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

Tom Barrs vs Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2025-04-01
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge Decision granted the remanded petition based on the parties' stipulation that the Respondent Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide the membership roster. The ALJ ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee and assessed a civil penalty of $25.00 against Respondent. All other respects of the previous ALJ Decision issued February 21, 2023, remain unchanged.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $25.00

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to timely provide full membership roster

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

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:28 (50.9 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:32 (107.0 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:36 (21.7 KB)

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

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:56:40 (149.2 KB)

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview and Parties Involved

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

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

• Docket Number: 25F-H2222050-REL-RMD

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

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

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

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

II. Procedural History: From Initial Petitions to Superior Court

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

Petition Filing Date

Alleged Violation

Subject Matter

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

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

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Alleged preclusion of audio recording at a meeting.

April 18, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Membership roster request from October 2021.

May 12, 2022

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Multiple document requests from Oct 2021 to Mar 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The Remand Process and Clarification of Scope

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

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

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

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

The Order explicitly narrowed the scope of the hearing:

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

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

V. Final Hearing and Resolution

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

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

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

Stipulation

Details

Violation Admitted

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

Specific Request

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

Untimeliness

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

Monetary Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to give me a list of other homeowners' names and addresses?

Short Answer

No. Unless an exception applies, membership lists with names and addresses must be made available so members can participate in HOA affairs.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that membership lists containing names and addresses are not considered 'personal records' that can be withheld. Access to this information is deemed necessary for members to actively participate in the association, such as knowing who belongs to the association and which properties they own.

Alj Quote

Those membership lists containing names and addresses, however, do not appear to fall within the exemption for personal records. … In addition, in order to actively participate in HOA affairs, all members must have the ability to know who is in the Association and which home or land they own.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Membership List
  • Homeowner Rights

Question

Am I entitled to receive the email addresses and phone numbers of other homeowners?

Short Answer

No. Email addresses and phone numbers are considered personal and private, unlike physical addresses.

Detailed Answer

While names and physical addresses are necessary for HOA participation, the decision states that email addresses and phone numbers are more personal. Disclosure of this contact information is not essential for association business and could lead to harassment or marketing issues.

Alj Quote

The desire for additional personal information, including email addresses and phone numbers and the like, while understandable, is not necessary for active participation in the affairs of the Association. … Email addresses and phone numbers, however, are more personal and less public in nature.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Privacy
  • Records Request
  • Personal Records

Question

How quickly must the HOA respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law grants the association ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Timelines
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee for simply looking at the records?

Short Answer

No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly prohibits the association from charging a member for the act of making material available for review. Charges are only permitted for copies.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

How much can the HOA charge me for copies of records?

Short Answer

The HOA can charge a maximum of 15 cents per page.

Detailed Answer

If a member requests copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, but it is capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • Fees
  • Records Request

Question

What records is the HOA allowed to withhold from me?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged legal communications, pending litigation, closed meeting minutes, and specific personal or employee records.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific statutory exceptions where records can be withheld, including attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, and personal/health/financial records of members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records… may be withheld… to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation. 3. Meeting minutes… of a session… not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • Exceptions
  • Records Request
  • Privacy

Question

Can the HOA be penalized if they delay providing records for a long time?

Short Answer

Yes. Significant delays can result in a violation and civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA failed to provide a membership roster for approximately 19 months (from October 2021 to May 2023). This was deemed untimely and resulted in a civil penalty.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s October 21, 2021, records request was untimely, as it was not fulfilled until May 2023. … Petitioner’s request to assess civil penalties totaling $25.00 against Respondent is granted.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement
  • Timelines

Question

If I win my hearing, will the HOA have to reimburse my filing fee?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Detailed Answer

The decision orders the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner's $500 filing fee as required by statute when the Petitioner prevails.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

Topic Tags

  • Costs
  • Remedies

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA broke the law?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means showing that the contention is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
25F-H2222050-REL-RMD
Case Title
Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2025-04-01
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

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

Aaron Solen & Anh Jung v. Power Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-07-05
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron Solen and Anh Jung Counsel —
Respondent Power Ranch Community Association Counsel Charles H. Oldham

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws

Outcome Summary

The tribunal granted the petition, finding the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) and CC&R section 5.2.3 by failing to provide Petitioners an opportunity to be heard before imposing monetary penalties. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee. However, the tribunal denied all other requests for relief, including the reimbursement of fines, imposition of civil penalties, and forced approval of the modification, citing lack of statutory authority.

Why this result: The tribunal lacks statutory authority to erase fines imposed, force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s, or force the Association to accept the planters without Petitioners going through the proper Design Review Committee processes.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner was issued fines as a result of a Design Review Committee decision and petitioner was not provided an opportunity to appeal to or be heard by the board of directors as required by A.R.S. §33-1803(B) and Article 5, specifically Article 5.2.4 of the Association’s by-laws.

Petitioners were fined for an unapproved modification (planter) without being granted a proper opportunity to be heard by the Board, as required by statute and bylaws, leading to a violation finding against the Association. The May 2023 meeting did not include the hearing, and the June 2023 Executive Session was not deemed a proper 'hearing' due to confusion over the closed session terminology.

Orders: The petition alleging violation of hearing rights was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A). Requests for reimbursement of fines incurred ($400.00), approval of the planters, imposition of a civil penalty, and rewriting CC&R’s procedures were denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: DRC denial, hearing rights, monetary penalty, unapproved modification, executive session, CC&R violation
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B)
  • Article 5.2.4
  • CC&R Section 5.2.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:09 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:18 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:22 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:22:27 (146.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1162665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:30 (42.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1184634.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:33 (40.0 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1191323.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:37 (37.4 KB)

24F-H036-REL Decision – 1196403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:42 (146.0 KB)

This summary details the hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Aaron Solen and Anh Jung (Petitioners) vs. Power Ranch Community Association (Respondent)* (No. 24F-H036-REL).

Key Facts and Background

The dispute centered on the installation of an unapproved planter in the Petitioners' front yard. Following a courtesy notice on March 9, 2023, Petitioners submitted a Design Review Committee (DRC) Application, which was denied on April 10, 2023, for not aligning with community aesthetics and being "too large". Petitioners subsequently modified the planter but refused to submit a formal modification application, arguing that the governing documents (CC&Rs) only required modification or new information, not another form, to be granted an appeal.

The Association (Respondent) argued that a formal written application was essential for maintaining accurate written records, especially given the community's size (15,000 members). Although the violation was first noted in March 2023, the Association delayed imposing $100 fines until October 2023, attempting to work with Petitioners to resolve the issue.

Main Issues and Arguments

  1. Violation of Hearing Rights: Petitioners argued they were fined without being provided a proper opportunity to appeal or be heard by the Board of Directors, violating A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) and Article 5.2.4 of the Association's bylaws.
  2. Appeal Procedure: The Board failed to address Petitioners' appeal at the May 22, 2023 meeting because it intended to give Petitioners time to cure the violation and avoid a "final decision".
  3. Executive Session as Hearing: The Association claimed that the invitation to the June 26, 2023 Executive Session was intended to serve as the appeal hearing. Petitioners did not attend, believing executive sessions were closed to homeowners.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone granted the Petition.

The ALJ made the following key legal conclusions:

  • Standing: The ALJ confirmed that Petitioners (as members residing at the property) were the proper parties to the action, rejecting the Respondent's argument that only the LLC (the title owner) had standing.
  • Due Process Violation: The tribunal found Petitioners met their burden of proof that the opportunity to have a hearing was not granted.
  • The May meeting delay, though a "noble gesture," still denied Petitioners their statutory right to a hearing.
  • The June Executive Session was found insufficient as a "hearing" due to the confusion its terminology caused, denying the "opportunity to be heard".
  • Final Ruling: The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B) (requiring notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing penalties) and CC&R's section 5.2.3.

Remedies

While granting the Petition, the ALJ noted he lacked statutory authority to grant several requested remedies:

  • The ALJ could not erase the fines imposed.
  • The ALJ could not force the Association to approve the planters without Petitioners following the proper DRC procedures.
  • The ALJ denied the request to force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s.

The only monetary relief ordered was that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fee.

