Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on November 19, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Susan L Jarzabek	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hillcrest Improvement Association #2	Counsel	Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:50 (93.9 KB)

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:13 (93.9 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Susan L Jarzabek (Petitioner) vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2 (Respondent), heard on November 5, 2021.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Susan L. Jarzabek, filed a petition alleging that the Respondent Association violated CC&R Article 1, Section 10 and its Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy") by wrongfully charging her attorney’s fees. The underlying dispute involved a neighbor's complaint regarding a tree on Ms. Jarzabek's property.

Ms. Jarzabek, the sole record owner, argued that the Association’s Policy requires the owner of record to be provided two warning notices and a certified letter before a matter can be escalated to attorney involvement, thus making the assessment of fees improper. She also contended she was denied due process because she did not receive proper notice of the allegations. Although the Association assessed fines and interest related to the violation, these charges were rescinded prior to the hearing.

The Association’s documents grant it the ability to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees (CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1). Crucially, the Association’s Policy provides that if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the standard notice-procedure will no longer apply, and the owner is responsible for the associated fees and costs.

The facts showed that the Association sent a certified letter (January 15, 2019) regarding the tree violation, but it was addressed to Ms. Jarzabek’s husband, John Jarzabek, and was not claimed by either party. Furthermore, this January 15, 2019 letter did not meet all the required elements for a Notice of Violation under the Association’s policy. The Association engaged counsel (The Mulcahy Law Firm) on October 15, 2019, which subsequently sent Notices of Violation to Ms. Jarzabek.

Legal Analysis and Outcome

The matter was governed by the Department of Real Estate's authority concerning alleged violations of community documents. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to show the alleged violation occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the Policy a contract with which both parties must comply.

The ALJ concluded that Ms. Jarzabek did not meet her burden to prove the Association violated the Policy. The central legal finding was that the Policy, as written, does not require that an owner receive two notices before a matter is escalated to attorney involvement.

Final Decision

Based on this finding, the ALJ ordered that Susan L. Jarzabek’s petition be dismissed. The ALJ noted that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek constituted a valid debt, offering no opinion on that specific debt issue.

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Susan L Jarzabek (petitioner, witness)

Respondent Side

Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
Counsel for Respondent
Robert Cody (board president, witness)
Hillcrest Improvement Association #2
Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Louis Dettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
Transmitter of Decision

Other Participants

John Jarzabek (spouse)
Petitioner's husband, named on certified letter sent by Association

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on November 15, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121038-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard J Jones	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association	Counsel	Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:04 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:07 (94.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:52 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:57 (94.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of Richard J. Jones versus the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association (Case No. 21F-H2121038-REL). The dispute centered on a concrete driveway extension installed by Mr. Jones without the prior approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Mr. Jones contested the Association’s denial of his post-installation application, alleging that the Design Guidelines were misinterpreted and selectively enforced.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jones’s petition. The decision rested on three key determinations:

1. Clear Violation: Mr. Jones was in direct violation of the Design Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for the modification and by not adhering to a mandatory 12-inch setback from the common block wall, a fact he acknowledged.

2. Reasonable Interpretation: The Association’s interpretation that the 12-inch setback requirement applied to the entire property line—not just the block wall—was deemed “not unreasonable,” particularly since the common wall is part of the property line.

3. Failure to Prove Selective Enforcement: Mr. Jones did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to prove his claim of selective enforcement. The Association provided credible evidence demonstrating consistent application of the setback rule to other homeowners.

The final order upholds the Association’s enforcement actions and dismisses the petitioner’s claims.

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdictional Details

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Richard J. Jones

On his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Troy Stratman, Esq.

Adjudicator

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Case No.

21F-H2121038-REL

Hearing Date

November 2, 2021

Decision Date

November 15, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict arose from a concrete driveway extension installed by Richard J. Jones on his property on May 11, 2020. The installation was performed without submitting a request for prior approval to the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. Following the installation, the ARC denied Mr. Jones’s retroactive application, citing its failure to meet a required 12-inch setback from the property line. This led to a notice of non-compliance and a fine, prompting Mr. Jones to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Chronology of Events

• April 2020: Mr. Jones contacted AAM, LLC, the Association’s property management company, to inquire about adding concrete strips. He was informed this was not allowed but that an employee could assist with an approval process for a paver driveway extension.

• May 11, 2020: Having not received further guidance from the management company, Mr. Jones proceeded to have the concrete driveway extension installed.

• Post-May 11, 2020: Mr. Jones submitted an application to the ARC for retroactive approval of the already-installed extension.

• December 2, 2020: The ARC formally denied Mr. Jones’s application. The denial letter stated the extension did not meet the 12-inch setback requirement and advised him to reapply after cutting the driveway back from the property line.

• January 12, 2021: The Association issued a Second Notice of Non-compliance/Fine.

• February 12, 2021: Mr. Jones filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association was misinterpreting and selectively enforcing its Design Guidelines.

• November 2, 2021: The administrative hearing was conducted.

• November 15, 2021: The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Richard J. Jones)

Mr. Jones’s case was built on two primary arguments:

• Interpretation of Design Guidelines: He contended that the Guidelines in effect at the time of installation required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent regarding the “property line.” He argued that since the Guidelines explicitly mandated a property line setback for sidewalks, the absence of such language for driveway extensions meant the requirement did not apply.

• Allegation of Selective Enforcement: He asserted that the Association was applying its Guidelines and Rules inconsistently among homeowners.

During testimony, Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway extension did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall and expressed a willingness to correct that specific deficiency. He also testified that his neighbors did not object to the extension as installed.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association)

The Association, represented by counsel, presented a multi-faceted defense:

• Procedural Failure: A core issue was Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval from the ARC before installation, as mandated by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Setback Rule: The Association maintained that the extension violated the required 12-inch setback. The property manager, Paul Favale, testified that this rule is intended to ensure water does not drain onto a neighbor’s property.

• Evidence of Consistent Enforcement: To counter the claim of selective enforcement, the Association submitted an “Architectural Status Report” for the period of August 27, 2020, through April 21, 2021. This report demonstrated that other homeowners’ requests for driveway extensions had also been denied for failing to meet the 12-inch property line setback.

It was also noted that the Design Guidelines have since been modified to explicitly require a 12-inch setback from both the common wall and the property line.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

Key Findings of Fact

• Mr. Jones installed the driveway extension on May 11, 2020, without prior approval from the ARC.

• The extension does not have a 12-inch setback from the common block wall, which is part of the property line.

• The Design Guidelines at the time explicitly required a 12-inch setback from the block wall.

• Mr. Jones acknowledged his non-compliance with the block wall setback requirement.

Conclusions of Law

The Judge concluded that Mr. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, which required demonstrating a violation by the Association by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

1. Petitioner’s Violation: Mr. Jones was found to be in violation of the Guidelines. His acknowledgment that the driveway did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall was a critical factor.

2. Reasonableness of Association’s Interpretation: The Judge determined that the Association’s interpretation of the Guidelines—requiring a 12-inch setback along the entire property line—was “not unreasonable.” This conclusion was supported by two points: the common wall is physically part of the property line, and Mr. Jones had failed to follow the required prior approval process, where such ambiguities would have been clarified.

3. No Evidence of Selective Enforcement: The Association presented “credible evidence” via its Architectural Status Report showing that other members were subject to the same rule. Consequently, Mr. Jones “did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was selectively enforcing the Guidelines.”

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The Judge ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed.

• Legal Standing: The decision is binding on both parties.

• Appeal Process: The order can only be challenged through a request for rehearing, which must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (November 15, 2021).

Study Guide: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 21F-H2121038-REL, involving Petitioner Richard J. Jones and Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, 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 final judgment.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided case documents.

