was an “impediment of enjoyment rights” was rejected.
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: In both the initial decision and the final order, the Judge concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof” by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs.
• Failure to Prosecute Rehearing: The final decision noted that the Petitioner “did not provide OAH with a closing argument in support of his request for rehearing.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
The decision issued on July 14, 2020, affirmed the initial February 24, 2020, decision and was designated as the FINAL ORDER in the matter, binding on both parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Reis vs. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, in his petition filed on November 18, 2019?
2. On what grounds did the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association’s Board of Directors justify its decision to add pickleball lines to a tennis court?
3. According to the testimony of Arland Averell, what prompted the Board to reestablish a pickleball court in April 2019, and what was a prior experience with a pickleball court?
4. Describe the central, or “crux,” of the Petitioner’s complaint as summarized in the hearing evidence.
5. What key admissions did the Petitioner make during his testimony regarding his own tennis activity and his personal experience with the alleged conflict?
6. According to Director Charles Mitchell’s testimony, what is the physical setup of the nets on the courts, and how does this differ between tennis and pickleball?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is that standard defined in the legal documents?
8. What was the outcome of the initial evidentiary hearing held on January 31, 2020, and on what basis did the Administrative Law Judge reach this conclusion?
9. Describe the procedural change that occurred for the rehearing after the parties’ prehearing conference on May 20, 2020.
10. What action, or lack thereof, by the Petitioner on June 24, 2020, contributed to the final ruling in the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific violation claimed was the modification of one of the two existing tennis courts for use as a pickleball court.
2. The Association’s Board of Directors justified the decision as an improvement to the Common Areas for the benefit of the Association, which it was permitted to do under Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs. The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests.
3. Arland Averell testified that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish the pickleball court with painted lines after several families requested it, and the Board also saw it as a way to generate additional revenue. A previous pickleball court established in 2015 had lines made of tape which were damaged approximately four months after being applied.
4. The crux of the Petitioner’s complaint was the possible future conflict between his personal desire to play two singles tennis matches on both courts simultaneously and the potential for up to sixteen “outsiders” to be playing a “raucous game of pickleball” on the modified court.
5. The Petitioner admitted that he had not played tennis in “years” and, as a result, had never actually faced the conflict he was complaining about. He also stated he had never been denied access to the courts and had not observed contemporaneous games of tennis and pickleball being played.
6. Director Mitchell testified that both tennis courts have fixed tennis nets. The pickleball court, however, has portable nets which must be attached for use and then detached at the end of play.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence.
8. Following the January 31, 2020, hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof and that the evidence showed his easement rights had not been violated, as one tennis court always remained available.
9. During the prehearing conference, the parties stipulated that no factual dispute existed. They agreed to vacate the scheduled rehearing, adopt the evidentiary record from the first hearing without presenting new evidence, and submit written closing arguments instead.
10. On the deadline of June 24, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a 17-page closing argument from the Respondent (the Association). The Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, failed to submit a closing argument, which was noted in the final decision denying his petition again.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Formulate your answers by synthesizing information from across the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between the rights granted to members under CC&Rs Article III, section 1 (“easement of use and enjoyment”) and the powers granted to the Board under CC&Rs Article II, section 1 (“manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas”). How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent tension in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of the “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain why Werner Reis’s testimony and arguments ultimately failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial petition on November 18, 2019, to the final order on July 14, 2020. Identify the key events and decisions at each stage, including the initial hearing, the request for rehearing, and the final disposition.
4. Evaluate the strength of the Petitioner’s case. Focus specifically on the evidence he presented versus the evidence presented by the Association’s witnesses, Charles Mitchell and Arland Averell.
5. The Petitioner argued that the availability of only one tennis court when pickleball is in play constituted an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” Explain the Association’s counter-arguments and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s argument to be “unfounded” and “without merit.”
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders and decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature that regulate planned communities and govern the administrative hearing process.
Association
The Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association, a non-profit Arizona corporation serving as the property owner’s association for the development. In this case, it is the Respondent.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Association, empowered by the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation to manage, maintain, and improve the Common Areas.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce the degree of evidence required to prove their case. The standard required here was “preponderance of the evidence.”
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling property use within the development. The Restated Declaration was recorded on June 8, 2015.