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H036-REL”,
“case_title”: “Aaron Solen & Anh Jung vs Power Ranch Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-07-05”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to provide a hearing before imposing fines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, state law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision cites Arizona Revised Statutes, which mandate that a board of directors may only impose reasonable monetary penalties after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation.”,
“alj_quote”: “After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“hearings”,
“due process”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to remove fines from my account?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal stated it lacks the statutory authority to erase fines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if the homeowner prevails on the procedural issue (like lack of a hearing), the ALJ in this case ruled that they do not have the power to order the fines be removed or erased.”,
“alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal has no statutory authority to erase the fines imposed nor force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“remedies”,
“jurisdiction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ force the HOA to approve my architectural modification (e.g., planters)?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal cannot force the HOA to accept improvements that haven’t gone through the proper design review process.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ denied the request to force approval of the unapproved planters, noting that the homeowners must still go through the association’s Design Review Committee (DRC) processes.”,
“alj_quote”: “nor can it force the Association to accept the planters as is without Petitioners going through the property DRC processes.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural review”,
“landscaping”,
“remedies”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is an invitation to an ‘Executive Session’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the terminology is confusing and leads homeowners to believe they cannot attend.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that inviting homeowners to an Executive Session—which is generally understood to be closed to the public—was confusing. Because the homeowners believed they couldn’t attend, the session did not count as a valid opportunity to be heard.”,
“alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds that the June 2023 Executive Session was not a “hearing” for purposes of the CC&R’s, and it was not an opportunity to be heard based upon the confusion the Executive Session terminology caused.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“executive session”,
“meetings”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I own my home through an LLC, can I still file a petition against the HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, provided you are the member residing at the property and the HOA has treated you as the owner.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued the petition was deficient because the title was held by an LLC. The ALJ rejected this, finding the residents were the proper parties because they were members of the association and the HOA sent mail to them individually.”,
“alj_quote”: “At the outset, the tribunal finds that Petitioners are the proper parties to the action. They are the members of the Association, and all mail went directly to Petitioners individually, and not as a member/manager of the LLC.”,
“legal_basis”: “Standing”,
“topic_tags”: [
“LLC ownership”,
“standing”,
“membership”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to Arizona statutes.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“reimbursement”,
“costs”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Board delay my hearing to give me time to fix a violation instead of hearing my appeal?”,
“short_answer”: “No, if you requested a hearing, the Board should address it rather than delaying it indefinitely.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Board delayed the hearing to avoid issuing a final denial, hoping the homeowner would fix the issue. The ALJ ruled that while well-intentioned (“noble gesture”), this delay violated the homeowner’s right to be heard when the matter was not addressed at the monthly meetings.”,
“alj_quote”: “Therefore, although the Board was most generous in delaying the “hearing” to avoid a final decision, the matter should have been addressed in May and June at the monthly meetings and it was not.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“delays”,
“board conduct”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ impose civil penalties on the HOA for their actions?”,
“short_answer”: “It is possible but was denied in this specific case.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowners requested civil penalties against the HOA. The ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioners’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty…”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”,
“topic_tags”: [
“civil penalties”,
“sanctions”
]
}
]
}

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H036-REL”,
“case_title”: “Aaron Solen & Anh Jung vs Power Ranch Community Association”,
“decision_date”: “2024-07-05”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to provide a hearing before imposing fines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, state law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision cites Arizona Revised Statutes, which mandate that a board of directors may only impose reasonable monetary penalties after providing the member with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation.”,
“alj_quote”: “After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“hearings”,
“due process”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to remove fines from my account?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal stated it lacks the statutory authority to erase fines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if the homeowner prevails on the procedural issue (like lack of a hearing), the ALJ in this case ruled that they do not have the power to order the fines be removed or erased.”,
“alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal has no statutory authority to erase the fines imposed nor force the Association to rewrite its CC&R’s”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“remedies”,
“jurisdiction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ force the HOA to approve my architectural modification (e.g., planters)?”,
“short_answer”: “No, the tribunal cannot force the HOA to accept improvements that haven’t gone through the proper design review process.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ denied the request to force approval of the unapproved planters, noting that the homeowners must still go through the association’s Design Review Committee (DRC) processes.”,
“alj_quote”: “nor can it force the Association to accept the planters as is without Petitioners going through the property DRC processes.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Authority”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural review”,
“landscaping”,
“remedies”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is an invitation to an ‘Executive Session’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, especially if the terminology is confusing and leads homeowners to believe they cannot attend.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ found that inviting homeowners to an Executive Session—which is generally understood to be closed to the public—was confusing. Because the homeowners believed they couldn’t attend, the session did not count as a valid opportunity to be heard.”,
“alj_quote”: “Thus, the tribunal finds that the June 2023 Executive Session was not a “hearing” for purposes of the CC&R’s, and it was not an opportunity to be heard based upon the confusion the Executive Session terminology caused.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“executive session”,
“meetings”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I own my home through an LLC, can I still file a petition against the HOA?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, provided you are the member residing at the property and the HOA has treated you as the owner.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The HOA argued the petition was deficient because the title was held by an LLC. The ALJ rejected this, finding the residents were the proper parties because they were members of the association and the HOA sent mail to them individually.”,
“alj_quote”: “At the outset, the tribunal finds that Petitioners are the proper parties to the action. They are the members of the Association, and all mail went directly to Petitioners individually, and not as a member/manager of the LLC.”,
“legal_basis”: “Standing”,
“topic_tags”: [
“LLC ownership”,
“standing”,
“membership”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I win my hearing against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The decision ordered the Respondent (the HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee pursuant to Arizona statutes.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“reimbursement”,
“costs”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Board delay my hearing to give me time to fix a violation instead of hearing my appeal?”,
“short_answer”: “No, if you requested a hearing, the Board should address it rather than delaying it indefinitely.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Board delayed the hearing to avoid issuing a final denial, hoping the homeowner would fix the issue. The ALJ ruled that while well-intentioned (“noble gesture”), this delay violated the homeowner’s right to be heard when the matter was not addressed at the monthly meetings.”,
“alj_quote”: “Therefore, although the Board was most generous in delaying the “hearing” to avoid a final decision, the matter should have been addressed in May and June at the monthly meetings and it was not.”,
“legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“hearings”,
“delays”,
“board conduct”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the ALJ impose civil penalties on the HOA for their actions?”,
“short_answer”: “It is possible but was denied in this specific case.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowners requested civil penalties against the HOA. The ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioners’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty…”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”,
“topic_tags”: [
“civil penalties”,
“sanctions”
]
}
]
}

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Aaron Solen (petitioner)
    ACRE Holdings, LLC
  • Anh Jung (petitioner)
    ACRE Holdings, LLC
    Also known as Ann Young

Respondent Side

  • Charles H. Oldham (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Jennifer Partridge (property manager/witness)
    CCMC
    Also known as Jennifer Campbell; Executive Director for Power Ranch
  • Nick Ferre (property manager)
    CCMC
    Jennifer Partridge's supervisor
  • Allison Sanchez (property manager)
    CCMC
  • Chris Ecknar (board member)
    Power Ranch Community Association
    Listed attendee in contested board minutes exhibit
  • Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
    CHDB Law LLP
  • Marcus R. Martinez (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Listed in early transmission list with Respondent's counsel
  • Curtis Mark (HOA attorney)
    Power Ranch Community Association
    Association attorney

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (commissioner)
    ADRE

Other Participants

  • Sherikillo (witness)
    Neighbor
    Confirmed petitioner's topic was raised at May 2023 board meeting

Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H015-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-01-03
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb Counsel Jeffrey Brie, Esq.
Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association Counsel Phillip Brown, Esq. and Kelly Oetinger, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

Petitioner met the burden of proof for both alleged violations: violation of the Declaration (not enforcing the 25ft setback) and violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (failing to provide documents). The petition was granted, and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $1,000.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide documents

Respondent failed to produce documents requested by Petitioner, specifically meeting minutes discussing the investigative report, within the statutory timeframe, violating A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Orders: Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 and Declaration Section F. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Declaration Section F

Analytics Highlights

Topics: setback enforcement, document request, HOA governance, filing fee refund, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • Declaration Section F

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1102948.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:19 (53.9 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1116083.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:23 (50.5 KB)

24F-H015-REL Decision – 1129495.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:02:26 (148.2 KB)

This summary addresses the administrative hearing (No. 24F-H015-REL) involving Petitioners Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb and Respondent Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on November 22 and December 20, 2023, concerning alleged violations of the community's governing documents and Arizona statutes.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioners filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate:

  1. Setback Enforcement: Violation of the Declaration of Restrictions (specifically Item F of the Second Declaration) by the HOA "not enforcing the 25ft setback provision".
  2. Document Disclosure: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing "to provide documents" requested by the Petitioners.

The central factual dispute revolved around Lot 9 (owned by Marcella Aguilar and Abel Sodto), which shares a property line with the Petitioners' Lot 8. Petitioners alleged that the Lot 9 owners made unapproved improvements—including grading, removal of native vegetation, and placement of large boulders—within the mandatory 25-foot setback. The Declaration requires Architectural Committee (ARC) approval for all improvements and any removal of native growth. An HOA investigation in September 2020 concluded that the Lot 9 improvements were neither submitted nor approved by the ARC, and Lot 9 was directed to submit plans within 30 days. Petitioners testified that Lot 9 failed to comply.

Key Arguments

  • Petitioner's Argument: The Association failed its mandatory duty to enforce the CC&Rs for over three years, particularly since the Lot 9 owner (Mr. Sodto) held influential positions (Director, President, ARC member) during the relevant period. Petitioners sought an order requiring the HOA to remedy the violation (remove boulders, revegetate). Petitioners' civil engineer, Tracy Bogardus, testified that Lot 8 did not cause Lot 9's drainage issues, invalidating the Lot 9 owners’ justification for the grading.
  • Respondent's Argument (HOA): The HOA denied the claims, arguing that Lot 9’s modification (referred to as a "driveway turnaround") was necessary for safety due to the steep lot configuration. The HOA asserted that the board has discretion to grant variances. The HOA also argued that selective enforcement against Lot 9 was inconsistent, as six of the seven built-out lots had similar unapproved turnarounds or improvements in setbacks. The HOA later approved the Lot 9 turnaround retroactively during the hearing proceedings.
  • Document Disclosure: HOA President Robert Lewin testified he did not provide the specific documents (Lot 9 submissions) because they did not exist. However, he admitted he failed to provide the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.