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

2. What specific modification did Richard J. Jones make to his property, and on what date did he complete it?

3. What critical step did Mr. Jones fail to take before installing the modification, as required by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs?

4. According to the Design Guidelines in effect at the time of installation, what was the specific rule regarding the placement of driveway extensions that Mr. Jones’s project violated?

5. What was Mr. Jones’s main argument regarding the ambiguity of the Design Guidelines concerning the twelve-inch setback requirement?

6. What justification did the Association’s property manager, Paul Favale, provide for the setback requirement?

7. What were the two primary claims Mr. Jones made against the Association in his petition filed on February 12, 2021?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party carried the burden of meeting that standard?

9. How did the Association counter Mr. Jones’s claim that it was selectively enforcing its rules?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Richard J. Jones, a homeowner who appeared on his own behalf, and the Respondent, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, which was represented by its counsel, Troy Stratman, Esq.

2. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Jones added a concrete driveway running from the street to a side gate on his property. This modification is referred to in the documents as a “driveway extension.”

3. Mr. Jones did not submit a request for prior approval to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installing his driveway extension. This pre-approval is required for such modifications under the Association’s CC&Rs.

4. The driveway extension violated the rule requiring a twelve-inch setback from the common block wall. Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway did not comply with this specific requirement of the Design Guidelines.

5. Mr. Jones argued that since the Design Guidelines explicitly required a twelve-inch setback from the property line for sidewalks but did not explicitly state the same for driveway extensions, the requirement did not apply to his project along the full property line.

6. Mr. Favale testified that the purpose of the setback requirement is functional. It is designed to help ensure that water does not drain from one property onto a neighboring property.

7. Mr. Jones’s petition asserted that the Design Guidelines for driveway extensions did not require a setback from the property line (only the common wall). He also claimed that the Association was selectively enforcing its Guidelines and Rules against him.

8. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner, Mr. Jones, bore the burden of proof to show that the Association had violated its own guidelines.

9. The Association submitted an Architectural Status Report covering August 27, 2020, to April 21, 2021. This report provided credible evidence that other Association members had also been denied requests for driveway extensions due to a failure to meet the twelve-inch setback requirement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that Mr. Jones had not met his burden of proof to show the Association had violated its guidelines or enforced them selectively.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as they were applied in this case. Explain specifically how Mr. Jones failed to meet this burden for both of his primary claims.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to determine that the Association’s interpretation of its Design Guidelines was “not unreasonable.” Consider the judge’s reference to the common wall being part of the property line and Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval.

3. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Jones’s initial inquiry to AAM, LLC in April 2020 to the final order in November 2021. Discuss how Mr. Jones’s decision to proceed with construction without explicit approval ultimately weakened his legal position.

4. Evaluate the claim of “selective enforcement.” What kind of evidence would Mr. Jones have needed to present to successfully prove this claim, and why was the Association’s Architectural Status Report considered more compelling evidence by the court?

5. The “Conclusions of Law” section states that the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the parties. Using the facts of this case, explain the legal and practical implications of this principle for a homeowner living within a master association.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company for the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings and renders decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and granting prior approval for modifications to properties, such as driveway extensions.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Mr. Jones.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules that are part of the contract between homeowners and the association, detailing requirements for property modifications.

Driveway Extension

As defined by the parties, a concrete driveway running from the street to a gate at the side of a house.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Richard J. Jones.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as evidence that has “the most convincing force” and is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Selective Enforcement

The legal claim that an association is not applying its rules and guidelines uniformly, instead penalizing some members while allowing others to violate the same rules.

Setback

A required distance that a structure must be located away from a property line or other feature, such as a common wall. In this case, the requirement was for a twelve-inch setback.

He Fought the HOA Over 12 Inches of Concrete—and Lost. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons from His Case.

Navigating the rules of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like walking through a minefield of regulations, where a small misstep can lead to notices, fines, and protracted disputes. For one homeowner, Richard J. Jones, a conflict with his HOA, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, over a new driveway extension escalated all the way to a formal hearing. The official legal decision in his case reveals several counter-intuitive truths about how these disputes are won and lost, offering valuable lessons for any homeowner living under HOA governance.

——————————————————————————–

1. “Asking for Forgiveness” is a Losing Strategy.

The first major takeaway is that violating rules first and hoping for retroactive approval is an approach doomed to fail, even when the situation feels complex. The story here is more nuanced than simple defiance. In April 2020, before any work began, Mr. Jones contacted the HOA’s management company about his plans. After being told his initial idea for “two concrete strips” was not allowed, he was directed to another employee for help with an application for a different design. According to the case file, Mr. Jones “did not hear back from her and he had the driveway extension installed” on May 11, 2020.

While his frustration is relatable, this impatient miscalculation was his crucial error. Section 4.1.1 of the community’s CC&Rs requires prior approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). By proceeding without securing this written approval, Mr. Jones was in immediate violation. His subsequent application, submitted only after the work was done, was predictably denied on December 2, 2020. The lesson is stark: a breakdown in communication does not absolve a homeowner of their responsibility to follow procedure. The moment unapproved work begins, you are in breach of the community’s governing documents, and the merits of the project become secondary to the procedural failure.

——————————————————————————–

2. You Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong—Not the Other Way Around.

Many homeowners assume that in a dispute, the burden is on the HOA to prove the homeowner is wrong. The legal reality is the exact opposite. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision formally stated in Conclusion of Law #2 that Mr. Jones, as the petitioner who brought the case, bore the “burden of proof.”

To win, he had to demonstrate that the Association committed a violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge’s decision cites the formal definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, which essentially means the evidence presented must be convincing enough to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The reality for homeowners is surprising and crucial: in a formal dispute, the legal scales are not neutral. You must actively build a case and convincingly prove the HOA has violated its own rules. Mr. Jones failed to meet this standard.

——————————————————————————–

3. A Small Loophole Isn’t Enough to Win.

Mr. Jones’s central argument rested on a perceived loophole in the governing documents. He claimed the Design Guidelines required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent about the “property line” as a whole, and therefore the rule didn’t apply to the entirety of his project. This highlights a key aspect of HOA governance: the purpose behind a rule matters. The property manager testified that the setback requirement exists to “ensure that water does not drain to the neighbor’s property,” transforming the rule from an arbitrary measurement into a practical and defensible standard.

Ultimately, the judge was unpersuaded by the loophole argument, and the reason is a masterclass in how these cases are decided. The judge’s decision, articulated in Conclusion of Law #7, pointed out that the common wall is fundamentally part of the property line. More importantly, the decision explicitly connected this conclusion to Mr. Jones’s prior actions: “…considering that Mr. Jones did not obtain prior approval from ARC before constructing his driveway extension, the Association’s interpretation…is not unreasonable.” This is the crucial insight: his procedural failure (Lesson #1) directly weakened his ability to argue about ambiguous wording. An HOA’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules is far more likely to be upheld when the homeowner has already disregarded clear procedural mandates. Tellingly, the Association later modified the guidelines to explicitly close this perceived loophole.

——————————————————————————–

4. Proving “Selective Enforcement” is Harder Than You Think.

A common defense from homeowners is that the HOA is engaging in “selective enforcement”—singling them out while letting others get away with similar violations. Mr. Jones made this exact claim, but the Association came prepared with meticulous documentation to defeat it.

