Jacobson III, Clayton vs. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-H088016-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2008-06-12
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $750.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clayton Jacobson III Counsel
Respondent Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

Respondent failed to appear and was deemed to have admitted to 15 violations by default. Petitioner was awarded a full refund of the $2,000 filing fee and Respondent was assessed $750 in civil penalties. Five other allegations were dismissed because they occurred prior to the enactment of the relevant jurisdictional statutes.

Why this result: Five specific allegations were dismissed because the events occurred prior to the enactment of A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.

Key Issues & Findings

Multiple Violations (Default Judgment)

Respondent failed to answer the petition and was deemed to have admitted to 15 validly filed violations.

Orders: Respondent ordered to abide by statutes and documents; pay $750 civil penalty ($50 per violation); refund $2,000 filing fee.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $750.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41.2198.02(A)

Voting and Record Keeping Violations (Pre-Statute)

Petitioner alleged violations regarding voting procedures, assessment recording, and reimbursements dating between 1980 and 2006.

Orders: Dismissed as untimely.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • CC&R Article 9.3
  • Bylaws Article 6.2.3

Decision Documents

08F-H088016-BFS Decision – 192712.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:23:26 (78.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 08F-H088016-BFS


Briefing: Administrative Decision in Jacobson v. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing summarizes the administrative law decision in Case No. 08F-H088016-BFS, involving Petitioner Clayton Jacobson III and Respondent Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc. The matter was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings following a petition alleging multiple violations of planned community statutes and governing documents.

The core outcome of the case was a default judgment against the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association due to its failure to respond to official notices. As a result, the Respondent was deemed to have admitted to 15 validly filed violations. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered the Respondent to refund the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee and pay $750.00 in civil penalties. However, five specific allegations were dismissed because they predated the enactment of the relevant enabling legislation (A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.).

Procedural History and Default

The administrative process followed a strict statutory timeline, which the Respondent failed to meet at every stage:

Initial Petition: Filed by Clayton Jacobson III on April 8, 2008, with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (“Department”).

Addendum: Filed by the Petitioner on April 10, 2008.

Official Notifications: The Department mailed a Notice of Petition on April 10, 2008, and an Amended Notice of Petition on April 14, 2008.

Statutory Deadline: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D), the Respondent was required to submit a written response within 20 days.

Failure to Respond: The Respondent failed to respond to both the original and the amended notices.

Notice of Default: Issued by the Department on May 15, 2008.

Consequently, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), the Respondent’s failure to file a timely response resulted in the legal admission of the alleged violations, subject to statutory jurisdiction.

Legal Findings and Jurisdictional Limitations

The Department and the Office of Administrative Hearings operate under specific statutory authorities:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: Authorizes the Department to process petitions regarding disputes between owners and planned communities.

A.R.S. § 41-2198: Authorizes the Office of Administrative Hearings to adjudicate these disputes.

Dismissed Allegations

The ALJ identified five violations that, while admitted by default, were legally unenforceable because they occurred before the enactment of the statutes granting the Office of Administrative Hearings its adjudicative authority. These dismissed allegations included:

Date of Occurrence

Alleged Violation

Legal/Documentary Reference

March 5, 2006

Failure to provide absentee ballots or delivery methods for voting; use of proxies.

A.R.S. § 33-1812

March 4, 2006

Restricted voting rights for members who paid dues up until the annual meeting.

Bylaws Articles 6.1.12 & 9; CC&R Article 4.8

March 7, 2004

Increased annual assessment from $200 to $300 without recording at the recorder’s office.

CC&R Article 9.3

January 24, 1996

Refusal to reimburse Petitioner $125.00 for association business expenses.

Bylaws Article 6.2.3

November 1, 1980

Amended Declaration to add Bylaws without recording at the County Recorder’s Office.

CC&R Article 9.3

Admitted Violations and Penalties

Excluding the five untimely allegations, the Respondent was found liable for 15 validly filed violations. The ALJ issued the following mandates:

1. Compliance: The Respondent must abide by all statutes and community documents cited in the violations.

2. Petitioner Reimbursement: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $2,000.00 to cover the multiple violation filing fee within 30 days.

3. Civil Penalties: The ALJ assessed a civil penalty of 50.00perviolation∗∗.With15admittedviolations,thetotalpenaltyof∗∗750.00 was ordered to be paid to the Department within 30 days.

Finality of Decision

The Order, dated June 12, 2008, constitutes the final administrative decision. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), it is not subject to a request for rehearing. The Order is legally binding and enforceable through contempt of court proceedings pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B).






Study Guide – 08F-H088016-BFS


Study Guide: Jacobson v. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Clayton Jacobson III vs. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088016-BFS). It examines the procedural history, findings of fact, legal conclusions, and the final order issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 12, 2008.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Provide a 2–3 sentence answer for each of the following questions based on the case details.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and their relationship to one another.

