The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner's request for relief, finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice and agenda information regarding the proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit short term rentals. The Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of open meeting and notice requirements regarding CC&R amendment
The Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meetings, HOA Governance, Notice Requirements, CC&R Amendment, Short Term Rentals
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629473.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:47 (46.2 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629515.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:50 (51.9 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 636989.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:22:54 (139.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817020-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Smith vs. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. The core of the case revolves around allegations that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(F). The decision established that the Board failed to provide its members with agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” about discussions concerning a proposed amendment to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would prohibit short-term rentals. This failure occurred during Board of Directors meetings held on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
As a result of this finding, the Petitioner’s petition was granted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. The ruling underscores the state’s policy that planned community meetings must be conducted with transparency, and agendas must provide sufficient detail for members to understand the matters to be discussed or decided.
Case Overview
Case Number
18F-H1817020-REL
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Lewis Smith
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
April 16, 2018
Decision Date
May 29, 2018
Central Allegation
On or about December 5, 2017, Petitioner Lewis Smith filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The petition contended that the Board of Directors discussed and advanced a significant CC&R amendment without proper notification to the association members.
The petition states, in part:
“All Board members have been meeting to discuss and add an amendment to the CC&R’s [sic] Prohibiting short term renters. These meetings have not been conducted openly and no notice or agenda were provided containing information necessary to inform members of the association of the matters to be discussed… At no time was the issue to add an amendment for short term rentals properly noticed or on an agenda for discussion before it became a ballot vote.”
Chronology of Events
October 23, 2017:
• Lewis Smith, William H. Winn, Kevin Barnett, and Chester Jay submit a formal request to the Board for a special members’ meeting.
• The stated purposes of the meeting were to:
1. Select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law.
2. Discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs.
3. Discuss a separate attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
October 24, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson responds to the request, expressing support for a meeting but stating that more than 30 days would be needed to gather supporting documentation.
October 31, 2017:
• A second group of homeowners, including Board members Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews, submits a request to add an item to the agenda of the forthcoming special meeting.
• Their request was to “amend the CC&Rs by adding a section prohibiting ‘Short Term Rentals’ and defining minimum time allowed for Rentals.”
November 5, 2017:
• The Board provides an agenda for a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 8, 2017. The agenda did not include any item related to the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
November 8, 2017:
• The Board of Directors meeting is held.
• The Board votes to call a special members’ meeting before November 23, 2017, to address the two petitions.
• During the “BOARD INPUT” section, member Curt Carlson “spoke of past issues about short term renting,” but this was not a formal agenda item for discussion or action.
November 10, 2017:
• The Board emails Lewis Smith, acknowledging his petition and requesting a “narrative explanation from you on each of your subjects” by November 17, 2017, to prepare the meeting information package for all homeowners.
November 18, 2017:
• The Board sends an agenda for another Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 20, 2017.
• The agenda lists “Review/approval of special meeting mailing package” as a topic but provides no specific details regarding the proposed amendment on short-term rentals.
December 1, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson emails all homeowners to explain the upcoming special meeting on December 16, 2017.
• The email states: “To avoid cost and time we put both petitions together and are having one meeting that will required [sic] all owners to vote for or against these two petitions.”
• The agenda for the December 16 meeting is attached, which explicitly lists a vote on prohibiting short-term rentals.
December 16, 2017:
• The special members’ meeting is held. A vote is taken on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
• Vote Result: 9 homeowners in favor, 6 homeowners against.
Legal Framework and Analysis
The case centered on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes related to planned communities.
Key Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
This statute governs meetings and notices for planned communities. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the policy outlined in subsection (F).
• § 33-1804(B): Requires that notice for any special meeting of members must state the purpose, including “the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”
• § 33-1804(E)(1): Requires that the agenda for a Board of Directors meeting be made available to all members in attendance.
• § 33-1804(F): This subsection contains the state’s declaration of policy, which was central to the judge’s conclusion. It states:
Burden of Proof
The Petitioner, Lewis Smith, bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the statute by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient “to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Findings and Conclusion of the Court
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner successfully met the burden of proof. The decision concludes that the agendas for the November 8 and November 20 Board of Directors meetings were legally insufficient.
Conclusion of Law #4:
“Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.”
Final Order
• The Petitioner’s petition in the matter was granted.
• Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee.
• The Order is legally binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Parties and Legal Representation
Address
Legal Counsel
Petitioner
Lewis Smith 5459 E. Sorrento Dr. Long Beach, CA 90803
Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq. The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC 2122 E. Highland Ave. Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4779
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. 411 Riverfront Dr. #7 Bullhead City, AZ 86442
William D. Condray, Esq. 2031 Highway 95 Ste. 2 Bullhead City, AZ 86442-6004
Study Guide – 18F-H1817020-REL
Study Guide: Smith v. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 18F-H1817020-REL between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms and entities involved in the matter.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817020-REL, and who represented them legally?
2. What was the three-part purpose of the special meeting requested by Lewis Smith and other homeowners on October 23, 2017?
3. A second petition was submitted on October 31, 2017. What was its purpose and who were the petitioners?
4. What key actions were taken regarding officers and a special meeting during the Board of Directors meeting on November 8, 2017?
5. What did the Desert Isle HOA Board demand from Lewis Smith in its email on November 10, 2017, to proceed with the special meeting?
6. What was the central allegation Lewis Smith made in his petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 5, 2017?
7. What was the outcome of the vote on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at the December 16, 2017 special meeting?
8. Which specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes did the Administrative Law Judge find the Board had violated?
9. According to the case documents, what is the definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on May 29, 2018?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Lewis Smith, and the Respondent, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Lewis Smith was represented by Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq., and the Desert Isle HOA was represented by William D. Condray, Esq.
2. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: to select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law; to discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs; and to discuss an attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
3. Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews submitted a request to amend the CC&Rs by adding a section to prohibit “Short Term Rentals.” They requested this subject be added to the agenda of the special meeting already requested by Lewis Smith’s group to save time and money.
4. At the November 8, 2017 meeting, a motion passed unanimously to remove the existing VP, treasurer, and secretary. New officers and assistants were elected, and another motion passed to call the special meeting requested by the two groups of owners before November 23, 2017.