Final Decision and Outcome

The ALJ found that the Petitioners met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ issued the following key conclusions:

  • Setback Violation: Lot 9 failed to submit the required improvement request, violating the Declaration. However, the ALJ emphasized that the relevant section of the Declaration (Section H) states the ARC "shall have the right to clear such lot," meaning the ultimate action to remedy the lot remains within the HOA’s discretion, not an obligation.
  • Document Disclosure Violation (A.R.S. § 33-1805): The Respondent violated the statute by failing to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report. Although no Lot 9 application documents existed, the minutes did.

Order: Petitioner's petition was granted. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent HOA was ordered to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H015-REL”, “case_title”: “Teri S. Morcomb & J. Ted Morcomb v. Sierra Tortuga Homeowner’s Association”, “decision_date”: “2024-01-03”, “alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee reimbursed?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee if the petition is granted.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, if a homeowner prevails in their petition against the association, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the respondent (HOA) to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fee.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “filing fees”, “reimbursement”, “penalties” ] }, { “question”: “What is the timeline for an HOA to provide records after a homeowner requests them?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or provide copies of records.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona statute requires that an association make financial and other records reasonably available for examination. When a member requests to examine or purchase copies of records, the association must comply within ten business days.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies of records … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “deadlines”, “homeowner rights” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA refuse to provide meeting minutes by claiming other documents regarding a specific issue don’t exist?”, “short_answer”: “No, even if specific architectural files don’t exist, the HOA must still provide related meeting minutes if requested.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, while the HOA claimed no documents existed regarding a specific architectural submission (because none was made), they were still found in violation for failing to produce the meeting minutes where the issue and an investigative report were discussed.”, “alj_quote”: “From the evidence presented, and Mr. Lewin admitted, that Respondent failed to produce a copy of the meeting minutes discussing the investigative report.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “meeting minutes”, “records access”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does the ALJ have the authority to order the HOA to physically clear a violation from a neighbor’s lot?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if the CC&Rs grant the HOA the ‘right’ rather than the ‘duty’ to clear the lot, it remains a discretionary action.”, “detailed_answer”: “Although the ALJ found the HOA in violation of the CC&Rs for the setback issue, the judge disagreed that the HOA must clear the lot. The specific language of the governing documents gave the Architectural Committee the ‘right’ to clear the lot, which the judge interpreted as discretionary.”, “alj_quote”: “However, the tribunal disagrees with Petitioner that Respondent must clear the lot. Section H of the Declaration merely states that the Architectural Committee ‘shall have the right to clear such lot’. Thus, it is still within the Architectural Committee’s discretion to act on that right.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Interpretation”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “remedies”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “What is the burden of proof in an HOA administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the complaint bears the burden of proving that the HOA violated the community documents or statutes. The standard is a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ meaning the contention is more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the item F of the Declarations and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA be found in violation for a neighbor’s unapproved improvements?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the HOA fails to enforce setback requirements against unapproved improvements.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found the Board in violation of the Declaration (setback rules) because the neighbor never submitted a request for the improvements, the improvements did not comply with setbacks, and the Board failed to enforce the requirement.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that the Board was in violation of Section F of the Declaration and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs (Section F)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural control”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Do HOA directors have the right to inspect association records?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision cites the Association Bylaws which grant every Director the absolute right to inspect all books, records, documents, and physical properties of the Association.”, “alj_quote”: “Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.”, “legal_basis”: “Association Bylaws Article 11.3”, “topic_tags”: [ “board members”, “records inspection”, “bylaws” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Teri S. Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner, testified
  • J. Ted Morcomb (petitioner)
    Lot 8 owner
  • Jeffrey T. Brei (petitioner attorney)
  • Tracy Allen Bogardis (witness)
    Civil Engineer
    Testified regarding drainage/hydrology

Respondent Side

  • Phillip Brown (HOA attorney)
  • Kelly Oetinger (HOA attorney)
  • Robert Leuen (board president)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Testified
  • Marcella Bernadette Aguilar (witness)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, testified
  • Abel Sodto (lot owner)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Lot 9 owner, former Board/ARC member, subject of violation
  • Clint Stoddard (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator
  • Benny Medina (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Investigator, former president
  • Joseph D. Martino (ARC member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former Architectural Committee Head
  • Chris Stler (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Vice President of HOA
  • Yvon Posche (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Secretary of HOA
  • Steve Brockam (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Board Director
  • Perry Terren (ARC chair)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    ARC Chairman and Board Director
  • Jeremy Thompson (law clerk)
    HOA Attorney's office
  • Mike Shupe (former HOA attorney)

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tim Ross (board member)
    Sierra Tortuga HOA
    Former board/investigator, criticized current board actions
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    ADRE

Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H066-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-11-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sebastien Verstraet Counsel —
Respondent Monterey Ridge Condominium Association Counsel Marcus R. Martinez

Alleged Violations

Section 4.24, Declaration/Rules

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof to show the HOA violated its documents. The Declaration and Rules unambiguously prohibited hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in the Petitioner's third-floor unit, and the Petitioner admitted installing the flooring without seeking approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. Petitioner received the governing documents prior to closing, failed to fully read them, and failed to seek permission from the Association prior to installing the prohibited Luxury Vinyl Plank flooring.

Key Issues & Findings

Flooring Restriction for New Units

Petitioner challenged the Association's enforcement of a declaration rule prohibiting hard floor coverings (like LVP) in his third-floor unit, arguing his chosen flooring had sufficient soundproofing. The Association argued the rule was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory for enforcement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flooring Restriction, Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP), CCNR Enforcement, Third Floor Unit, Prior Approval
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:28 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:13:33 (110.4 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1085177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:06 (48.3 KB)

23F-H066-REL Decision – 1112087.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:14 (110.4 KB)

This summary details the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the case of Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (No. 23F-H066-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core dispute was whether the Monterey Ridge Condominium Association (Respondent) violated its governing documents by enforcing a prohibition against the Petitioner, Sebastien Verstraet, who installed Luxury Vinyl Plank (LVP) flooring in his third-floor unit. The Petitioner filed the action after the Association, upon discovery of the unauthorized installation, issued a violation notice and required removal of the LVP.

The restriction at issue was Section 4.24 of the Declaration, titled "Flooring Restriction for New Units," which prohibited hard floor coverings (listing materials such as ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood, or laminated flooring) in all third-floor units, requiring carpet and pad instead to mitigate noise disturbance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The evidentiary hearing took place on October 26, 2023.

Petitioner's Position: Mr. Verstraet argued that he was unaware of the prohibition before installation, having only briefly reviewed the community documents received shortly before closing. He contended that LVP is the preferred modern flooring, significantly improves resale value, and provides soundproofing (IIC rating of 63) equal to or better than standard carpeting, rendering the rule obsolete or illogically drafted. He also noted that LVP was already permitted and installed in the kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry room of the unit. Furthermore, he did not seek prior written approval because he was unaware of the restriction.

Respondent's Position: The Association, represented by counsel, asserted its right and obligation to enforce its governing documents as written. Counsel argued that the recorded covenants were binding upon the Petitioner when he took the deed. The rule explicitly prohibits vinyl flooring in all third-floor units to address noise mitigation, a factor contemplated by the developer or subsequent amendment. The Community Manager, Robert Stein, testified that the Association followed typical enforcement procedures, and a neighbor below had complained about rolling noises emanating from the unit. The Association requested dismissal, arguing it had not violated its CC&Rs or Arizona law.

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued the decision on November 13, 2023.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated its documents or Arizona law. The decision emphasized the following legal points:

  1. Binding Nature of Documents: Although the Petitioner's points regarding LVP's aesthetic appeal and value were "valid," the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous regarding the prohibition of hard floor coverings (including vinyl) in third-floor units.
  2. Failure to Seek Approval: The Petitioner admitted receiving the Declaration prior to closing, not fully reading it, and failing to seek permission to install the flooring. Had he sought approval, he likely would have been informed of the prohibition.

The ALJ ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be DENIED. Consequently, the Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

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

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I install hard flooring like vinyl or hardwood in my upper-floor condo unit?

Short Answer

Not if the CC&Rs specifically prohibit it to mitigate noise, even if the product is high quality.

Detailed Answer

If the governing documents explicitly prohibit hard floor coverings in specific units (such as second or third-floor units) to mitigate noise, the HOA can enforce this restriction regardless of the quality or sound rating of the material installed.

Alj Quote

Except for entry areas where hard floor coverings have been installed by Declarant, and except for kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, hard floor coverings (e.g., ceramic tile, natural stone, vinyl, hardwood or laminated flooring) shall be prohibited in all other areas… and all third floor Units.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.24

Topic Tags

  • architectural restrictions
  • flooring
  • noise mitigation

Question

Is it a valid defense that I didn't read the CC&Rs before making a change?

Short Answer

No. If you received the documents, you are responsible for knowing the rules.

Detailed Answer

Admitting that you received the Declaration and Rules but did not read them is not a valid defense against a violation. The tribunal will likely find against a homeowner who had the opportunity to review the restrictions but failed to do so.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted in his testimony that he timely received a copy of the Declaration and Rules approximately a week prior to closing. Petitioner also admitted that he did not fully read the same… The tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met his burden.

Legal Basis

Contractual Obligation / Constructive Notice

Topic Tags

  • homeowner responsibilities
  • CC&Rs
  • ignorance of law

Question

Does my HOA have to approve a renovation if the new material is 'better' or more valuable than what is required?

Short Answer

No. Clear rules in the CC&Rs override arguments about aesthetics or resale value.

