Tag Archives: ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1

Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 24F-H035-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jesse Freeman Counsel —
Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:35 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:40 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:43 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:50 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:53 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:57 (146.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)

This summary details the hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Jesse Freeman, Petitioner, vs. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association, Respondent*, Case No. 24F-H035-REL. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on July 24, 2024, concerning an HOA dispute.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core issue was whether the Respondent, Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association (the Association), failed to comply with Article II, Section 8 of its Bylaws, as purportedly amended on October 18, 2000, by refusing to hold a subsequent membership meeting with a diminished quorum.

The dispute arose after the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, failed to reach the required 25% quorum (only 89 votes were present, short of the 126 needed). Petitioner Jesse Freeman alleged that when quorum failed, the membership made and seconded a motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting 60 days later with a reduced quorum requirement of 15% (76 votes), but the Association's Board President and attorney abruptly denied the motion and ended the meeting. Petitioner sought an Order compelling the Association to hold a meeting with the 15% diminished quorum requirement.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Freeman, a property owner and former board member, argued that the amendment decreasing the quorum requirement for subsequent meetings to 15% was valid, asserting that its validity was established because it was dated October 18, 2000, and archived on the Association’s public website (Exhibit Y). Petitioner contended that the bylaw language was "compulsory" and mandated that the membership be allowed to adjourn and reconvene the meeting under the diminished quorum rule.

Respondent’s Case:

Respondent’s counsel and witnesses (Community Manager Brandon Moore and former Board President Chris Redden) presented two main arguments.

  1. Invalidity: The amendment was never formally adopted, ratified, or implemented by the Association. Witnesses testified that there were no ballots, meeting minutes, signatures, or stamps in the Association's records to substantiate the amendment’s validity. Furthermore, Petitioner conceded that during his two-year tenure on the Board (2017-2018), the Board never utilized the purported amendment, despite often failing to meet quorum, supporting the argument that the document was either a failed proposal or unknown.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: Even if the amendment were valid, its language is not mandatory. The amendment states that the second meeting "shall require fifteen percent quorum". Respondent argued that this language simply sets the quorum requirement *if* a second meeting is held; it does not contain binding words (such as "shall" or "must" directed at the Association) that compel the Board to *call* a second meeting.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof—that the contention was "more probably true than not".

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner's petition.

The legal conclusions supporting the denial were:

  1. Lack of Corroboration: Petitioner failed to present sufficient credible evidence that the Association had voted on, ratified, or implemented the amendment to Bylaw Article II, Section 8. The document’s mere presence on the Association’s website was insufficient to establish validity.
  2. Non-Compulsory Language: The ALJ concluded that the language of the purported amendment was not compulsory. It does not contain verbiage inherently binding, such as "shall" or "must," that would require the Respondent to hold a second meeting.

The ALJ Decision was issued on August 09, 2024.

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • website
  • validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • governing documents
  • signatures
  • enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • quorum
  • bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

  • past practice
  • board conduct
  • validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
24F-H035-REL
Case Title
Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2024-08-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
    Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
  • Nicholas Belisi (witness)
    Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
  • Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
    Brown Property Management
    Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
  • Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
  • Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
    Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
    Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
    ADRE
    Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
  • OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted documents/Final Order.

Other Participants

  • Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
    Observed the hearing.
  • Millie Lton (unknown)
    Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.

Matthew E Thompson v. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H003-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-12-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Matthew E Thompson Counsel —
Respondent Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Beth Mulcahy, Esq. & Haidyn Di Lorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
  • Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
  • Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:51 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:55:55 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:02 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:56:09 (53.9 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001043.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:08 (58.8 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1001154.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:14 (7.1 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 1021049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:17 (133.5 KB)

23F-H003-REL Decision – 999666.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:50:20 (53.9 KB)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings in the matter of *Matthew E Thompson, Petitioner, vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc., Respondent* (No. 23F-H003-REL). The hearing, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark, was held on December 12, 2022.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Matthew Thompson (a homeowner and former Board member), filed a single-issue petition alleging the Deer Valley Homeowners Association (HOA) violated community documents by failing to replace dead trees within the community. Petitioner paid a $500 filing fee for the adjudication of this single issue.

Petitioner's Position: The HOA has an obligation to replace dead or missing trees, relying on provisions within the Deer Valley CC&Rs (subdivision declaration) and the Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations concerning "maintenance" and the Board's role in setting "priorities for plant and tree replacement". Petitioner asserted that the value of his property was negatively impacted by the approximately 59 missing or dying trees on neighboring lots, arguing he has standing because he pays common assessments for landscape maintenance.

Respondent's Position: The HOA denied the allegations. The current Board interprets the Deer Valley CC&Rs as *not* requiring tree replacement, noting that the documents only mention maintenance and specifically limit replacement obligations to irrigation parts. The Board's policy is to replace trees only if the death or damage is proven to be caused by the Association’s negligence or willful maintenance.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Procedural Matters: At the outset, Respondent's counsel raised motions to dismiss.

