**Case Title:** *Carol M. Root v. Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association*
**Case Number:** 15F-H1515014-BFS

**Procedural History and Facts**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carol M. Root and Respondent Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association. The Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Hearing," arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the community's governing documents mandated a specific Dispute Resolution process.

The relevant governing documents included the Master Declaration for Troon North and the Candlewood Declaration. Sections 11.02 and 11.03 of the Candlewood Declaration detailed mandatory procedures for "all Claims" arising from the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the documents. This process required notice, mediation, and binding arbitration through the Arbitration & Mediation Center of Arizona (AMCA).

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The HOA asserted that the restrictive covenants act as a binding contract. Because the Declarations mandate alternative dispute resolution for all enforcement and interpretation claims, the Petitioner was preempted from pursuing remedies through the OAH.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner opposed dismissal on two grounds:
1. **Validity of Amendment:** She argued the 2004 amendment adding the dispute resolution clause was adopted in violation of the CC&Rs and was invalid. However, she presented no evidence that the amendment had ever been successfully challenged or legally determined to be invalid.
2. **Scope of Provision:** She argued that because Section 11.01 was titled "Agreement to Avoid Litigation," the provision only prohibited filing lawsuits in court, not filing administrative proceedings with the OAH.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer analyzed the covenants as a contract binding on the property owner. The ALJ rejected the Petitioner's arguments for the following reasons:
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the 2004 amendment was invalid.
* **Contract Interpretation:** The ALJ found that Section 11.02 clearly defines "all Claims" broadly. While Section 11.01 mentions avoiding litigation, the plain language of the subsequent sections mandates that any dispute regarding the governing documents must be handled through the specific Dispute Resolution process.
* **Conclusion:** The covenants explicitly prevent the dispute from being brought in the OAH.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
On February 17, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision recommending that the complaint be dismissed.

The decision was transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for review. The Department did not take action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 4