2. What was the initial action taken by Clayton Jacobson III on April 8, 2008, and which state department received it?

3. Describe the procedural failure of the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association following the mailing of the Notice of Petition.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the allegations regarding the unrecorded assessment increase from March 2004?

5. What was the specific violation alleged regarding the annual meeting held on March 5, 2006?

6. Explain the legal consequence of the Respondent’s failure to file a timely response to the Petition.

7. How many “validly filed violations” were eventually used to calculate the civil penalty, and what was the cost per violation?

8. What specific financial reimbursement did the Petitioner seek regarding a transaction from January 24, 1996, and what was the outcome?

9. Under the final Order, what is the deadline for the Respondent to pay the assessed fees and penalties?

10. What is the status of this Order regarding future appeals or rehearings according to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent: The Petitioner is Clayton Jacobson III, who is a member of the homeowners association. The Respondent is the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc., a planned community located in Parker, Arizona.

2. Initial Action and Department: On April 8, 2008, the Petitioner submitted a Petition alleging multiple complaints and violations by the Respondent. This was filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

3. Procedural Failure: After being mailed a Notice of Petition and an Amended Notice of Petition, the Respondent was required by A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D) to submit a written response within 20 days. The Respondent failed to provide a response to either notice, leading to a Notice of Default.

4. Dismissal of 2004 Allegation: The allegation concerning the unrecorded assessment increase was dismissed because it occurred on March 7, 2004. This was prior to the enactment of A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq., making the complaint untimely for the Department’s jurisdiction.

5. March 2006 Violation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held an annual meeting but failed to provide absentee ballots or other delivery methods for voting. Instead, votes were cast by proxy in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

6. Consequence of Failure to Respond: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), a respondent who fails to file a timely response is deemed to have admitted the violations alleged in the Petition. This resulted in the Department issuing a Notice of Default against the association.

7. Calculation of Violations: The Respondent was found to have admitted to 15 validly filed violations. The Administrative Law Judge assessed a civil penalty of $50.00 for each of these violations.

8. 1996 Reimbursement Claim: The Petitioner alleged that on January 24, 1996, the Respondent refused to reimburse him $125.00 for expenses incurred while conducting association business. However, this claim was dismissed because the event occurred before the enactment of the governing statutes.

9. Payment Deadline: The Respondent is ordered to pay both the $2,000.00 filing fee reimbursement to the Petitioner and the $750.00 total civil penalty to the Department. These payments must be made within 30 days of the effective date of the Order.

10. Finality of the Order: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), this Order serves as the final administrative decision. It is not subject to any requests for rehearing and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided case facts and legal conclusions to draft comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Impact of Default in Administrative Hearings: Analyze how the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association’s failure to respond to the Department’s notices dictated the legal outcome of the case. Discuss the role of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F) in this process.

2. Statutory Temporality and Jurisdiction: Explain why the Administrative Law Judge dismissed five specific violations despite the Respondent’s default. Focus on the significance of the enactment date of A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.

3. Financial Restitution and Penalties: Detail the financial obligations imposed on the Respondent. Distinguish between the multiple violation filing fee and the civil penalties, explaining to whom each is paid and why.

4. HOA Governance and Compliance: Based on the dismissed violations (Findings of Fact 8a–e), identify the various governing documents and statutes an HOA must follow, such as CC&Rs, Bylaws, and the Arizona Revised Statutes.

5. Enforcement and Finality: Discuss the finality of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. What are the implications of the Order being “not subject to a request for rehearing,” and how can the Order be enforced if the Respondent fails to comply?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona used to regulate planned communities and administrative procedures.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official who hears evidence and issues decisions in disputes involving state agency regulations, such as those between homeowners and HOAs.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the daily operations and administration of an organization like a homeowners association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; legal obligations and rules tied to the use of land within a planned community or homeowners association.

Civil Penalty

A financial fine imposed by a government agency (in this case, the Department) as a consequence for violating regulations or statutes.

Contempt of Court

A legal mechanism used to enforce an order; being found in contempt can result from failing to obey the directives of the Administrative Law Judge.

Default

A failure to fulfill a legal obligation, such as failing to file a required response to a legal petition within the specified 20-day timeframe.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The Arizona state department authorized to receive and process petitions regarding disputes in planned communities.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The agency authorized to adjudicate petitions and disputes between owners and planned communities.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Clayton Jacobson III).

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc.).






Blog Post – 08F-H088016-BFS


Study Guide: Jacobson v. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Clayton Jacobson III vs. Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association (No. 08F-H088016-BFS). It examines the procedural history, findings of fact, legal conclusions, and the final order issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 12, 2008.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Provide a 2–3 sentence answer for each of the following questions based on the case details.