As detailed in Finding of Fact #21, the HOA presented an “Architectural Status Report” covering August 27, 2020 through April 21, 2021. This document provided time-stamped evidence that other homeowners’ requests for similar driveway extensions had also been consistently denied for failing to meet the same 12-inch setback requirement. This report systematically dismantled the selective enforcement argument. For homeowners, this underscores a critical point: the feeling of being singled out is not evidence. To win a selective enforcement claim, you must provide clear proof that other members in the exact same situation were treated differently, a high bar that an HOA with good records can easily overcome.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: A Contract is a Contract

The overarching theme from this case is that HOA governing documents are not merely suggestions; they are legally binding. As stated in Conclusion of Law #5, the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the homeowner and the association. While HOA rules can often feel arbitrary or frustrating, they carry the weight of a contract. The path to successfully challenging them is narrow and requires a clear, well-documented case that proves the HOA, not the homeowner, has breached its duties.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all community members. How well do you really know the contract you’re living under?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard J Jones (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Stratman Law Firm, PLC
Counsel for Respondent
Paul Favale (property manager)
Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association
Testified for Respondent
Angela Pate (property manager employee)
AAM, LLC
Contacted by Petitioner regarding installation inquiry

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
Miranda Alvarez (Staff)
Transmitted decision

Don France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Posted on September 21, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020056-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-09-21
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Don France	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mesa East Property Owners Association	Counsel	B. Austin Bailio

Alleged Violations

CC&R section 2.7

Outcome Summary

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation by the Association, conceding that the Association was not in violation of the cited CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not in violation of CC&R section 2.7, the single issue raised in the petition.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&R section 2.7 by the Association (later asserted as estoppel regarding enforcement)

Petitioner alleged the Respondent Association violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7, but argued the Association was estopped from enforcing the provision requiring a six-foot gate for RV storage. Petitioner sought invalidation of outstanding fines.

Orders: Don France's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CC&R, RV storage, Estoppel, Fines

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 924655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:03 (39.2 KB)

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:27:11 (96.1 KB)

20F-H2020056-REL Decision – 823714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:32:50 (96.1 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a detailed analysis of the administrative hearing decision in case number 20F-H2020056-REL, involving petitioner Don France and respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association (the “Association”). The core of the dispute was the Association’s enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically section 2.7, which requires a six-foot-high gate for Recreational Vehicles (RVs) stored on a property.

The petitioner, Mr. France, was fined by the Association in 2019 for not having the required gate on an RV structure that the Association itself had approved in 2014. Mr. France initially filed a petition alleging the Association was in violation of its own CC&Rs. However, at the September 1, 2020 hearing, he conceded this was not the case and instead argued the Association was “estopped”—or legally prevented—from enforcing the rule due to its prior approval.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismissed Mr. France’s petition on procedural grounds. The judge determined that since Mr. France acknowledged his petition’s central claim was incorrect, he had failed to meet his burden of proof. The new arguments concerning estoppel and the legality of the fines were deemed not properly before the tribunal because they were not included in the original petition. The decision underscores the critical importance of aligning claims made in a formal petition with the arguments presented at a hearing.

Case Overview

Case Number

No. 20F-H2020056-REL

In the Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Don France

Respondent

Mesa East Property Owners Association

Respondent’s Counsel

B. Austin Bailio, Esq.

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Hearing Date

September 1, 2020

Decision Date

September 21, 2020

The central issue of the case revolves around the enforcement of CC&R section 2.7, which mandates that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a six-foot-high gate. This requirement is mirrored by a City of Mesa municipal code.

Chronology of Key Events

• 2014: Mr. France applies for and receives approval from the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to build an RV port. In his application, he acknowledges he will abide by deed restrictions and City of Mesa codes.

• October 21, 2014: The Association issues its final approval for the structure, which is built without a gate.

• Circa 2018: Following threats of litigation from other residents over non-enforcement of the CC&Rs, the Association begins a new enforcement campaign for the six-foot gate rule. The City of Mesa denies the Association’s request to “grandfather in” non-compliant homes.

• 2019: The deadline for residents to come into compliance passes.

• March 11, 2019: The Association issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. France for lacking the required gate.

• April 5, 2019: Through an attorney, Mr. France asserts that the Association is estopped from enforcing the rule due to its 2014 approval.

• May 15, 2019: The Association’s attorney rejects the estoppel claim and informs Mr. France’s attorney that fines of $500 per week will be assessed.

• May 31, 2019: The Association assesses a $500 fine against Mr. France, with additional fines assessed later.

• July 24, 2019: The City of Mesa issues its own NOV to Mr. France, citing a violation of city code 11-34-5(B), which also requires a six-foot screening fence for RVs.

• April 16, 2020: Mr. France files a petition alleging the Association is in violation of CC&R section 2.7.

• Prior to Hearing: To comply with the City of Mesa’s NOV, Mr. France installs a temporary gate at a cost of approximately $800.

• September 1, 2020: The administrative hearing is conducted.

Analysis of Arguments and Testimonies

Petitioner’s Position (Don France)

• Initial Petition: The formal petition, filed on April 16, 2020, was based on the single issue that the Mesa East Property Owners Association had violated its own CC&R section 2.7.

• Revised Argument at Hearing: During the hearing, Mr. France acknowledged that the Association was not, in fact, violating section 2.7. His argument shifted to a claim of estoppel, asserting that the Association could not enforce the rule against him because its own ARC had approved his gateless structure in 2014.

• Requested Relief: Mr. France asked the judge to rule that the Association could not require him to install a gate and to invalidate any outstanding fines levied against him.

• Supporting Testimony: Joann Van Kirk, the chairperson of the ARC in 2014, testified on Mr. France’s behalf. She stated that she had been informed by a past chair that no gate was required for structures like Mr. France’s, citing other properties that had RV shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa at the time and was told a gate was not required if the structure was attached to the house.

Respondent’s Position (Mesa East POA)

• Basis for Enforcement: The Association began strictly enforcing the gate requirement around 2018 after being threatened with lawsuits by other members for failing to enforce the CC&Rs.

• Enforcement Actions: After an unsuccessful attempt to have the City of Mesa grandfather in non-compliant properties, the Association notified members of the requirement via its newsletter and online, setting a compliance deadline of 2019. When Mr. France did not comply, the Association issued an NOV and subsequently began assessing fines.

• Legal Stance: The Association’s counsel formally rejected Mr. France’s estoppel argument in May 2019.

• Supporting Testimony: Donald Smith testified that at the time the NOV was issued to Mr. France, eleven other residents were also non-compliant. By the hearing date, six remained in violation, five of whom had agreed to comply. This testimony was intended to show that the enforcement was not targeted solely at Mr. France.

Independent Municipal Action

The City of Mesa’s regulations played a significant and independent role in the matter.

• City Code: The City of Mesa has its own ordinance, Code section 11-34-5(B), which requires RVs taller than six feet to be screened by a six-foot-tall fence.

• Notice of Violation: On July 24, 2019, the City issued its own NOV to Mr. France for violating this code.

• Consequence: This municipal enforcement action compelled Mr. France to install a temporary gate to avoid penalties from the City, regardless of the outcome of his dispute with the Property Owners Association.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

Final Order: IT IS ORDERED that Don France’s petition is dismissed.

The judge’s decision to dismiss the case was based on a precise legal and procedural rationale, rather than the merits of the estoppel argument.

• Failure of the Core Claim: The judge noted that Mr. France’s petition was limited to the single claim that the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7. At the hearing, Mr. France himself admitted this was not the case. As the petitioner, Mr. France bore the burden of proof, and his own testimony demonstrated that the “preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation.”

• Jurisdictional Limitation: The new issues raised by Mr. France at the hearing—namely the estoppel argument and the legality of the fines—were declared “not properly before the tribunal.” The judge reasoned that these claims were not included in the original petition, a separate filing fee was not paid for a second issue, and the claims were not listed in the official Notice of Hearing. This procedural failure prevented the judge from ruling on the substance of these arguments.

Conclusion and Post-Decision Protocol

The dismissal of Mr. France’s petition represents a conclusive finding in favor of the respondent based on the specific claims filed. The decision illustrates that the scope of an administrative hearing is strictly defined by the issues raised in the initial petition.