Detailed Answer

Even if a homeowner presents valid points about the superior look or potential resale value of a prohibited improvement (like LVP flooring vs. carpet), the ALJ will enforce the clear and unambiguous language of the governing documents.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner probably had valid points about the look and potential value of LVP flooring versus carpeting, unfortunately, the Declarations and Rules are clear and unambiguous…

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Governing Documents

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • property value
  • renovations

Question

What happens if I start a renovation without asking for HOA permission first?

Short Answer

You risk violating rules you weren't aware of and may be forced to stop or reverse the work.

Detailed Answer

Skipping the approval process is risky. If a homeowner fails to seek permission, they miss the opportunity to be informed of specific prohibitions before spending money on installation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted that he did not seek permission from the Association to install the LVP flooring, which had he done, he probably would have been informed that the Rules did not allow for the same.

Legal Basis

Architectural Review Process

Topic Tags

  • procedural requirements
  • renovations
  • violations

Question

Who has to prove their case in an HOA dispute hearing?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the governing documents or laws.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Declarations and Association Rules.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof (ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119)

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • burden of proof
  • hearings

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?

Short Answer

It means the evidence shows the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard involves superior evidentiary weight that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

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

Legal Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal definitions
  • evidence

Question

If I lose my case against the HOA, will I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

No. Reimbursement is generally denied if the petition is denied.

Detailed Answer

If the ALJ rules against the homeowner and denies the petition, the order will typically state that the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • costs
  • penalties
  • fees

Case

Docket No
23F-H066-REL
Case Title
Sebastien Verstraet v. Monterey Ridge Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-11-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sebastien Verstraet (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf
  • Ron Riecks (witness)
    Flooring installer for Petitioner; also referred to as Ron Reichkes

Respondent Side

  • Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Marcus R. Martinez (attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
  • Robert Stein (property manager)
    City Property Management
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE

Megan E Gardner v. Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association,

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H061-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Megan E Gardner Counsel —
Respondent Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel Kyle A. von Johnson and Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G by failing to provide 30 days' notice prior to the 2023 assessment increase. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide 30-day notice for 2023 dues increase

The HOA increased annual dues from $200.00 to $240.00 effective 1/1/2023 due to a financial crisis caused by embezzlement, but failed to provide the required 30-day written notice as mandated by the CC&Rs. Although the increase was later refunded, the ALJ affirmed the petition finding the HOA failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent is ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dues Increase, Notice Violation, CC&R Violation, Embezzlement, Filing Fee Refund, Assessment Timing
Additional Citations:

  • CC&Rs, Article 3, Section G
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:40 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:45 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:51 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:12:57 (110.9 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1077230.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:31 (41.5 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095389.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:34 (44.3 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1095762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:37 (6.7 KB)

23F-H061-REL Decision – 1102356.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:42 (110.9 KB)

This summary addresses the hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the case of *Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.* (No. 23F-H061-REL), heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone on October 2, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The dispute centered on the Association’s increase of the annual assessment from $200.00 to $240.00 for the 2023 calendar year.

Petitioner's Claim: Megan E. Gardner alleged the Association violated the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Article 3, Section G, which requires the regular assessment amount to be fixed and noticed at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the calendar year (i.e., by December 1st). The Board voted on the increase on December 16, 2022, missing the required deadline.

Association's Defense (Respondent): The Association, represented by counsel, argued the violation was necessary due to extraordinary circumstances. The former property manager had embezzled nearly $500,000.00 of the Association’s funds in late 2022, leading to financial collapse. Facing an urgent $110,000.00 debt to the road maintenance contractor (crucial for maintaining 200 miles of necessary roadways), the Board had "no choice" but to raise rates to secure immediate funds. The Association asserted that the CCRs did not contemplate such a crisis.

Key Arguments and Legal Points

Respondent's Argument for Mootness: The Association testified that by April 2023, they recovered $387,000.00 in insurance proceeds. Consequently, they paid the debt and issued a $40.00 credit (refund) to all members around May 25, 2023. The Association argued that since the challenged assessment increase was refunded, the petition was moot.

Petitioner's Counter-Argument (Focus on Correction): Gardner received the refund but contended that the issue was not moot. She argued that a refund is not a correction. Gardner sought corrective action requiring the Board to create a formal written record and ensure transparency. She noted that the member portal still incorrectly displayed the $240.00 assessment amount, demonstrating a failure to correct the records and potentially confusing new homeowners. She emphasized that the Board must conduct business according to the CCRs going forward.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision on October 16, 2023, concluding that the Petitioner met her burden of proving the CCR violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Finding: The ALJ affirmed that while he sympathized with the "untenable and horrible position" the Association faced, the Board failed to comply with the CCR’s mandatory 30-day notice provision for the 2023 Assessment.

Order:

  1. Petitioner’s petition was affirmed.
  2. The Association was ORDERED to reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee ($500.00) pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), despite Gardner testifying that she was not seeking reimbursement.
  3. No civil penalty was awarded, as the Petitioner did not request one.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

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

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA raise dues without proper notice if they are facing a severe financial emergency?

Short Answer

No, financial crises do not exempt the HOA from following the notice timelines in the CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that even though the HOA was in an 'untenable' position due to embezzlement and urgent debts, they were still strictly bound to provide the specific notice (30 days in this case) required by the governing documents before increasing assessments.

Alj Quote

First, while the tribunal sympathizes with the untenable and horrible position that the Association was facing, it still failed to comply with the CCR’s, by not providing the 30 day notice prior to the 2023 yearly Assessment.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Compliance

Topic Tags

  • Assessments
  • Emergency Powers
  • Notice Requirements

Question

If I win my hearing, will I get my filing fee back even if I tell the judge I don't want it?

Short Answer

Yes, the statute requires the filing fee to be reimbursed if the petitioner prevails, regardless of their personal preference.

Detailed Answer

The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee because the relevant statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01) binds the tribunal to order reimbursement when the petitioner wins, even though the homeowner explicitly testified she did not wish to recover it.

Alj Quote

At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not wish to recovery her filing fee, the tribunal is bound by the statute to order the same.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01; A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Reimbursement
  • Statutory Mandates

Question

What level of proof do I need to provide to win a dispute against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proof. The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal cases), but rather showing that the evidence is sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side over the other.

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

A.R.S. § 33-1804(D); A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Burden of Proof
  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Will the judge automatically fine the HOA if I prove they violated the rules?

Short Answer

No, if you do not specifically request a civil penalty in your petition, the judge generally will not award one.

Detailed Answer

In this case, although the HOA was found in violation, the judge ordered that no civil penalty be awarded specifically because the petitioner did not include a request for a penalty in her initial paperwork.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalty be awarded as Petitioner did not request the same in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Civil Penalties
  • Fines
  • Petition Drafting

Question

If the HOA fixes the problem (like refunding money) before the decision, is the case dismissed?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge may still issue a decision affirming the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The HOA had already refunded the improper assessment increase to members before the decision was written. However, the ALJ still issued an order affirming the petition and finding that the HOA had failed to comply with the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

The tribunal finds that Petitioner has met her burden. … Fortunately for the Association and the homeowners, it … was able to issue a refund of $40.00 to its members.

Legal Basis

Mootness (Implicitly Rejected)

Topic Tags

  • Refunds
  • Violations
  • Case Outcomes

Case

Docket No
23F-H061-REL
Case Title
Megan E Gardner v Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-10-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Megan E Gardner (petitioner)
    Property owner of Parcel 222

Respondent Side

  • Kyle A. von Johnson (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
  • Ronald Carter (Treasurer/Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Treasurer since June 2022. Referred to as 'Ronald Cotter' in the ALJ Decision Findings of Fact.
  • David Goodman (Witness)
    Woodland Valley Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Appeared remotely; recruited to serve as President after previous board members resigned.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
    Listed for copy transmittal

Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Green Elephant

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222036-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-29
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —
Respondent Green Elephant Development LLC Counsel Ronald E. Huser, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199 et seq., 33-1802(4), 41-1092, ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.

Why this result: OAH lacked authority to hear the dispute because Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association met the definition of a 'planned community' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). Specifically, there was no evidence of real estate ownership, roadway easements, mandatory membership, or mandatory assessments.

Key Issues & Findings

OAH jurisdiction over the dispute based on whether the Petitioner is a 'planned community.'

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated setback requirements in the Declaration of Restrictions (Section 5). Respondent moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to prove it met the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under ARS § 33-1802(4).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent’s motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law was granted. The matter was vacated and remanded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Jurisdiction, Planned Community Definition, Setback Violation, Judgment as a Matter of Law, Voluntary Membership
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-112
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:38 (45.8 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:41 (53.3 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:48:47 (143.0 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:40 (45.8 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:43 (53.3 KB)

22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:47 (143.0 KB)

This summary details the hearing proceedings and final decision in the matter of *Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC* (No. 22F-H2222036-REL), held before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

Key Facts and Issues

The hearing, held on April 27, 2022, addressed the Petitioner Association's claim that the Respondent, Green Elephant Development LLC (a property owner), violated Section 5 of the Association's Declaration of Restrictions. The specific allegation was that construction on the Respondent's property (located at 4802 N. 38th St.) failed to meet the required 7-foot side and 20-foot front setback requirements.

Petitioner's representative, Robert Chiffelle, testified that construction plans submitted to the City of Phoenix showed setbacks of approximately 3 feet and 15 feet, respectively, which violated the Declaration.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The primary legal dispute centered on whether the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) possessed the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.