Common Areas
Property within the development, such as the tennis courts, for the mutual benefit of all owners. The Association’s Board is granted authority to manage and improve these areas.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings regarding disputes in planned communities.
Easement of use and enjoyment
A non-exclusive, perpetual right granted to every member of the Association to use and enjoy the Common Areas, as established in CC&Rs Article III, section 1.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers cases for evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Werner A. Reis, a townhouse owner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and representing the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association.
Snowbird
A colloquial term used by the Petitioner to describe himself as an out-of-state retiree who resides in Arizona during the winter months.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Lawsuit Over a Pickleball Court
Introduction: The Battle for the Tennis Court
Disputes with a homeowner association (HOA) are a common feature of suburban life, often revolving around landscaping, paint colors, or parking. But when you combine the rigid world of HOA rules with the explosive popularity of pickleball, you get a conflict that is uniquely modern. In a real-life legal case from Sedona, Arizona, one homeowner took his HOA to court over the decision to add pickleball lines to one of the community’s two tennis courts.
What might seem like a minor neighborhood squabble became a formal legal challenge, complete with hearings, testimony, and an official judicial decision. The court documents from this case offer a surprisingly revealing look into community rules, personal grievances, and the peculiar nature of legal battles. More importantly, they reveal several counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living in a planned community.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Sue Over a Problem That Doesn’t Exist (But You Probably Won’t Win)
The core of the legal challenge was filed by Werner Reis, a new homeowner in the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association. His complaint was over the modification of one of two community tennis courts to accommodate pickleball. The “crux” of his complaint was a concern over a possible future conflict: a hypothetical scenario where he might want to play two singles tennis matches while a large group of “outsiders” played a “raucous game of pickleball.”
This seems like a specific, if forward-thinking, concern. But the timeline and testimony revealed a truly bizarre situation. According to court records, Reis purchased his townhouse in November 2019 and filed his lawsuit on or about November 18, 2019—meaning he initiated a formal legal action within days or weeks of becoming a member of the community. Even more stunning was this fact from his own testimony:
Petitioner has not played tennis in “years.” As such, Petitioner has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.
The entire legal challenge—filed almost immediately upon moving in—was based on a hypothetical grievance for a sport the petitioner hadn’t even played in years. Unsurprisingly, the Administrative Law Judge found his argument “unfounded.” The lesson is clear: a legal claim based on “what if” is unlikely to succeed without any actual harm.
2. Your HOA’s Governing Documents Are a Legally Binding Contract
Many homeowners view their HOA’s rules as guidelines, but legally, they are a binding contract called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). When you buy a property, you agree to their terms.
In its defense, the HOA pointed directly to its governing documents. Article VI requires the Board to manage all recreational facilities, and Article II, section 1, gives it the explicit authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” for the “general welfare and benefit of the Owners”—all without a member vote. This clause was the legal bedrock of the Board’s defense; in the eyes of the law, painting lines to accommodate a popular new sport is not a degradation of an amenity, but an improvement of it, squarely within the Board’s mandate.
The tennis courts are legally defined as “Common Areas.” This gave the Board the unambiguous right to paint new lines on them. This is an impactful takeaway for all homeowners: while you may feel a sense of personal ownership over shared amenities, the Board has broad, legally-defined powers to manage them for the entire community.
3. A Board’s Duty Is to Adapt to the Community’s Evolving Interests
The HOA Board’s decision wasn’t a whim; it was a response to a persistent community interest with a history. Testimony from a 20-year Board member, Arland Averell, revealed that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish a pickleball court “after several families requested they do so.” As a secondary benefit, the Board also saw it as a way to “generate additional revenue.”
But this wasn’t the community’s first foray into the sport. Court records show that back in 2015, the association had a pickleball court with taped lines, but it was damaged after only four months. This context is crucial. The 2019 decision to paint permanent lines was not just a reaction to new requests but an institutional lesson learned. It shows the Board was responding to a long-term, evolving interest and choosing a more durable solution, fulfilling its duty to adapt common resources to meet new demands.
4. An “Infringement” Requires an Actual Impediment
The petitioner’s legal argument was very specific. He claimed that adding pickleball “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment” and that having only one guaranteed tennis court is an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” He summarized his grievance with the line:
“Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play.”