According to the decision document, the order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes.

Study Guide: France v. Mesa East Property Owners Association (No. 20F-H2020056-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing decision in the case between Don France (Petitioner) and the Mesa East Property Owners Association (Respondent), as decided by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the primary parties in this case, and what was the single issue alleged in the Petitioner’s original petition filed on April 16, 2020?

2. According to CC&R section 2.7 and the City of Mesa’s code, what is the specific requirement for storing a recreational vehicle (RV) on a property?

3. What enforcement actions did the Mesa East Property Owners Association take against Don France in the spring of 2019?

4. What was Don France’s primary legal argument against the Association’s enforcement, which he revealed at the September 1, 2020 hearing?

5. What was the state of compliance on Mr. France’s property regarding the RV gate as of the hearing date, and what prompted this action?

6. According to the testimony of Donald Smith, what prompted the Association to begin enforcing the six-foot gate requirement around 2018?

7. What key information did Joann Van Kirk, the 2014 chairperson of the Architectural Review Committee, provide in her testimony?

8. How did the Petitioner’s argument at the hearing differ from the allegation in his initial petition, and why was this difference critical to the case’s outcome?

9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge decline to rule on the legality of the fines the Association had levied against Mr. France?

10. What was the ultimate order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the legal reasoning behind this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key for Short-Answer Questions

1. The primary parties are Don France, the Petitioner, and the Mesa East Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The single issue alleged in Mr. France’s petition was that the Association was in violation of its own CC&R section 2.7.

2. Both CC&R section 2.7 (the 1994 version) and the City of Mesa’s code (section 11-34-5(B)) require that RVs stored on a property must be screened behind a structure with a gate that is at least six feet high. The CC&Rs also specified the fence and gate must be tall enough to prevent a person from seeing the RV.

3. On March 11, 2019, the Association issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. France because his RV structure lacked a six-foot gate. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019, the Association fined him $500 for the same violation.

4. At the hearing, Mr. France’s primary argument was that the Association was “estopped” from finding him in violation of section 2.7. He argued this because the Association’s Architectural Review Committee had approved his RV structure in 2014 without the gate.

5. As of the hearing date, Mr. France had installed a temporary six-foot gate at a cost of about $800. This action was taken to comply with a Notice of Violation issued to him by the City of Mesa on July 24, 2019.

6. Donald Smith testified that around 2018, people were threatening to sue the Association if it did not enforce the CC&Rs. After meeting with the City of Mesa, which would not allow non-compliant homes to be grandfathered in, the Association began enforcing the gate requirement.

7. Joann Van Kirk testified that in 2014, she had learned from the past ARC chair that no gate was required because other owners had shelters without gates. She also testified that she called the City of Mesa and was told no gate was required if the structure was attached to the house.

8. While his petition alleged the Association had violated section 2.7, at the hearing Mr. France acknowledged this was not the case and argued instead that the Association was estopped from enforcing that section against him. This was critical because the judge could only rule on the single issue raised in the petition, which Mr. France conceded had no merit.

9. The judge declined to rule on the legality of the fines because the issue was not raised in Mr. France’s original petition. Therefore, it was not properly before the tribunal as a filing fee had not been paid for a second issue and it was not included in the Notice of Hearing.

10. The judge ordered that Don France’s petition be dismissed. The reasoning was that the petition was limited to the single issue of whether the Association had violated CC&R section 2.7, and Mr. France himself acknowledged at the hearing that no such violation by the Association had occurred.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-format response for each, citing specific facts from the case decision to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the concept of estoppel as it applies to this case. Explain why Don France believed the Association was estopped from enforcing the gate requirement, referencing the 2014 approvals, and discuss why the Association disagreed and proceeded with enforcement actions.

2. Discuss the procedural limitations that shaped the outcome of this hearing. How did the specific wording of Mr. France’s initial petition and the rules governing administrative hearings ultimately prevent the judge from considering the central issues of estoppel and the validity of the fines?

3. Examine the conflict between a property owner’s reliance on past approvals and a Property Owners Association’s duty to enforce its CC&Rs. Use the testimony of Joann Van Kirk and Donald Smith to illustrate the differing perspectives and pressures that led to this dispute.

4. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. France’s 2014 application to the 2020 hearing. Detail the key actions taken by Mr. France, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee, the Association’s Board, and the City of Mesa, and explain how their interactions created the legal conflict.

5. Evaluate the standard of proof required in this case, the “preponderance of the evidence.” Although the case was dismissed on a procedural issue, discuss which party presented a more convincing case regarding the underlying dispute over the RV gate, and why.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee within the Property Owners Association responsible for reviewing and approving applications for property improvements, such as Mr. France’s RV port in 2014.

Burden of Proof

The responsibility of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this matter, Mr. France bore the burden of proof to show the Association violated its CC&Rs.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing community documents that set rules for property use, such as section 2.7 which requires a six-foot gate for RV storage.

Conclusions of Law

The section of the judge’s decision that applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a final ruling.

Estoppel

A legal principle asserted by Mr. France arguing that the Association should be prevented from enforcing a rule (the gate requirement) against him because of its prior action (approving his structure without a gate in 2014).

Findings of Fact

A formal, numbered list of facts in the judge’s decision that are established by the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing.

Notice of Violation (NOV)

A formal notice issued by the Association or the City of Mesa to a property owner informing them that they are in violation of a specific rule or code.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Don France is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing. It is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is sufficient to incline an impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Mesa East Property Owners Association is the Respondent.

Select all sources

823714.pdf

No emoji found

20F-H2020056-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning the case of Don France versus the Mesa East Property Owners Association. The document details a dispute where Petitioner Don France alleged that the Respondent Association violated a community covenant regarding the storage of recreational vehicles (RVs), specifically CC&R section 2.7, which requires RVs to be stored behind a six-foot gate. Although Mr. France initially brought the petition alleging the Association violated the rule, he ultimately argued that the Association was estopped from enforcing the rule against him due to past approval of his RV structure without a gate. The decision includes a summary of the Findings of Fact related to Mr. France’s structure, the Association’s attempts to enforce the gate requirement against him and other residents, and the resulting fines he incurred before installing a gate to comply with a separate City of Mesa Notice of Violation. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge determined that Mr. France failed to meet the burden of proof to show the Association violated the CC&Rs, and his petition was dismissed because he acknowledged the Association was not actually in violation of section 2.7.

What were the legal and factual grounds for the case’s dismissal?

How did the Association’s past actions relate to the estoppel claim?

What was the core conflict between the homeowner, HOA, and city codes?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Don France (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf and testified
Joann Van Kirk (witness)
Testified for Petitioner; was chairperson of Architectural Review Committee ('ARC') in 2014

Respondent Side

B. Austin Bailio (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Attorney for Respondent Mesa East Property Owners Association
Michael Estey (witness)
Testified for Respondent
Donald Smith (witness)
Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Mary J Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

Posted on January 30, 2020 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919059-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Mary J Bartle	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro West Owner's Association	Counsel	Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the original conclusion and dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) regarding the contested $49,000.50 fund transaction.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set out in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Treasurer duties regarding fund transactions

The petitioner alleged the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) by withdrawing and redepositing $49,000.50 from the operating account. The ALJ concluded that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that these transactions violated the specific duties of the treasurer set forth in that section.

Orders: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed and Respondent is deemed the prevailing party in this matter.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Treasurer Duties, Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section and title 12, chapter 7, article 6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG Decision – 767041.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:24 (94.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association (Case No. 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter of Mary J. Bartle vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association. The final order, issued on January 30, 2020, dismissed the petition brought by Ms. Bartle. The core of the case revolved around a financial transaction where $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018, and redeposited on November 30, 2018.