  1. Jurisdiction/Relief: Counsel sought clarification that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and OAH lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief or monetary damages. The ALJ confirmed that the only relief available was an order for a party to abide by specific documents, denying the requested injunctive relief of compelling the HOA to plant 10 trees annually.
  2. Standing (Injury in Fact): Respondent argued Petitioner lacked standing because he failed to allege a personalized injury, as no trees were missing or dead on his personal lot, and he cannot pursue disputes on behalf of other homeowners.
  3. Wrong Party: Respondent argued that the minimum tree requirement cited by Petitioner originated in the Sun City West Declaration (the Master Association), which Deer Valley HOA (the sub-association) is not responsible for enforcing.

Motion for Summary Judgment: After Petitioner presented his case-in-chief, Respondent renewed the motion, arguing that the evidence showed, as a matter of law, that the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require tree replacement.

ALJ Ruling on Motions: The ALJ denied the motions to dismiss/summary judgment, citing an issue of fact regarding the interpretation of the CC&Rs and the necessity of establishing a definitive record.

Witness Testimony: The HOA Board President, Charles Dean Otto, testified that the Board does not interpret replacement as a requirement and respects homeowners who do not want more trees on their lots. He noted that the requirement of four trees per lot was in the Master Association documents, potentially intended for marketing, and was not intended to be maintained in perpetuity by the Deer Valley HOA.

Legal Points and Final Outcome

The ALJ, after reviewing the record, issued a FINAL ORDER denying the Petitioner's petition.

Legal Conclusions:

  • Burden of Proof: Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the cited community documents.
  • Lack of Standing (Aggrieved Party): Petitioner was found not to be an "aggrieved party" because he admitted that he brought the petition "on behalf of all community members" and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.

Alj Quote

The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance vs Replacement
  • CC&Rs
  • Landscaping

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?

Short Answer

No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.

Legal Basis

Standing / Aggrieved Party Status

Topic Tags

  • Standing
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.

Detailed Answer

Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.

Legal Basis

Evidence / Justiciable Issues

Topic Tags

  • Property Value
  • Evidence

Question

If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Scope of Hearing

Question

Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?

Short Answer

No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.

Detailed Answer

The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.

Alj Quote

There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Trespass/Authority

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?

Short Answer

Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.

Detailed Answer

While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association

Legal Basis

Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Master Association

Case

Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.

Alj Quote

The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.

Legal Basis

Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • Maintenance vs Replacement
  • CC&Rs
  • Landscaping

Question

Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?

Short Answer

No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.

Legal Basis

Standing / Aggrieved Party Status

Topic Tags

  • Standing
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.

Detailed Answer

Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.

Alj Quote

Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.

Legal Basis

Evidence / Justiciable Issues

Topic Tags

  • Property Value
  • Evidence

Question

If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?

Short Answer

No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.

Detailed Answer

Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Scope of Hearing

Question

Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?

Short Answer

No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.

Detailed Answer

The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.

Alj Quote

There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.

Legal Basis

Property Rights / HOA Authority

Topic Tags

  • Homeowner Rights
  • Trespass/Authority

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Evidence

Question

Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?

Short Answer

Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.

Detailed Answer

While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.

Alj Quote

The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association

Legal Basis

Governing Documents Hierarchy

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Master Association

Case

Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Matthew E Thompson (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
  • Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
    Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
  • Charles Dean Otto (Board President; witness)
    Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
    Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge

Other Participants

  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Dan Gardener (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Constituent Services Manager
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitted electronic order
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
    OAH
    Transmitted Minute Entry
  • Sam Muza (Contractor President)
    Verde Valley Landscape Services
    Signed contract with HOA
  • Charlene Frost (homeowner)
    Filed Request for Exterior Change application
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of official correspondence

Susan E Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Assocciation

Posted on by

Case Summary

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

Parties & Counsel

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

Alleged Violations

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

Outcome Summary

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

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

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

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020057-REL Decision – 839845.pdf

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

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

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

Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

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

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

Case Overview

Case Name

Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020057-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Adam D. Stone

Petitioner

Susan E. Abbass

Respondent

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

Hearing Date

November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

December 1, 2020

Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Central Claim

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

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

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

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Defense and Actions

Respondent’s Position

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

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

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

Actions Taken by the HOA

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural History and Rehearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Burden of Proof

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

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

Key Judicial Determinations

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

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

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

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

Final Order and Implications

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

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

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

Study Guide: Abbass v. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

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

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Suggested Essay Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S.

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

Arizona Department of Real Estate

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

Burden of Proof

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

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

Office of Administrative Hearings

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

Order Granting Rehearing

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

Petitioner

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

Planned Community

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

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Prevailing Party

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

Respondent

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

Tribunal

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

Briefing Document: Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

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

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

Case Overview

Case Name

Susan E Abbass vs. 10000 North Central Homeowners Association

Case Number

20F-H2020057-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

In the Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

Administrative Law Judge

Adam D. Stone

Petitioner

Susan E. Abbass

Respondent

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

Hearing Date

November 24, 2020 (Rehearing)

Decision Date

December 1, 2020

Core Dispute and Allegations

Petitioner’s Central Claim

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

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

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

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence

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

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

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

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

Respondent’s Defense and Actions

Respondent’s Position

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

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

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

Actions Taken by the HOA

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural History and Rehearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

Burden of Proof

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

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

Key Judicial Determinations

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

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

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

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

Final Order and Implications

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

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

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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