5. The Board requested a “narrative explanation” from Lewis Smith for each of his proposed subjects. The Board stated it would expect four narratives plus any referenced attorney engagement letters and needed the materials by November 17, 2017, to prepare the special meeting package.
6. Lewis Smith alleged that the Desert Isle HOA Board members met to discuss and add an amendment prohibiting short-term rentals without conducting the meetings openly. He stated that no proper notice or agenda was provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed before the issue became a ballot vote.
7. At the December 16, 2017 meeting, the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals was voted on by homeowners. Nine homeowners voted in favor of the amendment, and six homeowners voted against it.
8. The Judge found that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F). The violation occurred when the Board failed to provide an agenda with information reasonably necessary to inform members that an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting short-term rentals would be discussed at the board meetings on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
9. The documents provide two definitions. The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge’s order required the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by statute.
Essay Questions
1. Construct a detailed timeline of events from the initial petition by Lewis Smith on October 23, 2017, to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 29, 2018. Include all key meetings, communications, and legal filings mentioned in the documents.
2. Analyze the ways in which the Desert Isle Homeowners Association Board failed to comply with the open meeting policies outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Use specific examples from the meeting agendas and communications to support the analysis.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden of proof for the violation and any affirmative defenses, and how the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was met by the Petitioner.
4. Compare and contrast the two petitions submitted by homeowners in October 2017. Evaluate how the Board handled each request and the procedural steps it took that ultimately led to the legal dispute.
5. Based on the findings of fact, evaluate the communication between the Desert Isle HOA Board and its members. Discuss the effectiveness and legality of the Board’s notices, agendas, and email correspondence regarding the special meeting and the proposed CC&R amendment.
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
An Arizona state statute governing meetings in planned communities. It requires open meetings, proper notice to members (between 10 and 50 days prior), and agendas that are reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
An Arizona state statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or relevant statutes.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. At the time of the events, key members included Doug Robinson (President), Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden for any affirmative defenses.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents of the Desert Isle planned community. The petitions submitted by homeowners sought to amend these documents.
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Respondent in the case; the planned community organization and non-profit corporation responsible for managing the Desert Isle community.
Lewis Smith
The Petitioner in the case; a homeowner in the Desert Isle community who filed a petition against the HOA.
Notice of Hearing
A formal notification issued by the Department of Real Estate setting the date and location for an administrative hearing. In this case, it was issued on January 22, 2018.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state tribunal where the hearing for this case was conducted.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Lewis Smith.
Post-hearing Briefs
Written legal arguments submitted by parties after a hearing has concluded. The record in this case was held open until May 9, 2018, to receive these briefs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Reserve Study
A study to determine an association’s long-term capital needs for its common areas. Lewis Smith’s petition requested a discussion about obtaining one.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Special Meeting
A meeting of association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings. Both petitions in this case requested a special meeting.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817020-REL
Select all sources
629473.pdf
629515.pdf
636989.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817020-REL
3 sources
The provided documents are related to a legal dispute between Lewis Smith and the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc., heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first two sources, 629473.pdf and 629515.pdf, are identical “Order Holding Record Open” documents dated April 18, 2018, which mandated that the parties submit post-hearing briefs by specific deadlines and required the Homeowners Association to clarify its objection to a specific exhibit. The final source, 636989.pdf, is the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on May 29, 2018, which found that the Homeowners Association violated Arizona law by failing to properly inform members that they would be discussing a proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at two special board meetings. Ultimately, the judge granted Lewis Smith’s petition and ordered the Homeowners Association to pay the required filing fee.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lewis Smith(petitioner)
Mark J. Bainbridge(petitioner attorney) The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC
William H. Winn(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Kevin Barnett(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Chester Jay(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Mike Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Kim Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Respondent Side
William D. Condray(respondent attorney)
Doug Robinson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Curt Carlson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mike Andrews(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Greg Yacoubian(homeowner/board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Replaced Mike Andrews on 11/20/17
Judy Carlson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Treasurer
Terri Robinson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Secretary
Jamie Kelly(HOA attorney) Consulted on Special Meeting package
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
M.Aguirre(Clerk/Admin) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
DGardner(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner's request for relief, finding that the Respondent HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice and agenda information regarding the proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit short term rentals. The Respondent was ordered to pay the filing fee to the Petitioner.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of open meeting and notice requirements regarding CC&R amendment
The Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Open Meetings, HOA Governance, Notice Requirements, CC&R Amendment, Short Term Rentals
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(E)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.01
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629473.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (46.2 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 629515.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (51.9 KB)
18F-H1817020-REL Decision – 636989.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:20 (139.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817020-REL
Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Smith vs. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal dispute between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. The core of the case revolves around allegations that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting laws.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(F). The decision established that the Board failed to provide its members with agendas containing information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” about discussions concerning a proposed amendment to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would prohibit short-term rentals. This failure occurred during Board of Directors meetings held on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
As a result of this finding, the Petitioner’s petition was granted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner’s filing fee. The ruling underscores the state’s policy that planned community meetings must be conducted with transparency, and agendas must provide sufficient detail for members to understand the matters to be discussed or decided.
Case Overview
Case Number
18F-H1817020-REL
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings (Phoenix, Arizona)
Petitioner
Lewis Smith
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Hearing Date
April 16, 2018
Decision Date
May 29, 2018
Central Allegation
On or about December 5, 2017, Petitioner Lewis Smith filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Desert Isle HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804. The petition contended that the Board of Directors discussed and advanced a significant CC&R amendment without proper notification to the association members.
The petition states, in part:
“All Board members have been meeting to discuss and add an amendment to the CC&R’s [sic] Prohibiting short term renters. These meetings have not been conducted openly and no notice or agenda were provided containing information necessary to inform members of the association of the matters to be discussed… At no time was the issue to add an amendment for short term rentals properly noticed or on an agenda for discussion before it became a ballot vote.”
Chronology of Events
October 23, 2017:
• Lewis Smith, William H. Winn, Kevin Barnett, and Chester Jay submit a formal request to the Board for a special members’ meeting.
• The stated purposes of the meeting were to:
1. Select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law.
2. Discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs.
3. Discuss a separate attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
October 24, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson responds to the request, expressing support for a meeting but stating that more than 30 days would be needed to gather supporting documentation.