The petitioner, Ms. Bartle, alleged this transaction violated a specific provision of the Association’s bylaws—Article VIII, section 8(d)—which outlines the duties of the Treasurer. Despite two hearings, the Administrative Law Judge consistently concluded that Ms. Bartle failed to meet her burden of proof. The central finding was that while evidence suggested the transaction “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper,” the petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, how this transaction specifically violated any of the enumerated duties of the Treasurer as set forth in the cited bylaw. The decision underscores a critical legal distinction between a potentially improper act and a proven violation of the specific bylaw under which the complaint was filed.

Case Overview

Case Name

Mary J. Bartle, Petitioner, vs. Saguaro West Owner’s Association, Respondent

Case Number

19F-H1919059-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Petitioner

Mary J. Bartle (representing herself)

Respondent

Saguaro West Owner’s Association (represented by Nicole Payne, Esq.)

Rehearing Date

January 14, 2020

Final Decision Date

January 30, 2020

Procedural History and Core Allegation

The case proceeded through an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, following a specific timeline of events:

• April 22, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed the initial petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• August 29, 2019: The first hearing was held. At the outset, a discussion was held to narrow the scope of the hearing. Ms. Bartle agreed to limit her petition to a single issue.

• The Single Issue: Whether the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d) through a withdrawal of $49,000.50 on October 22, 2018, and a redeposit of the same amount on November 30, 2018.

• September 18, 2019: The initial Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, dismissing Ms. Bartle’s petition.

• October 23, 2019: Ms. Bartle filed a request for a rehearing, asserting an error in the admission of evidence.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• January 14, 2020: The rehearing was convened. Ms. Bartle testified, while the Respondent presented no witnesses.

• January 30, 2020: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision was issued, reaffirming the dismissal of the petition.

At the rehearing, Ms. Bartle testified “to the effect that laws must have been violated by the withdrawal and redepositing of the $49,000.50 without the Association’s members being provided any notice of these transactions.”

Analysis of Bylaw and Judicial Findings

Bylaw Article VIII, Section 8(d): The Treasurer’s Duties

The entirety of the petitioner’s case rested on proving a violation of the specific duties outlined for the Treasurer in the Association’s bylaws. The text of the bylaw is as follows:

The Treasurer shall receive and deposit in the Association’s bank accounts all monies received by the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution [of] the Board of Directors; shall properly prepare and sign all checks before presenting them to be co-signed; keep proper books of account; cause an annual audit of the Association’s books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year; and shall prepare an annual budget to be presented to the membership at the annual meeting; to cause all Federal and State reports to be prepared; and shall prepare all monthly statements of finance for the Board of Directors.

Key Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the petitioner’s failure to connect the disputed financial transaction to a specific violation of the duties listed above. The judge made a clear distinction between the potential impropriety of the transaction and the narrow scope of the legal claim.

• Initial Hearing Conclusion: The decision from the first hearing, which the judge took notice of in the rehearing, established the core finding:

• Rehearing Conclusion: The final decision after the rehearing reinforced this exact point, stating:

Ultimately, the case was dismissed because Ms. Bartle did not meet the legal standard required to prove her specific claim.

Legal Framework and Final Order

Applicable Legal Standards

The decision was grounded in several key legal principles cited by the Administrative Law Judge:

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate possesses authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: Ms. Bartle, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proof on all issues.

• Standard of Proof: The standard was a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Contractual Nature of Bylaws: Citing McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., the decision notes that “The Bylaws are a contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”

Final Order and Implications

Based on the failure to meet the burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued a binding order with the following key points:

1. Dismissal: Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition is dismissed.

2. Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

3. Appeal Rights: A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served, as prescribed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 12-904(A) and Title 12, Chapter 7, Article 6.

Study Guide: Bartle v. Saguaro West Owner’s Association

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919059-REL-RHG. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the legal matter.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the case document.

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

2. What specific financial transaction was the central subject of the petitioner’s complaint?

3. Which specific article and section of the Association’s Bylaws did the petitioner claim was violated?

4. What was the legal standard of proof that the petitioner was required to meet, and who had the burden of proof?

5. On what grounds did Ms. Bartle file her request for a rehearing after the initial decision?

6. According to the judge’s decision, what was the key failure in the petitioner’s argument regarding the financial transaction?

7. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge on January 30, 2020?

8. Although the judge dismissed the petition, what did the decision state about the nature of the financial transactions?

9. Which government department granted the request for a rehearing and has authority over this type of matter?

10. What options does a party have if they wish to appeal the final administrative law judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Mary J. Bartle, and the Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association. Ms. Bartle brought the petition against the Association, alleging a violation of its bylaws.

2. The central subject was the withdrawal of $49,000.50 from the Association’s operating account on October 22, 2018. The same amount was subsequently redeposited into the account on November 30, 2018.

3. The petitioner claimed the Association violated Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). This section outlines the specific duties and responsibilities of the Association’s Treasurer.

4. The standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the petitioner, Ms. Bartle, to demonstrate that the Association had violated the bylaw.

5. Ms. Bartle filed her Rehearing Request on the grounds that there was an error in the admission of evidence. She specifically referenced documents dated July 5, August 6, and September 13, 2019, in her request.

6. The key failure was that Ms. Bartle did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the withdrawal and redeposit specifically violated any of the treasurer’s duties as explicitly listed in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Her claim was too narrow for the evidence she presented.

7. The final order was that Petitioner Mary J. Bartle’s petition be dismissed. The Respondent, Saguaro West Owner’s Association, was deemed to be the prevailing party in the matter.

8. The decision stated that there was evidence to suggest that the withdrawal and redeposit of the $49,000.50 “may have been in violation of the law or otherwise improper.” However, this was not sufficient to prove a violation of the specific bylaw in question.

9. The Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing on November 18, 2019. This department has authority over the matter as established by ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review as prescribed by Arizona Revised Statutes. The appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following questions for a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response based solely on the information provided in the source document.

1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decision. Explain why Mary J. Bartle failed to meet this standard, despite the judge’s acknowledgment that the transaction may have been “improper” or in “violation of the law.”

2. Discuss the procedural significance of limiting the hearing to the single issue of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). How might the case’s outcome have differed if the scope of the hearing had been broader?

3. Trace the complete timeline of the case from the initial petition filing in April 2019 to the final order in January 2020. What do the key events and dates reveal about the process of administrative hearings and rehearings?

4. Based on the full text of Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d), what specific types of evidence would the petitioner have needed to present to successfully prove that the treasurer’s duties were violated by the $49,000.50 transaction?

5. Evaluate the distinction made by the Administrative Law Judge between a transaction that is potentially illegal or improper and a transaction that specifically violates the duties enumerated in Bylaws Article VIII, section 8(d). Why is this distinction critical to the final order of dismissal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and issues decisions on matters under the jurisdiction of a government agency. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona’s state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. Various sections are cited to establish jurisdiction and the appeals process.

Bylaws

A set of rules established by an organization, such as a homeowners’ association, to regulate itself. In this case, the bylaws are treated as a binding contract between the parties.

Conclusion of Law

The section of a legal decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case.

Finding of Fact

The section of a legal decision that lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented during the hearing.

Judicial Review

The process by which a court of law reviews the decision of a lower court or an administrative agency to determine if the decision was legally sound.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

A state agency that provides a neutral forum for conducting administrative hearings for other state agencies. The hearings in this matter were held at the OAH.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a lawsuit or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the petitioner was Mary J. Bartle.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It is met when the evidence presented has the most convincing force and is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal dispute who is successful and in whose favor the judgment is rendered. In this case, the Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to consider new evidence or to argue against the original decision on the basis of an error. Ms. Bartle’s request for a rehearing was granted.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the respondent was the Saguaro West Owner’s Association.