  1. Petitioner’s Case and Admissions: Petitioner Chiffelle presented evidence (including exhibits 1, 4-5, 7, and 9), but in cross-examination, conceded that the Association does not own any real estate within the subdivision. He further testified that membership in the Association is voluntary, and any collected monies are voluntary contributions, not mandatory assessments or required dues.
  2. Respondent’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law: Respondent’s counsel, Ron Huser, moved for dismissal (Judgment as a Matter of Law) at the close of the Petitioner’s case-in-chief. The core argument was that the Association failed to meet the statutory definition of a "planned community" under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). The statute requires a planned community to (1) own real estate or hold an easement to maintain roadways, AND (2) have a declaration that expressly states owners are mandatory members and required to pay assessments.
  3. Lack of Substantive Proof: Respondent also argued that even if jurisdiction existed, Petitioner failed to present evidence of actual measurements of the completed construction, relying only on submitted plans, and thus failed to prove a Section 5 violation.

Outcome and Legal Rationale

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

The OAH concluded that the matter fell outside the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq..

The ruling rested on the finding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association is a "planned community". Specifically, the record was devoid of evidence showing that the Association:

  • Owns or operates real estate.
  • Holds an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.
  • Possesses community documents that expressly require property owners to be mandatory members and pay mandatory assessments.

The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition, granted the Respondent’s motion, and vacated and remanded the matter to the referring agency (Arizona Department of Real Estate) for any further action.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “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”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “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”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert Chiffelle (HOA President/Petitioner Rep/Witness)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Bob Chappelle.
  • Jeremy Lyons (HOA Treasurer/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Also referred to as Mr. Lions; submitted the petition on behalf of Petitioner.
  • Missy Lopez (Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Dr. B. Paul Scott (Architectural Committee member/Observer)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
  • Mike Goldwater (Previous HOA President)
    Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.

Respondent Side

  • Ronald E. Huser (Respondent Attorney)
    Huser Law Firm
  • Bryant Aplass (Respondent Co-Owner/Director/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Co-owner and member; also referred to as Bryant Alpass/Applas; role listed as Director of Business Development.
  • Cody Sperber (Respondent President/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
    Also referred to as Cody Fergburgger.
  • Garrett Schmidt (Respondent Rep/Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC
  • Reggie Martinez (Witness)
    Green Elephant Development LLC

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (Legal Staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted Minute Entries.
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted ALJ Decision.

Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael E Palacios Counsel —
Respondent El Rio Community Association Counsel Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill a records request

Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:10 (114.1 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association, No. 21F-H2121053-REL. The hearing took place on August 4, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Proceedings

The Petitioner, Michael E. Palacios, is a property owner and member of the El Rio Community Association (Association). After being appointed to the Board on March 24, 2021, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Department of Real Estate on May 10, 2021, asserting that the Association failed to fulfill a records request made on March 30, 2021. The Respondent Association denied all claims. The Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing. OAH has the authority to hear contested cases concerning disputes between an owner and a planned community association regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Main Issue and Legal Points

The central issue addressed was whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the Association Bylaws Article 11.3 by failing to fulfill the records request. Under the relevant statute, associations must make financial and other records reasonably available to members, typically within ten business days. The Association Bylaws Article 11.3 further grants every Director (which the Petitioner was) an absolute right to inspect all books and records. Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioner’s Arguments: Petitioner Palacios testified that the Association failed to completely fulfill his March 30 request, alleging he received only about 5% of the documents initially. Specifically, he claimed he did not receive the property management contract (D & E Management), attorney contracts, landscaper contracts, Board minutes, cancelled checks, and ledgers. He also asserted that some provided documents might be false or forged because they contained the incorrect association name ("El Rio Estates Homeowners Association").
  1. Respondent’s Arguments: Denise Ferreira, the manager for the Association's management company (D & E), testified that the Association fully complied with the request, though the compliance was untimely regarding copies of checks due to the bank needing time to prepare the large request. Ferreira explained that there were no ongoing contracts with attorneys or landscapers, and payments related to these services were disclosed through the checks and ledgers provided. Regarding the incorrect name, Ferreira attributed it to an ongoing controversy where some Board members attempted to change the name, but instructions were given to cease using the incorrect name until it was formally modified.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the material facts were not in dispute. The ALJ found that the Petitioner had made a proper request, and the Respondent timely responded, informing the Petitioner of potential delays. Crucially, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Therefore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 or Article 11.3 of the Bylaws.

The final order denied the Petitioner’s petition and his request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee. The decision was transmitted on August 13, 2021.

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?

Short Answer

The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Detailed Answer

According to Arizona statute, an association is granted a period of ten business days to comply with a member's request to examine financial and other records.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me a fee to simply look at the books and records?

Short Answer

No, the HOA cannot charge a member for making material available for review.

Detailed Answer

State law prohibits the association from charging a member (or their designated representative) any fee for the act of making records available for inspection.

Alj Quote

The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • homeowner rights

Question

How much can the HOA charge me if I want copies of the records?

Short Answer

The HOA may charge up to fifteen cents per page for copies.

Detailed Answer

While review is free, if a member requests physical copies of records, the association is legally permitted to charge a fee, capped at fifteen cents per page.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • copies

Question

Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?

Short Answer

Yes, specific categories of records, such as privileged attorney communications or employee records, can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The law provides exceptions to disclosure for sensitive information, including privileged attorney-client communications, pending litigation, closed session minutes, and personal or financial records of individual members or employees.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to… Privileged communication between an attorney for the association and the association.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • exclusions
  • privacy

Question

Can I see records regarding complaints against specific HOA employees?

Short Answer

No, records regarding specific complaints against individual employees can be withheld.

Detailed Answer

The HOA is not required to disclose records that relate to specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or a contractor.

Alj Quote

Records relating to… specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the association [may be withheld].

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • employees
  • privacy

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a dispute hearing against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. This means you must provide enough evidence to convince the judge that your claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Legal Basis

Conclusion of Law 3

Topic Tags

  • hearing procedure
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

If I believe documents are missing from my request, is my belief enough to prove a violation?

Short Answer

No, you must present credible evidence that the specific undisclosed documents actually exist.

Detailed Answer

Merely alleging that documents are missing is insufficient. The homeowner must provide credible evidence demonstrating that the documents requested actually exist and were withheld.

Alj Quote

Petitioner presented no credible evidence that documents existed which were not disclosed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact 18

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • records request
  • burden of proof

Question

Does an HOA Director have different inspection rights than a regular homeowner?

Short Answer

Yes, Directors generally have an absolute right to inspect all books and records at any reasonable time.

Detailed Answer

Association bylaws often grant Directors broader access than general members, allowing them the absolute right to inspect all documents and physical properties at reasonable times.

Alj Quote

Every Director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records, and documents of the Association and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association.

Legal Basis

Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Topic Tags

  • board members
  • directors
  • inspection rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121053-REL
Case Title
Michael E Palacios vs. El Rio Community Association
Decision Date
2021-08-13
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael E Palacios (petitioner)
    Property owner and member of the Association; was appointed to the Board,

Respondent Side

  • Quinten T. Cupps (HOA attorney)
    Represented El Rio Community Association
  • Denise Ferreira (property manager, witness)
    D & E Management
    Owns D & E Management and was the manager for the Association

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Lori & James Jordan v. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners’

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120014-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-12-01
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Lori & James Jordan Counsel —
Respondent The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07 & 3.09; 2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the CC&Rs regarding sewer maintenance or deductible apportionment, finding that the Association properly applied its 2012 Rules and Regulations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs in apportioning a proportionate share of the insurance deductible.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over apportionment of insurance deductible following sewer backup damage in a common area.

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to apportion 43.84% ($10,958.96) of the insurance deductible to her unit following damage caused by a main sewer line blockage in a common area.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
  • CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, 3.09
  • 2012 Rules and Regulations Section 19

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Deductible Apportionment, Sewer Maintenance, Common Area, Condominium Documents, Rules and Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Title 33, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120014-REL Decision – 840033.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:25 (138.3 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.. The hearing was held on November 23, 2020, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Lori Jordan, is a property owner and member of The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association (“Association”). The dispute centered on damage caused to her unit (Unit 1006) around October 2018 due to a sewer backup in the main sewer line, which was allegedly caused by tree root growth in a common area.

The core issue was whether the Association violated its Community Documents—specifically CC&Rs Sections 3.04, 3.07, and 3.09—by apportioning a share of the insurance deductible to the Petitioner. Petitioner's unit was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible, totaling $10,958.96.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

  1. Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Lori Jordan and witness Chuck Stewart argued that the sewer line blockage occurred in the common area, and because the CC&Rs (Section 3.09) made the Association responsible for the maintenance and repair of the "sewer collection system within the Property," the Association should bear the full insurance deductible.
  2. Respondent's Argument: Sean Lissarrague, Vice President of the Board, testified that the Board fulfilled its obligations under the CC&Rs by paying for the line repairs. He argued that the apportionment of the deductible was proper based on Section 19 of the 2012 Rules and Regulations. Section 19(b) and (c) grant the Board the authority to apportion the deductible when damage occurs to more than one unit and the common areas. The Association also stated that unit owners are responsible for maintaining proper gap insurance coverage.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the matter was within the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

The ALJ made the following crucial findings:

  • No CC&R Violation: Although CC&R Section 3.09 mandates the Association to maintain and repair the sewer collection system, the Association did coordinate and accomplish these repairs. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association neglected its duty regarding maintenance or repair.
  • Deductible Allocation Upheld: The ALJ recognized that the Petitioner was primarily challenging Section 19 of the 2012 Rules and Regulations. The scenario involved damage to two units and the common area, and the Association properly applied Section 19(b) and (c) of the Rules in apportioning the deductible.