October 31, 2017:
• A second group of homeowners, including Board members Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews, submits a request to add an item to the agenda of the forthcoming special meeting.
• Their request was to “amend the CC&Rs by adding a section prohibiting ‘Short Term Rentals’ and defining minimum time allowed for Rentals.”
November 5, 2017:
• The Board provides an agenda for a Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 8, 2017. The agenda did not include any item related to the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
November 8, 2017:
• The Board of Directors meeting is held.
• The Board votes to call a special members’ meeting before November 23, 2017, to address the two petitions.
• During the “BOARD INPUT” section, member Curt Carlson “spoke of past issues about short term renting,” but this was not a formal agenda item for discussion or action.
November 10, 2017:
• The Board emails Lewis Smith, acknowledging his petition and requesting a “narrative explanation from you on each of your subjects” by November 17, 2017, to prepare the meeting information package for all homeowners.
November 18, 2017:
• The Board sends an agenda for another Board of Directors meeting scheduled for November 20, 2017.
• The agenda lists “Review/approval of special meeting mailing package” as a topic but provides no specific details regarding the proposed amendment on short-term rentals.
December 1, 2017:
• Board President Doug Robinson emails all homeowners to explain the upcoming special meeting on December 16, 2017.
• The email states: “To avoid cost and time we put both petitions together and are having one meeting that will required [sic] all owners to vote for or against these two petitions.”
• The agenda for the December 16 meeting is attached, which explicitly lists a vote on prohibiting short-term rentals.
December 16, 2017:
• The special members’ meeting is held. A vote is taken on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals.
• Vote Result: 9 homeowners in favor, 6 homeowners against.
Legal Framework and Analysis
The case centered on the interpretation and application of Arizona Revised Statutes related to planned communities.
Key Statute: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
This statute governs meetings and notices for planned communities. The judge’s decision rested heavily on the policy outlined in subsection (F).
• § 33-1804(B): Requires that notice for any special meeting of members must state the purpose, including “the general nature of any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws.”
• § 33-1804(E)(1): Requires that the agenda for a Board of Directors meeting be made available to all members in attendance.
• § 33-1804(F): This subsection contains the state’s declaration of policy, which was central to the judge’s conclusion. It states:
Burden of Proof
The Petitioner, Lewis Smith, bore the burden of proving that the Respondent violated the statute by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as evidence that is sufficient “to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Findings and Conclusion of the Court
The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioner successfully met the burden of proof. The decision concludes that the agendas for the November 8 and November 20 Board of Directors meetings were legally insufficient.
Conclusion of Law #4:
“Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F) when it failed to provide notice or an agenda to all of its members of information that was reasonably necessary to inform the members that an amendment to the CC&Rs to prohibit short term members would be discussed at its special board of directors meetings held on November 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017.”
Final Order
• The Petitioner’s petition in the matter was granted.
• Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) was ordered to pay the Petitioner the filing fee.
• The Order is legally binding unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.
Parties and Legal Representation
Address
Legal Counsel
Petitioner
Lewis Smith 5459 E. Sorrento Dr. Long Beach, CA 90803
Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq. The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC 2122 E. Highland Ave. Ste. 250 Phoenix, AZ 85016-4779
Respondent
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. 411 Riverfront Dr. #7 Bullhead City, AZ 86442
William D. Condray, Esq. 2031 Highway 95 Ste. 2 Bullhead City, AZ 86442-6004
Study Guide – 18F-H1817020-REL
Study Guide: Smith v. Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case No. 18F-H1817020-REL between Petitioner Lewis Smith and Respondent Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms and entities involved in the matter.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817020-REL, and who represented them legally?
2. What was the three-part purpose of the special meeting requested by Lewis Smith and other homeowners on October 23, 2017?
3. A second petition was submitted on October 31, 2017. What was its purpose and who were the petitioners?
4. What key actions were taken regarding officers and a special meeting during the Board of Directors meeting on November 8, 2017?
5. What did the Desert Isle HOA Board demand from Lewis Smith in its email on November 10, 2017, to proceed with the special meeting?
6. What was the central allegation Lewis Smith made in his petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on December 5, 2017?
7. What was the outcome of the vote on the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at the December 16, 2017 special meeting?
8. Which specific section of the Arizona Revised Statutes did the Administrative Law Judge find the Board had violated?
9. According to the case documents, what is the definition of “preponderance of the evidence”?
10. What was the final ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson on May 29, 2018?
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Lewis Smith, and the Respondent, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Lewis Smith was represented by Mark J. Bainbridge, Esq., and the Desert Isle HOA was represented by William D. Condray, Esq.
2. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: to select and fund an attorney to update the HOA’s bylaws and CC&Rs to comply with current Arizona law; to discuss obtaining a reserve study for the association’s capital needs; and to discuss an attorney letter regarding HOA governance.
3. Greg Yacoubian, Doug Robinson, Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews submitted a request to amend the CC&Rs by adding a section to prohibit “Short Term Rentals.” They requested this subject be added to the agenda of the special meeting already requested by Lewis Smith’s group to save time and money.
4. At the November 8, 2017 meeting, a motion passed unanimously to remove the existing VP, treasurer, and secretary. New officers and assistants were elected, and another motion passed to call the special meeting requested by the two groups of owners before November 23, 2017.
5. The Board requested a “narrative explanation” from Lewis Smith for each of his proposed subjects. The Board stated it would expect four narratives plus any referenced attorney engagement letters and needed the materials by November 17, 2017, to prepare the special meeting package.
6. Lewis Smith alleged that the Desert Isle HOA Board members met to discuss and add an amendment prohibiting short-term rentals without conducting the meetings openly. He stated that no proper notice or agenda was provided to inform members of the matters to be discussed before the issue became a ballot vote.
7. At the December 16, 2017 meeting, the proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals was voted on by homeowners. Nine homeowners voted in favor of the amendment, and six homeowners voted against it.
8. The Judge found that the Board violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(F). The violation occurred when the Board failed to provide an agenda with information reasonably necessary to inform members that an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting short-term rentals would be discussed at the board meetings on November 8 and November 20, 2017.