A Homeowner Found a Mysterious $49,000 Transaction in Her HOA’s Books. The Reason She Lost in Court Is a Lesson for Everyone.

Introduction: The David-vs-Goliath Fight That Didn’t Go as Planned

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) can feel like a constant battle for transparency and fairness. It’s a common story: a resident raises concerns about financial decisions made behind closed doors, only to be met with resistance or silence. But what happens when a homeowner pushes back and takes that fight to an administrative hearing?

After an initial hearing and a persistent request for a rehearing, the final decision in Mary J. Bartle’s case against the Saguaro West Owner’s Association seemed, on the surface, like a clear-cut quest for accountability. The dispute centered on a single, alarming event: the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of $49,000.50 from the association’s operating account without any notice to the members. It appeared to be a straightforward case of a concerned resident demanding answers.

However, the ruling from the administrative hearing offers a surprising and crucial lesson in how the legal system operates. The outcome reveals that suspicion, no matter how justified, is not enough to win. This article breaks down the top counter-intuitive takeaways from the judge’s decision and what they mean for any homeowner considering a legal challenge against their HOA.

Takeaway 1: A “Suspicious” Act Isn’t a Guaranteed Win

Feeling Something Is Wrong Isn’t the Same as Proving It.

The core facts of the case were not in dispute. On October 22, 2018, $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Saguaro West Owner’s Association’s operating account. On November 30, 2018, the exact same amount was redeposited. Members were not notified of these transactions. To any reasonable observer, this activity raises immediate questions.

Even the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case acknowledged the questionable nature of the transaction. In his final decision, he validated Ms. Bartle’s initial concerns with a striking statement:

The evidence shows that $49,000.50 was withdrawn from the Association’s account in October 2018 and the same amount was deposited in November 2018, and there is evidence to suggest that the transactions may have been in violation of the law.

This is the most stunning part of the case: the judge agreed that the transaction looked suspicious and might have broken the law, yet Ms. Bartle still lost. This reveals a critical distinction in legal proceedings. A judge is not an arbiter of general fairness but an interpreter of specific laws and rules. The judge’s comment shows he understood the spirit of Ms. Bartle’s complaint, but his hands were tied by the letter of her petition. The legal system requires more than a gut feeling; it demands specific proof that a specific rule was violated, which leads directly to the next critical lesson.

Takeaway 2: You Must Prove theExactRule Was Broken

Specificity Is Your Only Weapon.

Ms. Bartle’s case was ultimately narrowed to a single, highly specific issue: whether the $49,000.50 transaction violated Article VIII, section 8(d) of the association’s bylaws. This is a crucial detail because courts and administrative bodies require this rigid specificity to ensure fairness, prevent “moving goalposts,” and keep proceedings focused on the actual claims filed, not a general feeling of grievance.

Her entire case hinged on proving a violation of that specific section and no other. The rule in question outlines the treasurer’s duties, which include the power to: “receive and deposit…all monies,” “disburse such funds as directed,” “sign all checks,” and “keep proper books of account.”

The judge’s conclusion was brutally precise. He found that Ms. Bartle had “not shown by a preponderance of the evidence” that the transaction violated any of those specific, listed duties. She couldn’t prove the treasurer failed to deposit money or keep proper books; she could only prove a strange transaction occurred that wasn’t explicitly forbidden by the rule she cited. This is a critical lesson: it doesn’t matter if an HOA’s action feels wrong; what matters is whether you can prove it violated the precise rule you cited in your petition.

Takeaway 3: The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on the Accuser

It’s Your Job to Build the Case, Not Theirs to Disprove It.

In a civil administrative hearing like this, the petitioner—Ms. Bartle—carries the “burden of proof.” The standard she had to meet was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition for this is:

“superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

In simple terms, she had to present enough convincing evidence to make the judge believe that her version of events was more likely true than not. The judge’s decision explicitly states that Ms. Bartle bore this burden and ultimately failed to meet it.

One of the most powerful details from the case file illustrates this point perfectly: the Saguaro West Owner’s Association, though represented by legal counsel, “presented no witnesses.” They didn’t have to. They didn’t need to explain the transaction or justify their actions because Ms. Bartle failed to build a strong enough case to prove her specific claim. The onus was completely on her to prove her argument, and when it fell short, the case was dismissed.

Conclusion: A Sobering Reminder for Homeowners

The case of Mary Bartle is a sobering reminder that winning a legal fight against a well-resourced entity like an HOA is less about moral rightness and more about meticulous legal strategy and precision.

While the judge acknowledged that Ms. Bartle’s concerns about the $49,000.50 transaction were potentially valid, her petition was dismissed not on a simple technicality, but because of a core principle of law: the failure to prove that the specific rule cited had actually been broken. Her case highlights the immense challenge for individual homeowners seeking transparency. It leaves us asking, if the legal bar is this specific, what practical recourse do residents have when they feel something is fundamentally wrong?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mary J Bartle (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf and testified

Respondent Side

Nicole Payne (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association
Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Saguaro West Owner's Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on September 30, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen	Counsel	—
Respondent	Carter Ranch Homeowners Association	Counsel	Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
A.A.C. R2-19-119
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1808
A.A.C. R2-19-119
4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:21:58 (69.0 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 741807.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:22:08 (78.9 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.

Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the information in the provided source text.

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

2. What specific action taken by Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen initiated the dispute with the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association?

3. What was Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument for why the HOA’s Flag Display Rule was invalid?

4. On what authority did the Carter Ranch HOA claim it had the right to create and enforce its Flag Display Rule?

5. According to the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule,” which specific flags are homeowners permitted to fly?

6. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this hearing, and how is it defined in the decision?

7. What protection does Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808(C) provide for “political signs”?

8. What were the two key failures of the petitioner’s case, as identified in the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

10. What are the next steps for a party wishing to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Van Dan Elzen represented himself, while the HOA was represented by its attorney, Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

2. The dispute began on or about May 21, 2019, when the Carter Ranch HOA notified Mr. Van Dan Elzen that he had violated its rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag in his front yard. This notice of violation prompted Mr. Van Dan Elzen to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument was that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He contended that because CC&R section 3.14 only defines “SIGNS” and makes no reference to “Flags,” the HOA had no basis in the CC&Rs to regulate his flag.

4. The Carter Ranch HOA asserted its authority based on Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the HOA Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to the health, safety, or welfare of the owners and restrictions on the use of Lots.

5. The HOA’s Flag Display Rule prohibits flying any flag other than the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian National flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

6. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) prevents an HOA from prohibiting the display of political signs on a member’s property, although it allows for regulation. An HOA cannot prohibit political signs earlier than 71 days before an election or later than three days after, and its rules on size and number can be no more restrictive than applicable city or county ordinances.

8. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the Flag Display Rule was improperly adopted or inconsistent with the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had not actually alleged that Carter Ranch violated the specific statute he cited, A.R.S. § 33-1808.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by state statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are designed to encourage a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the word “flag” does not appear in the CC&Rs. Why was this argument ultimately unconvincing to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Explain the legal distinction between a “flag” and a “political sign” as presented in A.R.S. § 33-1808. How might the petitioner’s case have differed if he had argued his “Trump 2020” flag was a “political sign” instead of a flag?

3. Discuss the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and why was this justification accepted by the court?

4. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” How can this be true when the petitioner’s initial filing explicitly cited this statute?

