Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2121038-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-11-15 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Thomas Shedden |
| Outcome | loss |
| 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
- 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
- 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
21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf
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