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and their relationship to one another.

2. What was the initial action taken by Clayton Jacobson III on April 8, 2008, and which state department received it?

3. Describe the procedural failure of the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association following the mailing of the Notice of Petition.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the allegations regarding the unrecorded assessment increase from March 2004?

5. What was the specific violation alleged regarding the annual meeting held on March 5, 2006?

6. Explain the legal consequence of the Respondent’s failure to file a timely response to the Petition.

7. How many “validly filed violations” were eventually used to calculate the civil penalty, and what was the cost per violation?

8. What specific financial reimbursement did the Petitioner seek regarding a transaction from January 24, 1996, and what was the outcome?

9. Under the final Order, what is the deadline for the Respondent to pay the assessed fees and penalties?

10. What is the status of this Order regarding future appeals or rehearings according to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A)?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent: The Petitioner is Clayton Jacobson III, who is a member of the homeowners association. The Respondent is the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc., a planned community located in Parker, Arizona.

2. Initial Action and Department: On April 8, 2008, the Petitioner submitted a Petition alleging multiple complaints and violations by the Respondent. This was filed with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

3. Procedural Failure: After being mailed a Notice of Petition and an Amended Notice of Petition, the Respondent was required by A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(D) to submit a written response within 20 days. The Respondent failed to provide a response to either notice, leading to a Notice of Default.

4. Dismissal of 2004 Allegation: The allegation concerning the unrecorded assessment increase was dismissed because it occurred on March 7, 2004. This was prior to the enactment of A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq., making the complaint untimely for the Department’s jurisdiction.

5. March 2006 Violation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent held an annual meeting but failed to provide absentee ballots or other delivery methods for voting. Instead, votes were cast by proxy in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.

6. Consequence of Failure to Respond: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F), a respondent who fails to file a timely response is deemed to have admitted the violations alleged in the Petition. This resulted in the Department issuing a Notice of Default against the association.

7. Calculation of Violations: The Respondent was found to have admitted to 15 validly filed violations. The Administrative Law Judge assessed a civil penalty of $50.00 for each of these violations.

8. 1996 Reimbursement Claim: The Petitioner alleged that on January 24, 1996, the Respondent refused to reimburse him $125.00 for expenses incurred while conducting association business. However, this claim was dismissed because the event occurred before the enactment of the governing statutes.

9. Payment Deadline: The Respondent is ordered to pay both the $2,000.00 filing fee reimbursement to the Petitioner and the $750.00 total civil penalty to the Department. These payments must be made within 30 days of the effective date of the Order.

10. Finality of the Order: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.04(A), this Order serves as the final administrative decision. It is not subject to any requests for rehearing and is enforceable through contempt of court proceedings.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the provided case facts and legal conclusions to draft comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Impact of Default in Administrative Hearings: Analyze how the Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association’s failure to respond to the Department’s notices dictated the legal outcome of the case. Discuss the role of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(F) in this process.

2. Statutory Temporality and Jurisdiction: Explain why the Administrative Law Judge dismissed five specific violations despite the Respondent’s default. Focus on the significance of the enactment date of A.R.S. § 41-2198 et seq.

3. Financial Restitution and Penalties: Detail the financial obligations imposed on the Respondent. Distinguish between the multiple violation filing fee and the civil penalties, explaining to whom each is paid and why.

4. HOA Governance and Compliance: Based on the dismissed violations (Findings of Fact 8a–e), identify the various governing documents and statutes an HOA must follow, such as CC&Rs, Bylaws, and the Arizona Revised Statutes.

5. Enforcement and Finality: Discuss the finality of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. What are the implications of the Order being “not subject to a request for rehearing,” and how can the Order be enforced if the Respondent fails to comply?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S.

Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona used to regulate planned communities and administrative procedures.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A presiding official who hears evidence and issues decisions in disputes involving state agency regulations, such as those between homeowners and HOAs.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the daily operations and administration of an organization like a homeowners association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; legal obligations and rules tied to the use of land within a planned community or homeowners association.

Civil Penalty

A financial fine imposed by a government agency (in this case, the Department) as a consequence for violating regulations or statutes.

Contempt of Court

A legal mechanism used to enforce an order; being found in contempt can result from failing to obey the directives of the Administrative Law Judge.

Default

A failure to fulfill a legal obligation, such as failing to file a required response to a legal petition within the specified 20-day timeframe.

Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

The Arizona state department authorized to receive and process petitions regarding disputes in planned communities.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

The agency authorized to adjudicate petitions and disputes between owners and planned communities.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition (in this case, Clayton Jacobson III).

Respondent

The party against whom a legal action or petition is filed (in this case, Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association, Inc.).


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Clayton Jacobson, III (Petitioner)
    Rio Lindo Shores Homeowners Association
    Member of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy
  • Debra Blake (Department Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy