**Case Summary: *de Scheel v. Sandpiper Scottsdale Association, Inc.***
**Case Number:** 19F-H1919048-REL
**Forum:** Arizona Department of Real Estate, Office of Administrative Hearings,
**Date of Decision:** June 19, 2019

**Key Facts and Procedural History**
Petitioner Peter de Scheel, a homeowner in the Sandpiper community, filed a petition against Respondent Sandpiper Scottsdale Association, Inc. (the HOA) regarding a dispute over maintenance responsibilities,. In August 2018, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that he was required to repair disintegrating "architectural wood beams" on his property. The Petitioner contended that the Respondent was responsible for these repairs under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and filed a petition alleging a violation of Article VI, Section 1 and Article V, Section 1. An evidentiary hearing was held on May 30, 2019.

**Main Issues**
The primary legal issue was whether the maintenance of "architectural wood beams" is the responsibility of the Association or the individual homeowner under the CC&Rs,. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the beams were considered "exterior maintenance" (Association responsibility) or part of the "roof" (Homeowner responsibility),.

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The HOA argued that homeowners are responsible for maintaining their property, including roofs, and contended that architectural beams are part of the roof,. The HOA President testified that she viewed the beams as part of the roof structure, despite a newsletter she issued that listed "roofs" and "architectural beams" as separate items. The HOA also argued that historical practice required owners to repair roofs.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner did not dispute that homeowners must maintain roofs but argued that architectural beams are not part of the roof. He argued that the beams are part of the exterior building surfaces, and because Article V, Section 1 does not explicitly list beams in its exceptions (unlike roofs, glass, and landscaping), the Association is responsible for their maintenance,.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson analyzed the CC&Rs, which state the Association shall provide exterior maintenance, including painting, repairing, and replacing exterior building surfaces. The Judge noted that while the CC&Rs expressly exclude "roofs" from the Association's duties, there is no specific exception for architectural beams,.

The Judge found that the Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that architectural beams are part of the roof. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent's own communications distinguished between roofs and architectural beams. Consequently, the evidence established that the beams are part of the exterior, making them the Association's responsibility under Article V, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1(c).

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner.
* **Holding:** The Respondent violated the CC&Rs by requiring the Petitioner to repair the architectural beams,.
* **Order:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.