9. The documents provide two definitions. The first is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The second, from Black’s Law Dictionary, is “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
10. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge’s order required the Respondent (Desert Isle HOA) to pay the Petitioner the filing fee required by statute.
Essay Questions
1. Construct a detailed timeline of events from the initial petition by Lewis Smith on October 23, 2017, to the final Administrative Law Judge Decision on May 29, 2018. Include all key meetings, communications, and legal filings mentioned in the documents.
2. Analyze the ways in which the Desert Isle Homeowners Association Board failed to comply with the open meeting policies outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804. Use specific examples from the meeting agendas and communications to support the analysis.
3. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden of proof for the violation and any affirmative defenses, and how the “preponderance of the evidence” standard was met by the Petitioner.
4. Compare and contrast the two petitions submitted by homeowners in October 2017. Evaluate how the Board handled each request and the procedural steps it took that ultimately led to the legal dispute.
5. Based on the findings of fact, evaluate the communication between the Desert Isle HOA Board and its members. Discuss the effectiveness and legality of the Board’s notices, agendas, and email correspondence regarding the special meeting and the proposed CC&R amendment.
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, in this case, Velva Moses-Thompson. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804
An Arizona state statute governing meetings in planned communities. It requires open meetings, proper notice to members (between 10 and 50 days prior), and agendas that are reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed or decided.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-2198.01
An Arizona state statute that permits an owner or planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or relevant statutes.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. At the time of the events, key members included Doug Robinson (President), Curt Carlson, and Mike Andrews.
Burden of Proof
The obligation to prove one’s assertion. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the violation, and the Respondent bore the burden for any affirmative defenses.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing documents of the Desert Isle planned community. The petitions submitted by homeowners sought to amend these documents.
Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Respondent in the case; the planned community organization and non-profit corporation responsible for managing the Desert Isle community.
Lewis Smith
The Petitioner in the case; a homeowner in the Desert Isle community who filed a petition against the HOA.
Notice of Hearing
A formal notification issued by the Department of Real Estate setting the date and location for an administrative hearing. In this case, it was issued on January 22, 2018.
Office of Administrative Hearings
The state tribunal where the hearing for this case was conducted.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Lewis Smith.
Post-hearing Briefs
Written legal arguments submitted by parties after a hearing has concluded. The record in this case was held open until May 9, 2018, to receive these briefs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.
Reserve Study
A study to determine an association’s long-term capital needs for its common areas. Lewis Smith’s petition requested a discussion about obtaining one.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Special Meeting
A meeting of association members called for a specific purpose outside of regularly scheduled meetings. Both petitions in this case requested a special meeting.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817020-REL
Select all sources
629473.pdf
629515.pdf
636989.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817020-REL
3 sources
The provided documents are related to a legal dispute between Lewis Smith and the Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc., heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The first two sources, 629473.pdf and 629515.pdf, are identical “Order Holding Record Open” documents dated April 18, 2018, which mandated that the parties submit post-hearing briefs by specific deadlines and required the Homeowners Association to clarify its objection to a specific exhibit. The final source, 636989.pdf, is the “Administrative Law Judge Decision” issued on May 29, 2018, which found that the Homeowners Association violated Arizona law by failing to properly inform members that they would be discussing a proposed amendment to prohibit short-term rentals at two special board meetings. Ultimately, the judge granted Lewis Smith’s petition and ordered the Homeowners Association to pay the required filing fee.
Based on 3 sources
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Lewis Smith(petitioner)
Mark J. Bainbridge(petitioner attorney) The Bainbridge Law Firm LLC
William H. Winn(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Kevin Barnett(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Chester Jay(homeowner) Submitted petition with Petitioner
Mike Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Kim Sharp(homeowner/representative) Representative for Kevin Barnett
Respondent Side
William D. Condray(respondent attorney)
Doug Robinson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President
Curt Carlson(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mike Andrews(board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc.
Greg Yacoubian(homeowner/board member) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Replaced Mike Andrews on 11/20/17
Judy Carlson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Treasurer
Terri Robinson(HOA officer) Desert Isle Homeowners Association, Inc. Secretary
Jamie Kelly(HOA attorney) Consulted on Special Meeting package
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ)
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
M.Aguirre(Clerk/Admin) Transmitting agent
LDettorre(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
AHansen(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
djones(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
DGardner(ADRE Staff) ADRE Recipient of transmission
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Additional Citations:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-2198.01
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 605735.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:29 (112.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817003-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Case No. 18F-H1817003-REL). The central conflict involved a petition filed by Mr. Carr, a condominium owner, alleging that the Association’s Board of Management violated Arizona’s open meeting law and engaged in financial mismanagement.
The final ruling was a partial victory for the petitioner. The judge found that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by failing to provide members with proper notice of board meetings where decisions were made to hire Kinney Management Services and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The Association admitted to this failure, citing a misunderstanding of the law, and pledged future compliance. As the prevailing party on this specific issue, Mr. Carr was awarded reimbursement for his $500 filing fee.
However, the judge dismissed all of Mr. Carr’s other allegations. The claim that a meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company violated the open meeting law was rejected, as the judge deemed it a valid emergency meeting exempt from notice requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Carr’s claims of financial mismanagement and inaccurate record-keeping in violation of the Association’s bylaws were not substantiated. The judge accepted the Association’s defense that alleged financial discrepancies stemmed from a change in accounting practices by a new management company, not from an actual deficit. No civil penalty was imposed on the Association.
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817003-REL
• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: David B. Carr
• Respondent: Sunset Plaza Condo Association
• Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson
• Hearing Date: November 21, 2017
• Decision Date: November 22, 2017
• Core Dispute: A petition filed by a condo owner alleging the association’s board violated state statutes and its own bylaws concerning open meetings, financial record-keeping, and the execution of contracts.
II. Petitioner’s Allegations (David B. Carr)
On August 14, 2017, Mr. Carr filed a petition outlining two primary grievances against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
A. Violation of Open Meeting Law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248)
Mr. Carr alleged that the Association’s Board of Management took official action without holding properly authorized and noticed board meetings. This resulted in unapproved contracts and expenditures.