However, the facts presented in court systematically dismantled this argument. The evidence showed:
• One of the two courts remained exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Both courts were still available for tennis on a first-come, first-served basis.
• The pickleball nets were portable and had to be detached at the end of play, leaving the court ready for tennis.
• Most critically, the petitioner himself testified that he had “never been denied access to the tennis courts at issue at any time.”
The judge determined that no violation occurred because the petitioner’s rights were never actually impeded. This reveals the critical legal distinction between an inconvenience and an infringement. The petitioner’s entire case rested on a hypothetical future inconvenience, but the law requires an actual, demonstrable impediment to rights. Since his own testimony confirmed one had never occurred, his claim was impossible to prove.
5. If You Demand a Rehearing, You Should Probably Show Up with an Argument
In a final, bizarre twist, the story doesn’t end with the initial ruling in February 2020. The petitioner filed a “REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” which the court granted, giving him a second chance to make his case.
To streamline the process, both parties agreed to skip a new evidentiary hearing and instead submit written “Closing Arguments” to the judge. The HOA’s legal team submitted a detailed, 17-page argument. What happened next was documented in the final court order:
OAH did not receive a closing argument from Petitioner.
The petitioner, who had initiated the entire legal process and successfully demanded a second chance, was given the final word. He had the opportunity to submit a closing argument that could have vindicated his entire complaint. Instead, he offered only silence. By ghosting his own rehearing, he left the judge with no choice but to conclude that he had once again “failed to sustain his burden of proof” and make the original ruling against him final.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Court of Community Opinion
This case is a fascinating lesson in the difference between a personal annoyance and an actual legal violation. It demonstrates that in the world of HOAs, feelings and hypothetical concerns carry little weight compared to the cold, hard text of the governing documents. Those documents give boards significant power, but also charge them with the difficult task of balancing the desires of all residents, not just the grievance of one.
As pickleball courts continue to replace shuffleboard courts and community gardens pop up in unused green spaces, this story leaves us with a critical question: As our communities change, how do we balance protecting the familiar traditions we love with making space for the new ones our neighbors are asking for?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Also cited as Mark Sahl)
Charles Mitchell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Association's Board
Arland Averell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for the past twenty years
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE
c. serrano(staff) OAH Administrative staff/Clerk noted on document transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2020-07-14
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Werner A Reis
Counsel
—
Respondent
Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Counsel
Edward O’Brien, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Article III, section 1
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Order denying the Petitioner's claim on rehearing. The ALJ found that the Association did not violate CC&Rs Article III section 1 when its Board painted pickleball lines on one of the two existing tennis courts, as the action was within the Board's authority to manage Common Areas and did not infringe on members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the undisputed material facts supported the finding that the Association's actions were authorized by the governing documents (CC&Rs Articles II and VI) and did not deny or impede member access or use of the Common Areas.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents CC&Rs Article III, sec. 1.
Petitioner alleged that the Board's decision to paint pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts constituted an infringement or impediment of enjoyment rights for tennis players, thereby violating CC&Rs Article III section 1.
Orders: The ALJ denied the petition (on rehearing), concluding that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof. The Association was authorized to manage and maintain Common Areas, and members' nonexclusive perpetual easement rights were not violated.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, CC&Rs Interpretation, Common Area Use, Easement Rights, Recreational Facilities, Pickleball
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Briefing Document: Reis v. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the legal dispute between homeowner Werner A. Reis (Petitioner) and the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Respondent) concerning the modification of a common area tennis court. The core of the dispute, adjudicated under case numbers 20F-H2019026-REL and 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG, was the Association’s decision in June 2019 to paint pickleball lines on one of its two community tennis courts. The Petitioner alleged this action violated Article III, section 1 of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), infringing upon his nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment. The Association contended that its Board of Directors acted within its authority, as granted by the CC&Rs, to manage, maintain, and improve common areas for the benefit of all members.
Following an evidentiary hearing and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled decisively in favor of the Association. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Key findings established that the Board was fully authorized to make the modification without a member vote, that tennis play was not restricted, and that the Petitioner’s easement rights were not violated. The Petitioner’s arguments, based on a potential future conflict rather than an actual experienced impediment, were deemed “unfounded” and “without merit.” The final order, issued on July 14, 2020, denied the petition, affirming the Association’s right to manage the recreational facilities in this manner.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This matter involves a formal complaint by a homeowner against his townhouse association, brought before the Arizona Department of Real Estate and adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Whether the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association violated community documents (CC&Rs Article III, section 1) by adding pickleball lines to one of two community tennis courts.
