**Case Title:** No. 21F-H2120027-REL
**Parties:** Thomas W. Sweeney (Petitioner) v. Warner Ranch Landing Association (Respondent)
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Main Issue**
The central issue in this hearing was whether the Respondent homeowners association (HOA) increased its 2021 annual assessments in violation of Article VIII, Section 8.1.5 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Key Facts and Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner contested a 10% increase in the 2021 annual assessments, arguing that it violated Section 8.1.5 of the CC&Rs. He interpreted the governing documents to mean that a 5% maximum allowable annual increase applies only if the Consumer Price Index (CPI) no longer exists. The Petitioner did not submit supplementary evidence to support his claim, relying solely on his personal interpretation of the CC&Rs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** Representatives for the HOA testified that Section 8.1.5 allows the maximum annual assessment to increase automatically each year by the *greater* of the CPI or 5%. Because the board elected not to raise dues to the absolute maximum in prior years, the cumulative permitted maximum assessment for 2021 would theoretically be over $4,200. Therefore, the 2021 assessment, even with the 10% year-over-year increase, remained more than $2,300 below the maximum amount allowed under the CC&Rs. Additionally, the Respondent noted that Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803(A)) permits an HOA to increase regular assessments up to 20% over the preceding year without a member vote.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge evaluated the case based on the plain language of Section 8.1.5 of the CC&Rs. The judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly permit the HOA to increase the maximum annual assessment by the greater of the CPI percentage increase *or* 5%, directly contradicting the Petitioner's interpretation. By law, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the community documents.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. As a result, the Petition was officially dismissed.