Final Decision: Based on the evidence, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated the CC&Rs by apportioning a share of the insurance deductible. The Petitioner’s petition was therefore denied. This decision is binding unless a rehearing is granted.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.

Alj Quote

Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • deductible
  • assessments
  • common elements

Question

Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?

Short Answer

The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.

Alj Quote

Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?

Short Answer

Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 3.09

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • repairs
  • negligence

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.

Alj Quote

Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.10

Topic Tags

  • rulemaking
  • board authority
  • governing documents

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA require a homeowner to pay a portion of the association's insurance deductible for damage caused by a common element failure?

Short Answer

Yes, if the community Rules and Regulations authorize the Board to apportion the deductible based on repair costs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that the Association's Board had the authority to adopt rules regarding insurance deductibles. Specifically, the rules allowed the Board to apportion the deductible among unit owners and the association based on the proportion of repair costs when damage affects multiple units and common areas, even if the damage originated from a common element like a sewer line.

Alj Quote

Sections 19(b) and (c) appears to have anticipated the present scenario. There was damaged caused to two units and the common area, and Petitioner was apportioned 43.84% of the deductible. From the evidence presented, the Association also properly applied the applicable Rules and Regulations.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • deductible
  • assessments
  • common elements

Question

Who is responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for the 'gap' created by an HOA's insurance deductible?

Short Answer

The homeowner is responsible for obtaining personal insurance to cover the gap.

Detailed Answer

The decision highlights that governing documents or rules may explicitly state that owners must be aware of the deductible amount and secure their own coverage to handle that cost if assessed.

Alj Quote

Each Owner needs to be aware of the amount of the Association’s insurance deductible so that the Owner can determine that their personal insurance coverage will cover any gap.

Legal Basis

Rules and Regulations Section 19(e)

Topic Tags

  • insurance
  • homeowner responsibilities

Question

If the HOA fixes a maintenance issue after it occurs (like a sewer backup), can I still claim they violated their maintenance duty to avoid paying the deductible?

Short Answer

Likely no, as long as the HOA coordinated and accomplished the repairs.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that because the Association coordinated and completed the repairs once the issue occurred, the homeowner failed to prove that the Association neglected its maintenance duties under the CC&Rs. Therefore, the assessment of the deductible was not invalidated by a failure to maintain.

Alj Quote

Once the sewer backed up, the Association coordinated the repairs and accomplished the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Association failed to properly attend to the maintenance and/or repair of the sewer lines.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 3.09

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • repairs
  • negligence

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA decision in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) has the burden to prove that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes. The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim must be shown to be more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

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

Standard of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • legal procedure
  • evidence
  • burden of proof

Question

Can the HOA Board create rules that change how financial liabilities (like deductibles) are handled without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the property.

Detailed Answer

The decision upheld the enforcement of a rule regarding insurance deductibles found in the 'Rules and Regulations,' noting that the CC&Rs granted the authority to adopt such rules.

Alj Quote

Section 4.10 of the CC&Rs granted authority to adopt rules 'for the regulation and operation of the Property…'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 4.10

Topic Tags

  • rulemaking
  • board authority
  • governing documents

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120014-REL
Case Title
Lori & James Jordan vs. The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2020-12-01
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lori Jordan (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified at the hearing
  • James Jordan (petitioner)
  • Chuck Stewart (witness)
    The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. Board
    Testified for Petitioner; later joined Board and voted against apportionment

Respondent Side

  • Sean Lissarrague (board member)
    The Pines at Show Low Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.
    Vice President of the Board; appeared and testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Received electronic transmission of the decision

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted the electronic decision

Douglas E Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-10-30
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel Counsel —
Respondent Hidden Valley Association Counsel Timothy Butterfield, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association's conduct did not violate ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 because the Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested records were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that the requested records (communications) were in existence and subject to disclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

Failing to fulfill Petitioner’s records request

Petitioner claimed the HOA failed to provide copies of all communications (written/electronic) related to information requests, open meeting law compliance, and changes to bylaws, arguing they were not exempt from disclosure under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B). The HOA asserted no disclosable records existed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for civil penalty are denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Request, Records Disclosure, ARIZ. REV. STAT. 33-1805, Burden of Proof, Preponderance of Evidence
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:29:50 (147.6 KB)

21F-H2120006-REL Decision – 834142.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:55 (147.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kupel vs. Hidden Valley Association

Executive Summary

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings denied a petition filed by homeowner Douglas E. Kupel against the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The core of the dispute was Kupel’s allegation that HVA violated Arizona statute ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. While HVA provided its records retention policy and legal invoices, it withheld two categories of electronic and hard copy communications, claiming no such disclosable records existed.

Kupel argued that statements made in emails by HVA Board President Gary Freed—specifically that certain communications would be “filed as an HVA business record”—proved the existence of the requested records. HVA countered that this statement was a mistake on Freed’s part, resulting from an initial misunderstanding of retention requirements, and that no records subject to disclosure actually existed.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that Kupel failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard required to prove his claim. The judge found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the requested records existed and were being improperly withheld. Consequently, the petition was denied, and Kupel’s requests for reimbursement of his filing fee and the imposition of a civil penalty against HVA were also denied.

Case Overview

Case Name

Douglas E Kupel, Petitioner, vs. Hidden Valley Association, Respondent

Case Number

21F-H2120006-REL

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone

Hearing Date

October 22, 2020

Decision Date

October 30, 2020

Key Parties

Douglas E. Kupel (Petitioner), Hidden Valley Association (Respondent), Gary Freed (HVA Board President)

Core Dispute: The Records Request

The central issue of the hearing was whether the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with a records request submitted by Kupel on June 22, 2020. HVA, through its community manager HOAMCO, provided a partial response on July 1, 2020.

Breakdown of the Records Request:

• Request 1 (Fulfilled): A copy of the HVA records retention policy adopted on January 15, 2020.

• Request 2 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding “information requests or open meeting law compliance” from July 2019 to the present.

• Request 3 (Denied): Copies of all communications (email and hard copy) to or from current and former HVA Board and committee members regarding any proposed, discussed, or adopted changes to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

• Request 4 (Fulfilled): Copies of invoices, billing statements, and payment records for legal services associated with revisions to the Association bylaws from January 2019 to the present.

HVA and its President, Gary Freed, asserted that the denied communications were not subject to disclosure under the exceptions outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B).

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Douglas E. Kupel)

• Allegation: Kupel accused HVA of willfully failing to fulfill his request, alleging that non-exempt records did exist and should have been disclosed.

• Primary Evidence: Kupel submitted several email messages from HVA President Gary Freed which contained the statement: “This communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record in the files maintained by HOAMCO for the benefit of HVA” or substantially similar language.

• Argument: Kupel testified that these emails proved the existence of communications that did not meet the statutory exclusions and, therefore, HVA had failed to fully respond to his request.

• Requested Relief:

1. An order compelling HVA to abide by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

2. Reimbursement of the $500 filing fee.

3. The levying of a civil penalty against HVA.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Hidden Valley Association)

• Witness Testimony: HVA Board President Gary Freed testified on behalf of the association.

• Core Defense: Freed testified that based on HVA’s records retention policy and his understanding of open meeting laws, “no records existed which were subject to disclosure.”

• Explanation of Contested Emails: Freed explained that his prior email statements about filing all communications were a mistake. He testified that he initially believed all communications needed to be retained but later learned this was incorrect.

• Search Process: Freed admitted that neither he nor other board members conducted a one-by-one search of every single email. However, he testified that he “may have scanned his personal e-mail” and did not dismiss the petitioner’s request “out-of-hand.”

• Association Practices: Freed asserted that HVA business was conducted via open meetings, with the exception of a single emergency situation, implying that no discoverable email correspondence regarding official business would exist.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Conclusion

The ALJ’s decision rested on the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as proof convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The petitioner, Kupel, bore the burden of meeting this standard.

• Evaluation of Evidence: The judge found Kupel’s primary argument unpersuasive. The decision states, “Essentially, Petitioner is claiming that there must be other records in existence because of the language that Mr. Freed used… This is not persuasive as there was no evidence presented by Petitioner to prove that the records were in existence.”

• Credibility of Testimony: The judge gave weight to Freed’s testimony that he had been mistaken about record-keeping protocols. The decision also noted that HVA’s official records retention policy, adopted six months prior to the request, specifically outlined which communications were to be kept.

• Lack of Proof: The judge concluded that Freed believed any documents that might have existed were subject to statutory exemptions and that all relevant business was conducted in open meetings. Ultimately, Kupel failed to provide sufficient proof that discoverable records actually existed.

• Final Ruling: The ALJ concluded that “the Association’s conduct, as outlined above, did not violate the charged provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

Final Order

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

Outcome

Petitioner’s Petition

Denied

Request for Civil Penalty

Denied

Reimbursement of Filing Fee

Denied (Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s fee)

The decision is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty days of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Kupel v. Hidden Valley Association, No. 21F-H2120006-REL

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing decision in the matter of Douglas E. Kupel versus the Hidden Valley Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension of the facts, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source document.

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

2. What was the specific violation alleged by the Petitioner in his petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. What four categories of records did the Petitioner request from the Hidden Valley Association (HVA) on June 22, 2020?