——————————————————————————–
II. Procedural History
The dispute progressed through a formal administrative hearing process, including a petition, a hearing, a decision, a request for rehearing, and a final order.
• November 18, 2019: Werner Reis files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
• December 4, 2019: The Association files its ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• January 31, 2020: An evidentiary hearing is held before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• February 20, 2020: The ALJ issues a decision denying the Petitioner’s petition, finding he failed to sustain his burden of proof.
• March 26, 2020: The Petitioner submits a REQUEST FOR REHEARING to the Department.
• April 22, 2020: The Department grants the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing.
• May 20, 2020: During a prehearing conference, both parties stipulate that no factual dispute exists and agree to adopt the prior hearing record and submit written closing arguments in lieu of a new hearing.
• June 24, 2020: Deadline for written closing arguments. The Association submits a 17-page argument; the OAH receives no closing argument from the Petitioner.
• July 14, 2020: The ALJ issues a final decision, again denying the petition and ordering that the initial decision from February be the final order in the matter.
——————————————————————————–
III. Analysis of the Dispute
The central conflict was the interpretation of the Association’s CC&Rs regarding the Board’s authority to modify common areas versus a member’s right to their use and enjoyment.
Petitioner’s Position (Werner A. Reis)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise that adding pickleball as a competing use for a tennis court fundamentally diminished the rights of tennis-playing members.
• Core Allegation: The Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants every member a “nonexclusive perpetual easement of use and enjoyment in and to the Common Areas.”
• Argument on Infringement: The Petitioner argued the Association created a situation where “Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play,” which he claimed “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment.”
• Impediment of Enjoyment: He contended that reducing the number of exclusively available tennis courts from two to one amounts to “an impediment of enjoyment rights.”
• Creation of Competition: He accused the Association of “creating a new class of people” (pickleball players) who could access the courts, creating new competition for members on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Hypothetical Conflict: The “crux” of his complaint was the possible future conflict between his desire to play two singles matches simultaneously and up to sixteen “outsiders playing a raucous game of pickleball on the other designated tennis court.”
• Requested Remedy: The Petitioner requested an order requiring the Association to designate the courts for tennis playing only.
Respondent’s Position (Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association)
The Association defended its decision as a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to manage community property for the benefit of all residents.
• Board Authority: The Board asserted that its decision was permitted by Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs, which grants it the authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” without requiring a member vote. Article VI further requires the Board to maintain and manage recreational facilities.
• Benefit to Community: The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests, and was also considered as a potential means to generate revenue.
• No Restriction of Use: The Association maintained that tennis play was not restricted. Both courts remained available seven days a week on a first-come, first-served basis, with no changes to the reservation system. One court remained available exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Nature of Modification: The modification involved painting lines and using portable nets, which must be detached after play. The permanent tennis nets on both courts remained in place.
——————————————————————————–
IV. Summary of Evidence and Testimony
Testimony from the Association’s representatives and the Petitioner established the key undisputed facts of the case.
Testimony for the Association (Charles Mitchell & Arland Averell)
• Board Authority Confirmed: Charles Mitchell, the Board Director, testified that CC&Rs Articles II and VI, along with the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, authorize the Board to manage and improve common areas, including painting lines on the tennis courts.
• Historical Context: Arland Averell, a 20-year Board member, explained that a taped pickleball court had existed in 2015 but was damaged. The Board decided in April 2019 to reestablish it with painted lines in response to requests from several families.
• Practical Use: Pickleball is generally played only by a few families, typically on Saturday mornings. When pickleball is being played on the modified court, the other tennis court is always available.
• No Denial of Access: Director Mitchell confirmed that the Petitioner had never been denied access to the tennis courts at any time.
Testimony of the Petitioner (Werner A. Reis)
• Recent Homeowner: The Petitioner described himself as a “snowbird” who had purchased his townhouse in November 2019, shortly before filing his complaint.
• Conflict is Hypothetical: He admitted that he “has not played tennis in ‘years'” and, as a result, “has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.”