Direct Quotation from Petition:
“SUNSET PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT TAKES ACTION WITHOUT HOLDING AUTHORIZED BOARD MEETING IN VIOLATION OF AZ STATUTE 33-1248. THESE UNAUTHORIZED MEETINGS HAVE RESULTED IN CONTRACTS WITH MANAGEMENT FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS. THESE CONTRACTS HAVE RESULTED IN EXPENSES NOT APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY CONDO OWNERS.”
• Specific Contracts Cited:
◦ Kinney Management (October 2016)
◦ Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016)
◦ Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016)
• Requested Remedy: Cancellation of all contracts entered into without a properly called board meeting and personal repayment of all related expenditures by the signatory.
B. Violation of Bylaws and Financial Mismanagement (Article XI)
Mr. Carr contended that the Association violated Article XI of its bylaws, which requires it to “keep correct and complete books and records of account.” He identified specific financial discrepancies based on his analysis of the Association’s financial statements.
• Alleged Reserve Fund Discrepancy: Mr. Carr claimed an “unexplained reserve deficit of $10,295.09” based on the following figures, noting there were no reported reserve expenses in 2016.
Financial Statement Item
Amount
2015 Year-End Reserve Equity
$10,295.09
2016 Income Statement Reserve Deposit
$9,180.00
2016 Year-End Balance Sheet Reserve Total
$2,295.44
• Additional Discrepancies:
◦ The 2016 year-end balance sheet failed to identify prior and current year operating equity.
◦ An “expanded 2016 balance sheet” calculation revealed a discrepancy of $2,808.42.
• Requested Remedy: A formal audit of the 2016 and 2017 financial statements and improved future reporting to identify reserve balances and homeowner equity.
III. Respondent’s Defense (Sunset Plaza Condo Association)
The Association, represented by Paige Marks, Esq., and through the testimony of board member Marilyn Gelroth, presented a defense against both allegations.
A. Response to Open Meeting Allegations
• Admission: The Association conceded that it “did not provide notice of its board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney and the Mulcahy firm.”
• Justification: This failure was attributed to the board’s misunderstanding of the open meeting law. The Association represented to the judge that it would abide by the law in the future.
• Emergency Meeting Exemption: The Association argued that the decision to hire Osselaer Management was made at a valid emergency board meeting on September 21, 2016.
◦ Timeline of Events: Kinney Management Services retracted its offer to manage the property on September 15, 2016, after receiving notice of a complaint Mr. Carr had filed against them with the Attorney General’s Office.
◦ Urgency: This retraction created an urgent need for a new management company. Ms. Gelroth testified that the board “needed to move quickly because members needed to know where to send payments.” This situation, they argued, constituted an emergency under the law.
B. Response to Financial Allegations
• Flawed Comparison: The Association contended that Mr. Carr’s financial analysis was fundamentally flawed because he “erroneously compared Sunset Plaza’s 2015 year end balance statement to its 2016 income statement,” which are two different types of financial records.
• Change in Accounting Methods: The primary reason for the apparent discrepancies was a change in how financial data was categorized.
◦ The previous management company, Kolby, separated reserve amounts in its financial statements.
◦ The new management company, Osselaer, “does not separate reserve amounts” and is not required by law to do so. This difference in reporting style accounted for the changes Mr. Carr identified as a deficit.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, found Ms. Gelroth’s testimony credible and issued a split decision, upholding one of Mr. Carr’s claims while dismissing the other.
A. Finding on Financial Mismanagement Allegation
Conclusion: Petition Dismissed The judge ruled that Mr. Carr “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws.” The Association’s explanation regarding the different accounting methods used by Kolby and Osselaer, and the flawed comparison of financial documents, was accepted as a valid defense.
B. Finding on Open Meeting Law Allegations
Conclusion: Partial Violation Confirmed
• Hiring of Osselaer Management (No Violation): The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 in this instance. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempts the board from the 48-hour notice requirement. The minutes of the meeting stated the reason for the emergency.
• Hiring of Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm (Violation Confirmed): The judge found that Mr. Carr “established by preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-1248” when it decided to hire these two firms. The Association did not dispute that it failed to inform members of these board meetings, which was a key factor in the ruling.
C. Final Order
Based on the findings and conclusions of law, the judge issued the following order:
1. Prevailing Party: Petitioner David B. Carr is deemed the prevailing party solely with regard to the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
2. Reimbursement: Sunset Plaza is ordered to pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
3. Dismissal: All other aspects of Mr. Carr’s petition are dismissed.
4. Penalty: No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in the matter.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817003-REL
Study Guide: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 18F-H1817003-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association. 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 case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source document.
1. What were the two primary allegations David B. Carr made against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association in his petition?
2. Identify the three specific contracts Mr. Carr claimed resulted from unauthorized board meetings.
3. Why did Kinney Management Services retract its offer to manage Sunset Plaza in September 2016?
4. What justification did Sunset Plaza provide for holding an emergency board meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company?
5. According to Sunset Plaza, why did Mr. Carr mistakenly believe there was a financial discrepancy in the association’s records?
6. Did the Sunset Plaza board admit to violating the open meeting law? If so, what was their explanation?
7. What authority do the association’s Declaration and Bylaws grant the Board of Management regarding contracts?
8. How does Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 define the requirements for an “emergency meeting” of a board of directors?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding Sunset Plaza’s hiring of the Osselaer Management Company?
10. What specific orders were issued against Sunset Plaza as a result of the judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. David B. Carr alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by holding unauthorized board meetings to enter into contracts. He also alleged the association violated Article XI of its bylaws by failing to keep correct and complete books and records, citing an unexplained deficit in reserve accounts.
2. Mr. Carr’s petition identified contracts with Kinney Management (October 2016), Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016), and the Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016). He argued these contracts were entered into without a properly called board meeting and resulted in unapproved expenses.
3. Kinney Management Services retracted its acceptance of Sunset Plaza’s offer after receiving a complaint that Mr. Carr had filed against Kinney with the Attorney General’s Office. This information was stated in a letter from Kinney to Sunset Plaza on September 15, 2016.
4. The board held an emergency meeting because after Kinney retracted its offer, they needed to move quickly to hire a new management company. Board member Marilyn Gelroth testified it was important to have a single company handle all affairs and that members needed to know where to send payments without delay.
5. Sunset Plaza contended that Mr. Carr erroneously compared two different types of financial records: the 2015 year-end balance sheet and the 2016 income statement. Furthermore, the association argued that the new management company, Osselaer, categorized financials differently than the previous company, Kolby, and did not separate out reserve amounts.
6. Yes, Sunset Plaza conceded that it did not provide notice to its members of the board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney Management and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The association contended that it did not understand the open meeting law at the time and represented to the Tribunal that it would abide by the law in the future.
7. The Declaration grants the Board the power to “enter into contracts” and generally have the powers of an apartment house manager. Article VII, section 11 of the Bylaws states the Board of Management “shall enter into contracts on behalf of the association.”
8. The statute allows an emergency meeting to be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the required forty-eight hours’ notice. At such a meeting, the board may only act on emergency matters, and the minutes must state the reason necessitating the emergency.
9. The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 when it hired Osselaer. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempted the board from the standard open meeting notification requirements.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner, David Carr, be deemed the prevailing party regarding the violation of the open meeting law. It was further ordered that Sunset Plaza pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days, and his petition was dismissed in all other respects.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. How did David B. Carr meet this burden for his claim about the open meeting law but fail to meet it for his claim about financial mismanagement?
2. Discuss the legal requirements and exceptions for board meetings under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248. Use the board’s decisions to hire Kinney Management, the Mulcahy Law Firm, and Osselaer Management Company as distinct examples to illustrate the application of this law.
3. Evaluate Sunset Plaza’s defense regarding the financial discrepancies alleged by Mr. Carr. Why was this defense successful, and what does it reveal about the potential for confusion when an association changes management companies and accounting methods?
4. Examine the powers and duties of the Sunset Plaza Board of Management as outlined in its Declaration and Bylaws. How do these documents support the board’s authority to enter into contracts, and how does that authority intersect with the procedural requirements of state law?
5. Based on the judge’s decision, critique the actions and governance of the Sunset Plaza board. What were their key procedural mistakes, what was their stated reason for these errors, and what were the ultimate consequences of their violation of the open meeting law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Velva Moses-Thompson, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders a decision based on evidence and law.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248
An Arizona statute, also known as the open meeting law, which requires that meetings of a unit owners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. It outlines requirements for meeting notices, member participation, and exceptions for emergency meetings.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations adopted by an association to govern its internal management. In this case, Article XI requires the association to keep correct and complete books, records, and minutes.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the judge applies the relevant statutes and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a legal judgment.
Declaration
The legal document that creates a condominium or planned community. The Sunset Plaza Declaration grants the Board of Management the power to enter into contracts and manage the association’s affairs.
Emergency Meeting
A type of board meeting that can be called without the standard 48-hour notice to discuss business that cannot be delayed. Action at such a meeting is limited to emergency matters only.
Findings of Facts
The section of the decision that outlines the factual history of the dispute as determined by the judge based on testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
The final, binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party, required Sunset Plaza to refund his filing fee, and dismissed the other parts of his petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner was David B. Carr.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins the legal case or a significant issue within it. The judge declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party regarding the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817003-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817003-REL
1 source
This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision resulting from a hearing held on November 21, 2017, between Petitioner David B. Carr and the Respondent Sunset Plaza Condo Association. Mr. Carr brought a petition alleging that the Condo Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248) and its own bylaws by taking action without authorized board meetings and exhibiting financial discrepancies, specifically concerning reserve funds. The decision found that the Condo Association did violate the open meeting law when hiring Kinney and the Mulcahy law firms but was exempt from the open meeting requirement for the emergency meeting that resulted in hiring Osselaer Management Company. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the statutory violation and was awarded a filing fee of $500.00, though all other aspects of the petition were dismissed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David B. Carr(petitioner) Sunset Plaza Condo Association (member)
Respondent Side
Paige Marks(attorney) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Marilyn Gelroth(board member) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Testified at hearing
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Decision transmitted to her firm; firm hired by Respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE
LDettorre(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
DGardner(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
ncano(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Additional Citations:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 41-2198.01
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1817003-REL Decision – 605735.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:59 (112.9 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817003-REL
Administrative Hearing Briefing: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association (Case No. 18F-H1817003-REL). The central conflict involved a petition filed by Mr. Carr, a condominium owner, alleging that the Association’s Board of Management violated Arizona’s open meeting law and engaged in financial mismanagement.
The final ruling was a partial victory for the petitioner. The judge found that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by failing to provide members with proper notice of board meetings where decisions were made to hire Kinney Management Services and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The Association admitted to this failure, citing a misunderstanding of the law, and pledged future compliance. As the prevailing party on this specific issue, Mr. Carr was awarded reimbursement for his $500 filing fee.
However, the judge dismissed all of Mr. Carr’s other allegations. The claim that a meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company violated the open meeting law was rejected, as the judge deemed it a valid emergency meeting exempt from notice requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Carr’s claims of financial mismanagement and inaccurate record-keeping in violation of the Association’s bylaws were not substantiated. The judge accepted the Association’s defense that alleged financial discrepancies stemmed from a change in accounting practices by a new management company, not from an actual deficit. No civil penalty was imposed on the Association.
I. Case Overview
• Case Number: 18F-H1817003-REL
• Forum: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
• Petitioner: David B. Carr
• Respondent: Sunset Plaza Condo Association
• Administrative Law Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson
• Hearing Date: November 21, 2017
• Decision Date: November 22, 2017
• Core Dispute: A petition filed by a condo owner alleging the association’s board violated state statutes and its own bylaws concerning open meetings, financial record-keeping, and the execution of contracts.
II. Petitioner’s Allegations (David B. Carr)
On August 14, 2017, Mr. Carr filed a petition outlining two primary grievances against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
A. Violation of Open Meeting Law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248)
Mr. Carr alleged that the Association’s Board of Management took official action without holding properly authorized and noticed board meetings. This resulted in unapproved contracts and expenditures.
Direct Quotation from Petition:
“SUNSET PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF MANAGEMENT TAKES ACTION WITHOUT HOLDING AUTHORIZED BOARD MEETING IN VIOLATION OF AZ STATUTE 33-1248. THESE UNAUTHORIZED MEETINGS HAVE RESULTED IN CONTRACTS WITH MANAGEMENT FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS. THESE CONTRACTS HAVE RESULTED IN EXPENSES NOT APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY CONDO OWNERS.”