5. Based on the provided text of A.R.S. § 33-1808, under what specific circumstances could a homeowner in Carter Ranch successfully challenge the HOA’s rules on outdoor displays?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case centered on an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Carter Ranch CC&Rs grant the HOA Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Flag Display Rule

The specific rule created by the Carter Ranch HOA that prohibits flying any flag other than the American, military, POW/MIA, Arizona Indian National, Arizona State, and Gadsden flags.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Carter Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, the petitioner is Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

Defined by A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.” HOAs are restricted in their ability to prohibit the display of such signs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it,” meaning the fact is more probable than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent (Carter Ranch HOA) to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues. This case was decided as a result of a rehearing held on January 10, 2020.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the complaint. In this case, the respondent is the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.

He Fought the HOA Over a Political Flag—And Lost. Here Are 3 Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Pride and the Problem

Imagine this: You want to display a flag on your own property to support a political candidate. It feels like a fundamental right, an expression of free speech on your home turf. But then, a letter arrives from your Homeowners Association (HOA) citing you for a violation. This exact scenario happened to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who displayed a “Trump 2020” flag and promptly received a violation notice from the Carter Ranch HOA in Arizona.

Believing the HOA was overstepping its authority, Mr. Van Dan Elzen took them to court. He lost. The outcome might seem counter-intuitive, but the court’s decision reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner living under an HOA. Here are the three surprising legal reasons why the HOA won.

1. The Power of the Fine Print: Why a “Loophole” Wasn’t Enough

Mr. Van Dan Elzen built his case on a clever textual argument. He alleged that the HOA’s rule against his flag was invalid because the section of the master community documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—he believed it was based on only regulated “SIGNS” and made no mention of “FLAGS.” He argued that since the document didn’t explicitly prohibit flags, the rule against his was unenforceable.

This seemingly logical “loophole” argument failed. The HOA countered by pointing to a different, much broader clause in their CC&Rs. Article V, Section 5.3, gave the HOA board expansive power to create new rules.

The Board may, from time to time, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to: … (iii) the health, safety or welfare of the owners, Lessees and Residence, or (iv) restrictions on the use of Lots…

This general power to create rules for the “welfare of the owners” was enough to give the HOA the legal authority to regulate flags, even if the word “flag” wasn’t in the specific section the homeowner cited. The broad power to govern trumped the narrow, semantic argument.

2. A Flag Is Not a Sign (At Least, Not According to the Law)

While the homeowner’s flag was political in nature, it did not receive the legal protections granted to “political signs” under Arizona law. This distinction proved fatal to his case.

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808, is highly specific about which flags an HOA is forbidden from prohibiting. The protected list includes: the American flag, official military branch flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, Arizona Indian nations flags, and the Gadsden flag. Critically, the Carter Ranch HOA’s own Flag Display Rule mirrored this state-approved list exactly, demonstrating they had aligned their regulations with the law. A political campaign flag, like “Trump 2020,” is not on this protected list.

The same law does protect political signs, but it defines them very precisely:

“political sign” means a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.

The key takeaway is that the law treats a political flag differently from a political sign. Because the “Trump 2020” item was a flag and not on the state’s protected flag list, the HOA was well within its rights to restrict its display based on its own community rules.

3. A Critical Misstep: Arguing the Wrong Point

The most decisive reason for the loss was not a procedural error, but a substantive legal failure. Mr. Van Dan Elzen filed his petition with the state on the grounds that the HOA had violated a specific state law, A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and political signs.

However, his entire case was built on arguing that the HOA’s internal rules were inconsistent with its own CC&Rs—the “sign” versus “flag” argument. This was the wrong legal target. To win, he had to prove that the HOA had violated the state statute. But the statute explicitly allows an HOA to regulate any flag not on the protected list. By regulating his “Trump 2020” flag, the HOA was doing exactly what the state law permitted. His argument about internal documents, even if correct, did not add up to a violation of the state law he sued under.

The Administrative Law Judge recognized this fundamental flaw, concluding that the homeowner hadn’t actually made a case for a statutory violation at all.

Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

This is a crucial lesson: it’s not enough to feel wronged. Your argument must directly prove that the specific law you cite in your complaint has actually been broken. The homeowner’s claim was dismissed because his central argument was irrelevant to the law he needed to prove was violated.

Conclusion: Know Your Rights, and Your Rules

The case of the “Trump 2020” flag is a powerful illustration for homeowners everywhere. It highlights three critical realities of living in an HOA: the broad rule-making power granted by community documents can override perceived loopholes; state laws make very specific and narrow distinctions between protected items like signs and flags; and a sound legal strategy is paramount.

This case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, your property rights are defined not by what you feel is right, but by what is written down. Before you make a stand, are you certain you’re fighting the right battle on the right legal ground?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Augustus H. Shaw IV (attorney)
Shaw & Lines LLC
Appeared for Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Dustin Snow (property manager)
SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES
Recipient of order transmission

Jeff Lion vs. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on January 10, 2018 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1817009-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-01-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jeff Lion	Counsel	—
Respondent	Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition was dismissed because he failed to appear or provide an authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, resulting in the Respondent being deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing scheduled at his request and failed to provide an authorized representative (as appearances are considered the practice of law under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31).

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs

Petitioner Jeff Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Dismissal, Failure to Appear, Unauthorized Representation, HOA, CC&R

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:08:16 (69.6 KB)

18F-H1817009-REL Decision – 611264.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:53 (69.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA (Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion (Petitioner) versus Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s case, which alleged a violation of the Respondent’s CC&Rs, was dismissed due to the Petitioner’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing on January 9, 2018.

The hearing had been rescheduled to this date at the Petitioner’s own request. On the day of the hearing, two witnesses for Mr. Lion appeared but were informed by the tribunal that they could not legally represent him as they were not licensed attorneys, a requirement under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31. Because no authorized representative for the Petitioner was present, no evidence could be presented to support the claim. Consequently, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden dismissed the petition and designated the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association as the prevailing party.

Case Background and Procedural History

The matter originated from a petition filed by Jeff Lion against the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association.

• Initial Allegation: Mr. Lion alleged that the Respondent violated Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Notice of Hearing: On October 2, 2017, the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued a Notice of Hearing, initially scheduling the matter for November 29, 2017, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix.

• Continuance: Mr. Lion filed a Motion to Continue the hearing, which was rescheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 9, 2018, without objection from the Respondent.

Analysis of the January 9, 2018 Hearing

The proceedings on the rescheduled hearing date were pivotal to the case’s outcome.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Appear: Mr. Jeff Lion, the Petitioner, did not appear at the hearing at its scheduled time.

• Attempted Representation by Non-Attorneys: Two witnesses named by Mr. Lion were present. They informed the tribunal that Mr. Lion would not be appearing and that they intended to represent him.

• Tribunal’s Ruling on Representation: The tribunal advised the witnesses that they were legally prohibited from representing Mr. Lion. Citing Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, the judge clarified that appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings constitute the practice of law and require representation by an attorney licensed in Arizona. The witnesses confirmed they did not hold such licenses.

• Consequences of Non-Appearance: As there was no authorized representative present for the Petitioner, no evidence was taken. The judge noted that the hearing had been continued to that specific date at Mr. Lion’s request and proceeded to vacate the matter based on his failure to appear.

Legal Findings and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was grounded in established legal principles and procedural rules.

• Jurisdiction: The Arizona Department of Real Estate was confirmed to have authority over the matter pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

• Burden of Proof: The decision reiterated that the party asserting a claim—in this case, Mr. Lion—carries the burden of proof. The standard required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

• Core Rationale for Dismissal: The central conclusion of law was that Mr. Lion failed to meet his burden of proof. By not appearing at the hearing he had requested, and by not securing authorized legal representation, he “failed to present any evidence in support of his petition.”

Final Order and Implications

The decision, issued on January 10, 2018, formally concluded the administrative hearing process with a definitive outcome.

• Dismissal of Petition: The Administrative Law Judge ordered that “Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed.”