• No Direct Observation: The Petitioner testified that he had not personally observed contemporaneous tennis and pickleball games being played. His concerns about safety and inconvenience were speculative.
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Final Order
The Administrative Law Judge’s decisions consistently found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally and factually unsupported.
Conclusions of Law
• Undisputed Facts: The Judge concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. The Association’s governing documents clearly authorize the Board to maintain, manage, and improve the Common Areas, including the recreational facilities.
• No Violation of Easement Rights: The ruling stated, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner’s easement rights have not been violated by the Association because the Board painted blue pickleball lines on one of two tennis courts.”
• Petitioner’s Arguments Dismissed: The Judge found the Petitioner’s arguments to be “unfounded” and “without merit.” Specifically, the claim that the availability of only one dedicated court was an “impediment of enjoyment rights” was rejected.
• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: In both the initial decision and the final order, the Judge concluded that the “Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof” by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the CC&Rs.
• Failure to Prosecute Rehearing: The final decision noted that the Petitioner “did not provide OAH with a closing argument in support of his request for rehearing.”
Final Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.
The decision issued on July 14, 2020, affirmed the initial February 24, 2020, decision and was designated as the FINAL ORDER in the matter, binding on both parties.
Study Guide – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Reis vs. Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information provided in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, in his petition filed on November 18, 2019?
2. On what grounds did the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association’s Board of Directors justify its decision to add pickleball lines to a tennis court?
3. According to the testimony of Arland Averell, what prompted the Board to reestablish a pickleball court in April 2019, and what was a prior experience with a pickleball court?
4. Describe the central, or “crux,” of the Petitioner’s complaint as summarized in the hearing evidence.
5. What key admissions did the Petitioner make during his testimony regarding his own tennis activity and his personal experience with the alleged conflict?
6. According to Director Charles Mitchell’s testimony, what is the physical setup of the nets on the courts, and how does this differ between tennis and pickleball?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how is that standard defined in the legal documents?
8. What was the outcome of the initial evidentiary hearing held on January 31, 2020, and on what basis did the Administrative Law Judge reach this conclusion?
9. Describe the procedural change that occurred for the rehearing after the parties’ prehearing conference on May 20, 2020.
10. What action, or lack thereof, by the Petitioner on June 24, 2020, contributed to the final ruling in the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated Article III, section 1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific violation claimed was the modification of one of the two existing tennis courts for use as a pickleball court.
2. The Association’s Board of Directors justified the decision as an improvement to the Common Areas for the benefit of the Association, which it was permitted to do under Article II, section 1 of the CC&Rs. The decision was made to offer pickleball as an additional recreational feature to satisfy growing interest from owners, renters, and guests.
3. Arland Averell testified that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish the pickleball court with painted lines after several families requested it, and the Board also saw it as a way to generate additional revenue. A previous pickleball court established in 2015 had lines made of tape which were damaged approximately four months after being applied.
4. The crux of the Petitioner’s complaint was the possible future conflict between his personal desire to play two singles tennis matches on both courts simultaneously and the potential for up to sixteen “outsiders” to be playing a “raucous game of pickleball” on the modified court.
5. The Petitioner admitted that he had not played tennis in “years” and, as a result, had never actually faced the conflict he was complaining about. He also stated he had never been denied access to the courts and had not observed contemporaneous games of tennis and pickleball being played.
6. Director Mitchell testified that both tennis courts have fixed tennis nets. The pickleball court, however, has portable nets which must be attached for use and then detached at the end of play.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not, representing the greater weight of evidence.
8. Following the January 31, 2020, hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof and that the evidence showed his easement rights had not been violated, as one tennis court always remained available.
9. During the prehearing conference, the parties stipulated that no factual dispute existed. They agreed to vacate the scheduled rehearing, adopt the evidentiary record from the first hearing without presenting new evidence, and submit written closing arguments instead.
10. On the deadline of June 24, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a 17-page closing argument from the Respondent (the Association). The Petitioner, Werner A. Reis, failed to submit a closing argument, which was noted in the final decision denying his petition again.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. Formulate your answers by synthesizing information from across the case documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between the rights granted to members under CC&Rs Article III, section 1 (“easement of use and enjoyment”) and the powers granted to the Board under CC&Rs Article II, section 1 (“manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas”). How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent tension in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of the “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain why Werner Reis’s testimony and arguments ultimately failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. Trace the procedural history of this case from the initial petition on November 18, 2019, to the final order on July 14, 2020. Identify the key events and decisions at each stage, including the initial hearing, the request for rehearing, and the final disposition.
4. Evaluate the strength of the Petitioner’s case. Focus specifically on the evidence he presented versus the evidence presented by the Association’s witnesses, Charles Mitchell and Arland Averell.
5. The Petitioner argued that the availability of only one tennis court when pickleball is in play constituted an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” Explain the Association’s counter-arguments and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Petitioner’s argument to be “unfounded” and “without merit.”
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Jenna Clark) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders and decisions.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the laws enacted by the Arizona state legislature that regulate planned communities and govern the administrative hearing process.
Association
The Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association, a non-profit Arizona corporation serving as the property owner’s association for the development. In this case, it is the Respondent.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Association, empowered by the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation to manage, maintain, and improve the Common Areas.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioner) to produce the degree of evidence required to prove their case. The standard required here was “preponderance of the evidence.”
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents that form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, controlling property use within the development. The Restated Declaration was recorded on June 8, 2015.
Common Areas
Property within the development, such as the tennis courts, for the mutual benefit of all owners. The Association’s Board is granted authority to manage and improve these areas.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings regarding disputes in planned communities.
Easement of use and enjoyment
A non-exclusive, perpetual right granted to every member of the Association to use and enjoy the Common Areas, as established in CC&Rs Article III, section 1.
OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)
An independent state agency to which the Department refers cases for evidentiary hearings.
Petitioner
The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, Werner A. Reis, a townhouse owner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this case, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and representing the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom the petition is filed. In this case, the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association.
Snowbird
A colloquial term used by the Petitioner to describe himself as an out-of-state retiree who resides in Arizona during the winter months.
Blog Post – 20F-H2019026-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Lessons from a Bizarre HOA Lawsuit Over a Pickleball Court
Introduction: The Battle for the Tennis Court
Disputes with a homeowner association (HOA) are a common feature of suburban life, often revolving around landscaping, paint colors, or parking. But when you combine the rigid world of HOA rules with the explosive popularity of pickleball, you get a conflict that is uniquely modern. In a real-life legal case from Sedona, Arizona, one homeowner took his HOA to court over the decision to add pickleball lines to one of the community’s two tennis courts.
What might seem like a minor neighborhood squabble became a formal legal challenge, complete with hearings, testimony, and an official judicial decision. The court documents from this case offer a surprisingly revealing look into community rules, personal grievances, and the peculiar nature of legal battles. More importantly, they reveal several counter-intuitive lessons for anyone living in a planned community.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Sue Over a Problem That Doesn’t Exist (But You Probably Won’t Win)
The core of the legal challenge was filed by Werner Reis, a new homeowner in the Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association. His complaint was over the modification of one of two community tennis courts to accommodate pickleball. The “crux” of his complaint was a concern over a possible future conflict: a hypothetical scenario where he might want to play two singles tennis matches while a large group of “outsiders” played a “raucous game of pickleball.”
This seems like a specific, if forward-thinking, concern. But the timeline and testimony revealed a truly bizarre situation. According to court records, Reis purchased his townhouse in November 2019 and filed his lawsuit on or about November 18, 2019—meaning he initiated a formal legal action within days or weeks of becoming a member of the community. Even more stunning was this fact from his own testimony:
Petitioner has not played tennis in “years.” As such, Petitioner has not yet found himself facing any such actual conflict.
The entire legal challenge—filed almost immediately upon moving in—was based on a hypothetical grievance for a sport the petitioner hadn’t even played in years. Unsurprisingly, the Administrative Law Judge found his argument “unfounded.” The lesson is clear: a legal claim based on “what if” is unlikely to succeed without any actual harm.
2. Your HOA’s Governing Documents Are a Legally Binding Contract
Many homeowners view their HOA’s rules as guidelines, but legally, they are a binding contract called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). When you buy a property, you agree to their terms.
In its defense, the HOA pointed directly to its governing documents. Article VI requires the Board to manage all recreational facilities, and Article II, section 1, gives it the explicit authority to “manage, maintain, repair, replace and improve the Common Areas” for the “general welfare and benefit of the Owners”—all without a member vote. This clause was the legal bedrock of the Board’s defense; in the eyes of the law, painting lines to accommodate a popular new sport is not a degradation of an amenity, but an improvement of it, squarely within the Board’s mandate.
The tennis courts are legally defined as “Common Areas.” This gave the Board the unambiguous right to paint new lines on them. This is an impactful takeaway for all homeowners: while you may feel a sense of personal ownership over shared amenities, the Board has broad, legally-defined powers to manage them for the entire community.
3. A Board’s Duty Is to Adapt to the Community’s Evolving Interests
The HOA Board’s decision wasn’t a whim; it was a response to a persistent community interest with a history. Testimony from a 20-year Board member, Arland Averell, revealed that in April 2019, the Board decided to reestablish a pickleball court “after several families requested they do so.” As a secondary benefit, the Board also saw it as a way to “generate additional revenue.”
But this wasn’t the community’s first foray into the sport. Court records show that back in 2015, the association had a pickleball court with taped lines, but it was damaged after only four months. This context is crucial. The 2019 decision to paint permanent lines was not just a reaction to new requests but an institutional lesson learned. It shows the Board was responding to a long-term, evolving interest and choosing a more durable solution, fulfilling its duty to adapt common resources to meet new demands.
4. An “Infringement” Requires an Actual Impediment
The petitioner’s legal argument was very specific. He claimed that adding pickleball “constitutes an infringement of tennis players’ right of use and enjoyment” and that having only one guaranteed tennis court is an “impediment of enjoyment rights.” He summarized his grievance with the line:
“Members have the right to play tennis unless pickleball is in play.”
However, the facts presented in court systematically dismantled this argument. The evidence showed:
• One of the two courts remained exclusively for tennis at all times.
• Both courts were still available for tennis on a first-come, first-served basis.
• The pickleball nets were portable and had to be detached at the end of play, leaving the court ready for tennis.
• Most critically, the petitioner himself testified that he had “never been denied access to the tennis courts at issue at any time.”
The judge determined that no violation occurred because the petitioner’s rights were never actually impeded. This reveals the critical legal distinction between an inconvenience and an infringement. The petitioner’s entire case rested on a hypothetical future inconvenience, but the law requires an actual, demonstrable impediment to rights. Since his own testimony confirmed one had never occurred, his claim was impossible to prove.
5. If You Demand a Rehearing, You Should Probably Show Up with an Argument
In a final, bizarre twist, the story doesn’t end with the initial ruling in February 2020. The petitioner filed a “REQUEST FOR REHEARING,” which the court granted, giving him a second chance to make his case.
To streamline the process, both parties agreed to skip a new evidentiary hearing and instead submit written “Closing Arguments” to the judge. The HOA’s legal team submitted a detailed, 17-page argument. What happened next was documented in the final court order:
OAH did not receive a closing argument from Petitioner.
The petitioner, who had initiated the entire legal process and successfully demanded a second chance, was given the final word. He had the opportunity to submit a closing argument that could have vindicated his entire complaint. Instead, he offered only silence. By ghosting his own rehearing, he left the judge with no choice but to conclude that he had once again “failed to sustain his burden of proof” and make the original ruling against him final.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Court of Community Opinion
This case is a fascinating lesson in the difference between a personal annoyance and an actual legal violation. It demonstrates that in the world of HOAs, feelings and hypothetical concerns carry little weight compared to the cold, hard text of the governing documents. Those documents give boards significant power, but also charge them with the difficult task of balancing the desires of all residents, not just the grievance of one.
As pickleball courts continue to replace shuffleboard courts and community gardens pop up in unused green spaces, this story leaves us with a critical question: As our communities change, how do we balance protecting the familiar traditions we love with making space for the new ones our neighbors are asking for?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Werner A Reis(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward O’Brien(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association
Mark Sall(attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association (Also cited as Mark Sahl)
Charles Mitchell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Current Director of the Association's Board
Arland Averell(board member, witness) Canyon Mesa Townhouse Association Served on the Board for the past twenty years
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner(department contact) ADRE Electronic contact for ADRE
c. serrano(staff) OAH Administrative staff/Clerk noted on document transmission