• Specific Contracts Cited:
◦ Kinney Management (October 2016)
◦ Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016)
◦ Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016)
• Requested Remedy: Cancellation of all contracts entered into without a properly called board meeting and personal repayment of all related expenditures by the signatory.
B. Violation of Bylaws and Financial Mismanagement (Article XI)
Mr. Carr contended that the Association violated Article XI of its bylaws, which requires it to “keep correct and complete books and records of account.” He identified specific financial discrepancies based on his analysis of the Association’s financial statements.
• Alleged Reserve Fund Discrepancy: Mr. Carr claimed an “unexplained reserve deficit of $10,295.09” based on the following figures, noting there were no reported reserve expenses in 2016.
Financial Statement Item
Amount
2015 Year-End Reserve Equity
$10,295.09
2016 Income Statement Reserve Deposit
$9,180.00
2016 Year-End Balance Sheet Reserve Total
$2,295.44
• Additional Discrepancies:
◦ The 2016 year-end balance sheet failed to identify prior and current year operating equity.
◦ An “expanded 2016 balance sheet” calculation revealed a discrepancy of $2,808.42.
• Requested Remedy: A formal audit of the 2016 and 2017 financial statements and improved future reporting to identify reserve balances and homeowner equity.
III. Respondent’s Defense (Sunset Plaza Condo Association)
The Association, represented by Paige Marks, Esq., and through the testimony of board member Marilyn Gelroth, presented a defense against both allegations.
A. Response to Open Meeting Allegations
• Admission: The Association conceded that it “did not provide notice of its board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney and the Mulcahy firm.”
• Justification: This failure was attributed to the board’s misunderstanding of the open meeting law. The Association represented to the judge that it would abide by the law in the future.
• Emergency Meeting Exemption: The Association argued that the decision to hire Osselaer Management was made at a valid emergency board meeting on September 21, 2016.
◦ Timeline of Events: Kinney Management Services retracted its offer to manage the property on September 15, 2016, after receiving notice of a complaint Mr. Carr had filed against them with the Attorney General’s Office.
◦ Urgency: This retraction created an urgent need for a new management company. Ms. Gelroth testified that the board “needed to move quickly because members needed to know where to send payments.” This situation, they argued, constituted an emergency under the law.
B. Response to Financial Allegations
• Flawed Comparison: The Association contended that Mr. Carr’s financial analysis was fundamentally flawed because he “erroneously compared Sunset Plaza’s 2015 year end balance statement to its 2016 income statement,” which are two different types of financial records.
• Change in Accounting Methods: The primary reason for the apparent discrepancies was a change in how financial data was categorized.
◦ The previous management company, Kolby, separated reserve amounts in its financial statements.
◦ The new management company, Osselaer, “does not separate reserve amounts” and is not required by law to do so. This difference in reporting style accounted for the changes Mr. Carr identified as a deficit.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, found Ms. Gelroth’s testimony credible and issued a split decision, upholding one of Mr. Carr’s claims while dismissing the other.
A. Finding on Financial Mismanagement Allegation
Conclusion: Petition Dismissed The judge ruled that Mr. Carr “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws.” The Association’s explanation regarding the different accounting methods used by Kolby and Osselaer, and the flawed comparison of financial documents, was accepted as a valid defense.
B. Finding on Open Meeting Law Allegations
Conclusion: Partial Violation Confirmed
• Hiring of Osselaer Management (No Violation): The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 in this instance. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempts the board from the 48-hour notice requirement. The minutes of the meeting stated the reason for the emergency.
• Hiring of Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm (Violation Confirmed): The judge found that Mr. Carr “established by preponderance of the evidence that Sunset Plaza violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-1248” when it decided to hire these two firms. The Association did not dispute that it failed to inform members of these board meetings, which was a key factor in the ruling.
C. Final Order
Based on the findings and conclusions of law, the judge issued the following order:
1. Prevailing Party: Petitioner David B. Carr is deemed the prevailing party solely with regard to the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
2. Reimbursement: Sunset Plaza is ordered to pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days of the order.
3. Dismissal: All other aspects of Mr. Carr’s petition are dismissed.
4. Penalty: No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in the matter.
Study Guide – 18F-H1817003-REL
Study Guide: Carr v. Sunset Plaza Condo Association (No. 18F-H1817003-REL)
This study guide provides a review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of David B. Carr versus the Sunset Plaza Condo Association. 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 case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source document.
1. What were the two primary allegations David B. Carr made against the Sunset Plaza Condo Association in his petition?
2. Identify the three specific contracts Mr. Carr claimed resulted from unauthorized board meetings.
3. Why did Kinney Management Services retract its offer to manage Sunset Plaza in September 2016?
4. What justification did Sunset Plaza provide for holding an emergency board meeting to hire Osselaer Management Company?
5. According to Sunset Plaza, why did Mr. Carr mistakenly believe there was a financial discrepancy in the association’s records?
6. Did the Sunset Plaza board admit to violating the open meeting law? If so, what was their explanation?
7. What authority do the association’s Declaration and Bylaws grant the Board of Management regarding contracts?
8. How does Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 define the requirements for an “emergency meeting” of a board of directors?
9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding Sunset Plaza’s hiring of the Osselaer Management Company?
10. What specific orders were issued against Sunset Plaza as a result of the judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. David B. Carr alleged that the Sunset Plaza Condo Association violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 by holding unauthorized board meetings to enter into contracts. He also alleged the association violated Article XI of its bylaws by failing to keep correct and complete books and records, citing an unexplained deficit in reserve accounts.
2. Mr. Carr’s petition identified contracts with Kinney Management (October 2016), Osselaer Real Estate (September 2016), and the Mulcahy Law Firm (May 2016). He argued these contracts were entered into without a properly called board meeting and resulted in unapproved expenses.
3. Kinney Management Services retracted its acceptance of Sunset Plaza’s offer after receiving a complaint that Mr. Carr had filed against Kinney with the Attorney General’s Office. This information was stated in a letter from Kinney to Sunset Plaza on September 15, 2016.