• Prevailing Party: The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was officially deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

• Post-Decision Options: The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, as stipulated by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Key Parties and Representatives

Name/Entity

Contact/Representation Information

Petitioner

Jeff Lion

PO Box 1350, Selma, CA 93662

Respondent

Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association

Represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

Respondent’s Counsel

Nathan Tennyson, Esq.

BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC, 373 S. Main Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings

Overseeing Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Commissioner: Judy Lowe

Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision: Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows HOA

This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Jeff Lion v. Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, Case No. 18F-H1817009-REL. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms found within the document.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based entirely on the provided legal decision.

1. Who were the petitioner and respondent in this matter, and what was the petitioner’s central allegation?

2. Why was the administrative hearing held on January 9, 2018, instead of the originally scheduled date?

3. Describe the events that occurred at the scheduled hearing time on January 9, 2018.

4. What specific rule was cited by the tribunal to prevent the petitioner’s witnesses from representing him?

5. What is the standard of proof for this matter, and which party had the burden of proof?

6. According to the decision, what was the direct consequence of the petitioner’s failure to have an authorized representative present at the hearing?

7. How does the legal document define the term “preponderance of the evidence”?

8. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge?

9. Who was identified as the “prevailing party” and why?

10. What option was available to the parties if they disagreed with the judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Jeff Lion, and the respondent was the Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association. Mr. Lion alleged that the respondent had violated Article 8 of its CC&Rs.

2. The hearing was originally set for November 29, 2017. It was rescheduled to January 9, 2018, because the petitioner, Mr. Lion, filed a Motion to Continue, to which the respondent did not object.

3. On January 9, 2018, the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear for the hearing. Two witnesses appeared on his behalf and stated their intention to represent him, but they were not permitted to do so.

4. The tribunal cited Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31, which governs the practice of law. Since the witnesses were not licensed attorneys in Arizona, they were not legally permitted to represent Mr. Lion at the hearing.

5. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The party asserting the claim, in this case, the petitioner Jeff Lion, had the burden of proof.

6. Because no authorized representative was present for Mr. Lion, no evidence was taken in support of his petition. This failure to present evidence was a key factor in the case’s dismissal.

7. The document defines “preponderance of the evidence” by quoting Black’s Law Dictionary as: “The greater weight of the evidence…that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

8. The final order was that Petitioner Jeff Lion’s petition is dismissed. The decision was issued on January 10, 2018.

9. The Respondent, Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association, was deemed the prevailing party. This was because Mr. Lion failed to present any evidence in support of his petition, leading to its dismissal.

10. The parties could request a rehearing pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04. The request had to be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Thomas Shedden in this case) who presides over hearings at an administrative agency to resolve disputes.

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE

The Arizona Administrative Code, a compilation of rules and regulations of Arizona state agencies. Section R2-19-119 is cited as establishing the standard of proof.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

The Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. Title 32, Chapter 20, Article 11 is cited as giving the Department of Real Estate authority.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the petitioner (Mr. Lion) had the burden of proof.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are rules governing a planned community or homeowners association. Mr. Lion alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Motion to Continue

A formal request made by a party to an administrative tribunal or court to postpone a scheduled hearing to a later date.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The state agency where the hearing took place, which conducts hearings for other state agencies.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, Jeff Lion.

Practice of Law

The act of representing others in legal proceedings. The decision states that appearances at the OAH are considered the practice of law and are restricted to licensed attorneys under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case. It is met when the evidence presented is more convincing and has greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins a legal case or dispute. The Riggs Ranch Meadows Homeowners Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and the decision. The parties had 30 days to file a request for a rehearing.

Respondent

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

Tribunal

A body established to settle certain types of dispute. In this context, it refers to the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.

How One Homeowner Lost His Case Against His HOA Before It Even Began

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Story You Haven’t Heard

Disputes with a Homeowners Association (HOA) are a common source of frustration. It often feels like a David vs. Goliath battle, pitting an individual against a structured organization with rules and resources. When faced with what they believe is an unfair application of those rules, some homeowners decide to fight back.

This was the situation for Jeff Lion, who filed a petition against his HOA, Riggs Ranch Meadows, alleging a violation of Article 8 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). But this story didn’t end with a dramatic debate over property rights. Instead, it was over before it started, derailed by a simple but fatal procedural misstep. This case offers three critical lessons for anyone considering a formal dispute, revealing how understanding the basic rules of the game is far more important than just believing you have a good argument.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Most Important Step is Showing Up

The central, decisive event of the case was a stunning failure in participation: the petitioner, Jeff Lion, did not appear at the hearing on January 9, 2018. The ultimate procedural irony? This was the exact hearing date that he himself had requested.

The contrast on that day could not have been starker. While Mr. Lion was a no-show for the fight he started, the HOA—the “Goliath” in this story—arrived fully prepared, represented by its attorney, Nathan Tennyson, Esq. The judge’s decision was swift and absolute. Because Mr. Lion did not appear, no evidence was taken, and his petition was dismissed entirely.

This outcome is rooted in a core legal principle known as the “burden of proof.” Simply put, the person making a claim is responsible for presenting evidence to support it. As the one who filed the petition, it was Mr. Lion’s job to prove his case. By failing to appear, he presented zero evidence and could not possibly meet this fundamental burden. The merits of his specific complaint about Article 8 were never even heard, all because of a self-inflicted failure to participate in the process he initiated on the day he chose.

——————————————————————————–

2. Not Just Anyone Can Speak for You in Court

In a surprising turn, while Mr. Lion was absent, his two named witnesses did appear at the hearing. They informed the judge that the petitioner would not be attending and that they intended to represent him in his absence.

The Administrative Law Judge immediately shut down their attempt. The reason highlights a crucial rule that trips up many non-lawyers: the witnesses were not licensed attorneys, and the law strictly forbids such representation. Appearances at these administrative hearings are legally considered “the practice of law.”

The court’s decision was based on an unambiguous rule, which it cited in its legal conclusions:

Appearances at the Office of Administrative Hearings are considered to be the practice of law. See Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31.

This is a counter-intuitive lesson for many. You might assume a trusted friend, family member, or knowledgeable witness could speak on your behalf. This case demonstrates that the legal system has rigid rules about who is authorized to provide representation. Good intentions and a willingness to help are not enough to grant someone the legal authority to act as your advocate in a formal hearing.

——————————————————————————–

3. “Winning” is About Tipping the Scale of Evidence

In administrative hearings, the standard for winning is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This doesn’t mean proving your case beyond all doubt. Think of it like a scale. “Preponderance of the evidence” simply means you have to provide enough evidence to make the scale tip, even just slightly, in your favor.

The formal definition clarifies this concept of relative weight:

The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.

Applying this standard to Mr. Lion’s case makes the outcome painfully clear. Since he failed to appear and no evidence was taken on his behalf, the “weight” of his evidence was zero. It was therefore impossible for him to tip the scale, no matter how strong his case might have been in theory. Because he presented nothing, Riggs Ranch Meadows was deemed the “prevailing party” by default. This demonstrates how the legal system is a structured process focused on evidence presented according to rules, not just on feelings or the theoretical rightness of a claim.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules of the Game Matter

The case of Jeff Lion provides a masterclass in legal procedure. The three key lessons are simple but absolute: you must show up to your own hearing, especially one you scheduled; only licensed attorneys can legally represent you; and you must present evidence to meet your burden of proof.

This case wasn’t ultimately about CC&Rs or neighborhood rules; it was about procedure. It serves as a stark reminder that before entering any formal dispute, the first question to ask isn’t “Am I right?” but “Do I understand the rules?”

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jeff Lion (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
BROWN/OLCOTT, PLLC

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (ADRE transmission signatory)
LDettorre (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
djones (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
DGardner (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ncano (ADRE recipient)
Arizona Department of Real Estate