4. Which parts of the Petitioner’s records request did the HVA fulfill, and which parts did it deny?

5. What was the Petitioner’s central piece of evidence to argue that the HVA was improperly withholding existing communications?

6. How did HVA Board President Gary Freed explain the discrepancy between his email statements and the association’s refusal to provide the requested communications?

7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and which party was required to meet this standard?

8. According to Mr. Freed’s testimony, where was all official HVA business conducted?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the HVA’s conduct in this matter?

10. What three specific outcomes were mandated by the final ORDER issued on October 30, 2020?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, a property owner and member of the Hidden Valley Association, and the Respondent, the Hidden Valley Association (HVA). The Petitioner brought the complaint against the Respondent, alleging a violation of state law.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Hidden Valley Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to completely fulfill his records request. Specifically, he claimed the association improperly withheld communications records.

3. The Petitioner requested: (1) the records retention policy; (2) communications regarding information requests or open meeting law compliance; (3) communications regarding proposed changes to the association bylaws; and (4) legal invoices and payment records related to bylaw revisions.

4. The HVA fulfilled the request for the records retention policy and the legal invoices. It denied the two requests for communications between board and committee members, claiming the requested records were not subject to disclosure.

5. The Petitioner’s central evidence consisted of several emails from HVA Board President Gary Freed in which Mr. Freed stated, “[t]his communication has been received, and will be filed as an HVA business record.” The Petitioner argued this proved that such communications existed and were official records.

6. Mr. Freed testified that he was initially mistaken in his belief that all communications needed to be retained and that this was why he included that language in his emails. He clarified that based on the HVA’s records retention policy and open meeting laws, no disclosable records of the type requested existed.

7. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof requiring the evidence to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, bore the burden of proving his case by this standard.

8. Mr. Freed testified that all HVA business was conducted via open meetings. He stated that there were no meetings conducted solely by email, with the exception of a single emergency situation.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HVA was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge found the HVA’s conduct did not violate the charged statute.

10. The final ORDER (1) denied the Petitioner’s petition, (2) denied the Petitioner’s request for a civil penalty against the Respondent, and (3) ordered that the Respondent shall not be required to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for in-depth analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Douglas E. Kupel, and the Respondent, Hidden Valley Association. How did each party use the evidence and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 to support their position?

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof.

3. Evaluate the testimony of HVA Board President Gary Freed. How did his explanations regarding his email statements and the association’s record-keeping practices influence the judge’s final decision?

4. Examine ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805(B), which outlines the exceptions for withholding records. Based on the case details, explain why the communications requested by the Petitioner were ultimately deemed non-disclosable or non-existent under this statute.

5. Describe the complete procedural history of the case, from the initial filing of the petition to the final order. Include key dates, entities involved (such as the Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings), and the final remedies sought by the Petitioner versus the actual outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings and makes decisions on behalf of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The Arizona Revised Statute that governs the examination and disclosure of a homeowners’ association’s financial and other records by its members. It outlines the process for requests, a ten-business-day fulfillment window, and specific exemptions allowing an association to withhold certain records.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)

The Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner that allows an administrative law judge to levy a civil penalty against a party found to be in violation of the law.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to provide sufficient evidence to prove their allegations. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The official governing documents that establish the rules and obligations for a homeowners’ association and its members.

Department of Real Estate (“Department”)

The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving disputes between homeowners and their associations.

Hidden Valley Association (HVA)

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association for the Hidden Valley Ranch subdivision in Prescott, Arizona, governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

HOAMCO

The company that served as the Community Manager for the Hidden Valley Association and initially responded to the Petitioner’s records request.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona to which the Department of Real Estate referred this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner was Douglas E. Kupel, a homeowner and member of the HVA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond to the allegations. In this case, the Respondent was the Hidden Valley Association.

Select all sources
834142.pdf

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2120006-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, concerning a dispute between Petitioner Douglas E. Kupel and the Hidden Valley Association (HVA), a homeowners’ association. The core issue of the hearing, held on October 22, 2020, was whether the HVA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill Kupel’s records request for communications regarding open meeting law compliance and bylaw changes. Petitioner Kupel argued that undisclosed records existed based on emails sent by HVA Board President Gary Freed, while Freed testified that no disclosable records existed due to statutory exceptions and a mistaken belief about record retention. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s claim, concluding that Kupel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the statute, thereby also denying his request for reimbursement and civil penalties.

1 source

What are the legal requirements governing homeowner association record disclosure in Arizona?
What was the core dispute between the petitioner and the homeowner association?
How did the Administrative Law Judge decide the outcome of this specific case?

Audio Overview

Video Overview

Video Overview

Mind Map Mind Map

Reports Reports

Flashcards

Flashcards

Quiz

Quiz

00:00 / 00:00

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Douglas E. Kupel (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Timothy Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Represented Respondent
  • Gary Freed (board member)
    Hidden Valley Association
    Hidden Valley Ranch Association Board President and witness for HVA
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Received service of the Order

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the Administrative Law Judge Decision

Susan E Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Assocciation

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020057-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-08-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Susan E Abbass Counsel —
Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association Counsel Blake Johnson, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent HOA violated the governing CC&R provisions.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged CC&R violations; specifically, the HOA was found to have the right to enter property for certain conditions (including emergencies or maintenance) but was under no obligation to do so, and the situation was not determined to be a true emergency by the ALJ.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether 10000 North Central Homeowners Association violated the CC&R's Article XII, Section 6 & Article XIII, Section 1(d) & 4.

Petitioner claimed the Association violated specified CC&R sections by refusing to grant access to the neighboring property to determine and resolve the source of a water leak. Petitioner requested an ORDER requiring the Association to allow access. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs grant the HOA the right to enter, but not the obligation, and Petitioner failed to prove an emergency situation or a violation of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • CC&R Article XII Section 6
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 1(d)
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 4

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Easement, Maintenance, Drainage, Property Access, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • CC&R Article XII Section 6
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 1(d)
  • CC&R Article XIII Section 4

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020057-REL Decision – 839845.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:59 (108.6 KB)

20F-H2020057-REL Decision – ../20F-H2020057-REL/815490.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:33:02 (135.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and final order from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the HOA to compel an inspection of a neighboring property, believed to be the source of a recurring water leak into her home.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the Petitioner’s case, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a critical distinction within the community’s governing documents (CCR’s): while the HOA possesses the right to enter a property under certain conditions, it does not have an explicit obligation to do so. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the HOA had violated the CCR’s. The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted reasonably by contacting the neighbor and reviewing the provided information, and that forcing access without more definitive proof could expose the HOA to legal risk. The decision suggests the Petitioner may be pursuing relief in an incorrect venue or against the incorrect party.

Case Overview

Case Name

Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020057-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Adam D. Stone

Petitioner

Susan E. Abbass

Respondent

10000 North Central Homeowners Association (represented by Blake Johnson, Esq.)

Hearing Date

November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

December 1, 2020

Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Central Claim

The Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s) by failing to authorize an inspection on a neighboring property. The Petitioner’s home was experiencing water intrusion every time it rained, and she believed the leak originated from the adjacent lot.

• Alleged Violations: The petition cited violations of the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.

• Argument: The Petitioner contended that the recurring water leak constituted an “emergency” situation, obligating the HOA to act.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner stated she was “ready, willing and able to be financially responsible for the cost of any inspections/surveys which needed to be performed on the neighboring property.”

• Due Diligence: Inspections and surveys conducted on her own property determined that the leak was not originating from there.

• Frustration: The Petitioner noted that over a year had passed since the leaking first occurred with no resolution from the HOA or the neighbor.

• Key Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”

Respondent’s Defense and Actions

Respondent’s Position

The HOA argued that it did not have sufficient evidence to justify compelling access to the neighboring property. The property manager, Robert Kersten, testified for the Respondent.

• Lack of Proof: The HOA determined that the information provided by the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for forcing entry onto the neighbor’s property.

• Legal Risk: The Respondent expressed concern that if it “overstepped its authority, it could open itself up to other causes of action.”

Actions Taken by the HOA

Despite denying the Petitioner’s request to force an inspection, the HOA took the following steps:

• It reached out to the neighboring property owner to request access.

• It sent a warning letter to the neighbor regarding “improper vegetation” on the property.

• It contacted the neighbor, who, upon information and belief, had her insurance company inspect the water flow. The insurance company reportedly determined the neighbor was not at fault.

• At the rehearing, the Respondent submitted photographic evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage moving away from the Petitioner’s property.

Procedural History and Rehearing

1. Petition Filed (May 5, 2020): Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Initial Hearing (July 28, 2020): The first hearing was conducted.

3. Initial Decision (August 17, 2020): The ALJ issued a decision concluding the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, as the HOA only had the right to enter the property, not an obligation.

4. Rehearing Request (August 31, 2020): Petitioner requested a rehearing, claiming the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”

5. Rehearing Granted (October 14, 2020): The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.

6. Rehearing Conducted (November 24, 2020): The ALJ conducted a new hearing to reconsider the evidence.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Burden of Proof

The ALJ reiterated that the Petitioner bears the burden to prove the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Conclusion on Evidence: The ALJ found that on rehearing, the “Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony demonstrating that Respondent violated Article XII and Article XIII of the CCR’s.”

Key Judicial Determinations

• Right vs. Obligation: The central legal conclusion is that the HOA’s authority is discretionary. The CCR’s grant a right to enter property but do not impose an obligation to do so upon a homeowner’s request.

