**Case Summary: Mullane v. Thunder Fe Condominium Group**
**Case No. 15F-H1515016-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
On September 2, 2015, the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings convened a hearing regarding a petition filed by homeowner Catherine Mullane (Petitioner) against the Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Respondent). Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky presided over the matter to determine if the Respondent’s Board of Management (BOM) violated the community’s Bylaws and applicable Arizona statutes.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Article V, paragraph i, number 1 of the Bylaws by authorizing a $13,700 landscape project without a vote of all unit owners. Specifically, the Petitioner argued:
* The Bylaws required a vote of all owners for expenditures exceeding $50.00.
* The conversion of common areas from grass to desert landscaping was unpopular with residents and required a two-thirds majority vote.
* Proper voting procedures regarding absentee owners were not followed.

The Respondent, represented by Board Chairman Cliff DeVlieg, defended the Board's actions with the following arguments:
* **Bylaw Amendment:** The $50.00 spending limit was unanimously raised to $7,500.00 by the members during the Annual General Meeting on January 29, 2014.
* **Prior Approval:** The transition to desert landscaping was originally approved by a vote of 20 to 3 at the November 2010 Annual Meeting.
* **Phased Implementation:** The work was conducted in phases (e.g., $6,500 for sod removal) to stay within budget constraints and the amended spending limits.
* **Financial Necessity:** The landscaping change was urgent due to an 86% rate increase by the water utility and rising costs from the previous landscaping vendor.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ found that the Respondent successfully established that the Bylaws had been validly amended. Evidence showed that "qualified owners in the community unanimously voted to raise the expenditure allowed… to $7,500.00" at a duly noticed meeting. Because the spending limit had been raised, the Petitioner failed to prove that the Board violated the Bylaws by entering into the landscaping contracts.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Following the hearing, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety had until October 26, 2015, to accept, reject, or modify the decision. As the Department took no action by that date, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 28, 2015.