**Case Summary: *Larry Kline v. The Foothills Community Association***
**Case No:** 20F-H2019012-REL
**Date of Decision:** January 2, 2020
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)

**Proceedings**
Petitioner Larry Kline filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that The Foothills Community Association (Respondent) failed to repair a retaining wall in violation of the community's governing documents. The Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, where Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over an evidentiary hearing on December 19, 2019,.

**Key Facts**
* The Petitioner owns Lot 22 in the Club House Estates subdivision,.
* A retaining wall located on the rear perimeter of the Petitioner’s property separates the lot from the Foothills Golf Course.
* The wall suffered significant damage due to failing anchors, with repair costs estimated between $30,000 and $40,000,.
* The Petitioner sought to have the Association cover the repair costs, citing an easement agreement,.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The primary legal issue was whether the Association violated Association Bylaws Article IV, Section 4.2(p) by refusing to repair the wall.

* **Petitioner’s Arguments:** Kline argued that the Association was responsible for maintenance based on the CC&Rs, a recorded "Reservation of Easement," and a Special Warranty Deed,. He contended that these documents conveyed liability to the Association.

* **Respondent’s Arguments:** The Association argued it had no duty to maintain the wall because the structure is not located in a Common Area. The Association’s witness testified that while the Association owns a nearby Common Area ("Tract A"), there is no legal or physical relationship between Tract A and the retaining wall on Lot 22,. The Association asserted that under the Bylaws, maintenance responsibility for party fences/walls falls to the owners of the contiguous parcels (the Petitioner and the golf course owner), not the Association.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation. The decision relied on the following points:
1. **Location:** The wall is located on the Petitioner's property and the adjacent golf course, neither of which is owned by the Association.
2. **Lack of Recorded Duty:** The Petitioner failed to provide