4. The board held an emergency meeting because after Kinney retracted its offer, they needed to move quickly to hire a new management company. Board member Marilyn Gelroth testified it was important to have a single company handle all affairs and that members needed to know where to send payments without delay.
5. Sunset Plaza contended that Mr. Carr erroneously compared two different types of financial records: the 2015 year-end balance sheet and the 2016 income statement. Furthermore, the association argued that the new management company, Osselaer, categorized financials differently than the previous company, Kolby, and did not separate out reserve amounts.
6. Yes, Sunset Plaza conceded that it did not provide notice to its members of the board meetings when it decided to hire Kinney Management and the Mulcahy Law Firm. The association contended that it did not understand the open meeting law at the time and represented to the Tribunal that it would abide by the law in the future.
7. The Declaration grants the Board the power to “enter into contracts” and generally have the powers of an apartment house manager. Article VII, section 11 of the Bylaws states the Board of Management “shall enter into contracts on behalf of the association.”
8. The statute allows an emergency meeting to be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the required forty-eight hours’ notice. At such a meeting, the board may only act on emergency matters, and the minutes must state the reason necessitating the emergency.
9. The judge concluded that Sunset Plaza did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248 when it hired Osselaer. The decision was made at a legitimate emergency board meeting, which exempted the board from the standard open meeting notification requirements.
10. The judge ordered that the Petitioner, David Carr, be deemed the prevailing party regarding the violation of the open meeting law. It was further ordered that Sunset Plaza pay Mr. Carr his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days, and his petition was dismissed in all other respects.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied in this case. How did David B. Carr meet this burden for his claim about the open meeting law but fail to meet it for his claim about financial mismanagement?
2. Discuss the legal requirements and exceptions for board meetings under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248. Use the board’s decisions to hire Kinney Management, the Mulcahy Law Firm, and Osselaer Management Company as distinct examples to illustrate the application of this law.
3. Evaluate Sunset Plaza’s defense regarding the financial discrepancies alleged by Mr. Carr. Why was this defense successful, and what does it reveal about the potential for confusion when an association changes management companies and accounting methods?
4. Examine the powers and duties of the Sunset Plaza Board of Management as outlined in its Declaration and Bylaws. How do these documents support the board’s authority to enter into contracts, and how does that authority intersect with the procedural requirements of state law?
5. Based on the judge’s decision, critique the actions and governance of the Sunset Plaza board. What were their key procedural mistakes, what was their stated reason for these errors, and what were the ultimate consequences of their violation of the open meeting law?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Velva Moses-Thompson, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders a decision based on evidence and law.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248
An Arizona statute, also known as the open meeting law, which requires that meetings of a unit owners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. It outlines requirements for meeting notices, member participation, and exceptions for emergency meetings.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations adopted by an association to govern its internal management. In this case, Article XI requires the association to keep correct and complete books, records, and minutes.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the decision where the judge applies the relevant statutes and legal principles to the established facts of the case to reach a legal judgment.
Declaration
The legal document that creates a condominium or planned community. The Sunset Plaza Declaration grants the Board of Management the power to enter into contracts and manage the association’s affairs.
Emergency Meeting
A type of board meeting that can be called without the standard 48-hour notice to discuss business that cannot be delayed. Action at such a meeting is limited to emergency matters only.
Findings of Facts
The section of the decision that outlines the factual history of the dispute as determined by the judge based on testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
The final, binding ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party, required Sunset Plaza to refund his filing fee, and dismissed the other parts of his petition.
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Petitioner was David B. Carr.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Prevailing Party
The party who wins the legal case or a significant issue within it. The judge declared Mr. Carr the prevailing party regarding the violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1248.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Sunset Plaza Condo Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1817003-REL
⚖️
No emoji found
Loading
18F-H1817003-REL
1 source
This source is the Administrative Law Judge Decision resulting from a hearing held on November 21, 2017, between Petitioner David B. Carr and the Respondent Sunset Plaza Condo Association. Mr. Carr brought a petition alleging that the Condo Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248) and its own bylaws by taking action without authorized board meetings and exhibiting financial discrepancies, specifically concerning reserve funds. The decision found that the Condo Association did violate the open meeting law when hiring Kinney and the Mulcahy law firms but was exempt from the open meeting requirement for the emergency meeting that resulted in hiring Osselaer Management Company. Ultimately, the Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party regarding the statutory violation and was awarded a filing fee of $500.00, though all other aspects of the petition were dismissed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
David B. Carr(petitioner) Sunset Plaza Condo Association (member)
Respondent Side
Paige Marks(attorney) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Marilyn Gelroth(board member) Sunset Plaza Condo Association Testified at hearing
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Decision transmitted to her firm; firm hired by Respondent
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE
LDettorre(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
DGardner(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
ncano(ADRE staff) ADRE Received electronic transmission
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1817003-REL
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2017-11-22
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
David B. Carr
Counsel
—
Respondent
Sunset Plaza Condo Association
Counsel
Paige Marks, Esq.
Alleged Violations
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party only regarding the Respondent's violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248 (failure to provide notice for hiring Mulcahy and Kinney). Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee. All other claims, including the alleged Bylaws violation and the violation related to hiring Osselaer, were dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the Bylaws violation. The HOA successfully argued that the hiring of Osselaer was conducted during a valid emergency board meeting, exempting it from open meeting notice requirements.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Kinney and Mulcahy)
Sunset Plaza decided to hire Kinney Management and Mulcahy Law Firm at board meetings without informing its members of those meetings.
Orders: Respondent Sunset Plaza must pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Violation of Open Meeting Law (Hiring Osselaer)
Petitioner alleged violation regarding the hiring of Osselaer Management Company, but the ALJ found the association was exempt because the decision was made at a valid emergency board meeting.
Orders: Petition dismissed in this respect.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 33-1248
Failure to keep correct and complete books and records of account
Petitioner alleged Sunset Plaza failed to keep accurate financial records, pointing out discrepancies and an unexplained reserve deficit between 2015 and 2016 balance sheets.
Orders: Petition dismissed in all other respects.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Article XI of Sunset Plaza’s Bylaws
Analytics Highlights
Topics: open meeting violation, emergency meeting, governing documents, financial records, condominium association