• HOA’s Conduct: The judge determined that the HOA had acted appropriately and in compliance with the CCR’s. The decision notes, “Respondent was receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation. While the neighboring owner may not have fully cooperated to the liking of Petitioner, Respondent still followed the CCR’s to the best of its ability at this point.”

• Statutory Limitations on ALJ: The ALJ is bound by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which limits the judge’s authority to ordering a party to “abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The ALJ concluded, “it too cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”

• Incorrect Venue: The decision strongly suggests the Petitioner is pursuing the wrong legal remedy: “While the possibility of future leaking is certainly frustrating, it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”

Final Order and Implications

• Ruling: The ALJ ordered that “the Respondent is the prevailing party with regard to the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: As a result of a rehearing, the administrative law judge order is binding on the parties.

• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, involving Petitioner Susan E. Abbass and Respondent 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the central dispute?

2. What specific articles of the community documents did the Petitioner allege the Respondent had violated?

3. What was the outcome of the initial administrative hearing held on July 28, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What was the Respondent’s main argument for not forcing an inspection of the neighboring property?

6. What key point regarding the Respondent’s authority did the Petitioner concede during the rehearing?

7. According to the decision, who bears the burden of proof, and what is the evidentiary standard required to meet it?

8. What evidence did the Respondent introduce during the rehearing on November 24, 2020?

9. What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge, and what did the order state?

10. What specific limitation on the Administrative Law Judge’s power is cited in the Conclusions of Law?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, and the Respondent, 10000 North Central Homeowners Association. The central dispute was the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent failed to fulfill its duty by not allowing an inspection on a neighboring property to find the source of a water leak affecting the Petitioner’s home.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s).

3. Following the July 28, 2020 hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on August 17, 2020, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to meet her burden of proof. The judge found that the Respondent only had the right to enter the neighboring property, not an obligation to do so.

4. The Petitioner’s request for rehearing was granted based on her claims that the initial findings of fact were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and that the decision was “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”

5. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient proof of the neighbor’s fault to justify forcing access. The Respondent was also concerned that overstepping its authority could expose the association to other legal actions.

6. During the rehearing, the Petitioner agreed with the Respondent’s position that the association does not have an obligation to enter the neighboring property, only the right to do so.

7. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof. The evidentiary standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

8. At the rehearing, the Respondent introduced Exhibits K, L, and M. These were photographs that purportedly showed where a pipe was fixed and how drainage moves away from the Petitioner’s property.

9. The final ruling concluded that the Respondent had not violated the CCR’s and was the prevailing party. The order dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal.

10. The decision cites A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which states that an Administrative Law Judge may only order a party to abide by the statutes, community documents, or contract provisions at issue. The judge cannot force the Respondent or the neighbor to grant access to the property.

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-format response. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal distinction between a “right” and an “obligation” as it pertains to the Homeowners Association’s authority under the CCR’s in this case. How was this distinction central to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

2. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the legal decision. Detail the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent, and explain why the judge ultimately concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard.

3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, from the filing of the initial petition to the final order. Identify the key dates, actions taken by each party, and the rulings made at each stage of the administrative process.

4. Evaluate the actions taken by the Respondent (10000 North Central Homeowners Association) in response to the Petitioner’s complaint. Based on the Findings of Fact, did the association act reasonably and in compliance with the CCR’s?

5. Explain the jurisdiction and statutory limitations of the Office of Administrative Hearings in resolving disputes between homeowners and their associations, as outlined in the decision. What remedies were available to the Petitioner through this venue, and why was the specific relief she sought beyond the judge’s power to grant?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over administrative hearings, considers evidence, and issues a legal decision. In this case, the ALJ was Adam D. Stone.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or subdivision.

Office of Administrative Hearings

The government office where administrative law judges hear disputes concerning state agencies.

Order Granting Rehearing

A formal order issued by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate that approved the Petitioner’s request for a second hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Susan E. Abbass.

Planned Community

A real estate development that includes common property and is governed by a homeowners’ association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Prevailing Party

The party who wins a legal case or dispute. In the final decision, the Respondent was named the prevailing party.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association.

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of disputes. In this context, it refers to the Office of Administrative Hearings where the case was heard.

Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and final order from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 20F-H2020057-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowner Susan E. Abbass (Petitioner) and the 10000 North Central Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Petitioner’s request for the HOA to compel an inspection of a neighboring property, believed to be the source of a recurring water leak into her home.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the Petitioner’s case, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a critical distinction within the community’s governing documents (CCR’s): while the HOA possesses the right to enter a property under certain conditions, it does not have an explicit obligation to do so. The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the HOA had violated the CCR’s. The ALJ concluded that the HOA acted reasonably by contacting the neighbor and reviewing the provided information, and that forcing access without more definitive proof could expose the HOA to legal risk. The decision suggests the Petitioner may be pursuing relief in an incorrect venue or against the incorrect party.

Case Overview

Case Name

Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020057-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Adam D. Stone

Petitioner

Susan E. Abbass

Respondent

10000 North Central Homeowners Association (represented by Blake Johnson, Esq.)

Hearing Date

November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

December 1, 2020

Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Central Claim

The Petitioner, Susan E. Abbass, alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s) by failing to authorize an inspection on a neighboring property. The Petitioner’s home was experiencing water intrusion every time it rained, and she believed the leak originated from the adjacent lot.

• Alleged Violations: The petition cited violations of the CCR’s Article XII, Section 6 and Article XIII, Sections 1(d) and 4.

• Argument: The Petitioner contended that the recurring water leak constituted an “emergency” situation, obligating the HOA to act.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

• Financial Responsibility: The Petitioner stated she was “ready, willing and able to be financially responsible for the cost of any inspections/surveys which needed to be performed on the neighboring property.”

• Due Diligence: Inspections and surveys conducted on her own property determined that the leak was not originating from there.

• Frustration: The Petitioner noted that over a year had passed since the leaking first occurred with no resolution from the HOA or the neighbor.

• Key Concession: During the rehearing, the Petitioner “agreed that Respondent does not have an obligation to enter the property, only the right.”

Respondent’s Defense and Actions

Respondent’s Position

The HOA argued that it did not have sufficient evidence to justify compelling access to the neighboring property. The property manager, Robert Kersten, testified for the Respondent.

• Lack of Proof: The HOA determined that the information provided by the Petitioner did not meet the criteria for forcing entry onto the neighbor’s property.

• Legal Risk: The Respondent expressed concern that if it “overstepped its authority, it could open itself up to other causes of action.”

Actions Taken by the HOA

Despite denying the Petitioner’s request to force an inspection, the HOA took the following steps:

• It reached out to the neighboring property owner to request access.

• It sent a warning letter to the neighbor regarding “improper vegetation” on the property.

• It contacted the neighbor, who, upon information and belief, had her insurance company inspect the water flow. The insurance company reportedly determined the neighbor was not at fault.

• At the rehearing, the Respondent submitted photographic evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) purportedly showing a fixed pipe and drainage moving away from the Petitioner’s property.

Procedural History and Rehearing

1. Petition Filed (May 5, 2020): Petitioner filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Initial Hearing (July 28, 2020): The first hearing was conducted.

3. Initial Decision (August 17, 2020): The ALJ issued a decision concluding the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof, as the HOA only had the right to enter the property, not an obligation.

4. Rehearing Request (August 31, 2020): Petitioner requested a rehearing, claiming the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” and “not supported by the evidence or is contrary to law.”

5. Rehearing Granted (October 14, 2020): The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing request.

6. Rehearing Conducted (November 24, 2020): The ALJ conducted a new hearing to reconsider the evidence.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Burden of Proof

The ALJ reiterated that the Petitioner bears the burden to prove the alleged violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Conclusion on Evidence: The ALJ found that on rehearing, the “Petitioner failed to provide new evidence or witness testimony demonstrating that Respondent violated Article XII and Article XIII of the CCR’s.”

Key Judicial Determinations

• Right vs. Obligation: The central legal conclusion is that the HOA’s authority is discretionary. The CCR’s grant a right to enter property but do not impose an obligation to do so upon a homeowner’s request.

• HOA’s Conduct: The judge determined that the HOA had acted appropriately and in compliance with the CCR’s. The decision notes, “Respondent was receptive to the information provided by Petitioner and requested the neighboring property owners cooperation. While the neighboring owner may not have fully cooperated to the liking of Petitioner, Respondent still followed the CCR’s to the best of its ability at this point.”

• Statutory Limitations on ALJ: The ALJ is bound by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), which limits the judge’s authority to ordering a party to “abide by the statutes, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue.” The ALJ concluded, “it too cannot force the neighbor or the Respondent to grant access to the property.”

• Incorrect Venue: The decision strongly suggests the Petitioner is pursuing the wrong legal remedy: “While the possibility of future leaking is certainly frustrating, it appears that Petitioner has or the incorrect venue and possibly party to grant the relief for which it seeks.”

Final Order and Implications

• Ruling: The ALJ ordered that “the Respondent is the prevailing party with regard to the rehearing, and Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: As a result of a rehearing, the administrative law judge order is binding on the parties.

• Appeal Process: Any party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Susan E Abbass (petitioner)
  • Ronald Pick (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Blake Johnson (attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Robert Kersten (property manager)
    Property manager, appeared as a witness for Respondent
  • Kelly Oetinger (attorney)
    Brown Olcott, PLLC

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • c. serrano (staff)
    Electronic transmission sender