Tag Archives: CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Charles P. Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-02-28
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P. Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates of Coconino County Homeowners' Association Counsel Paul K. Frame

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition alleging violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by the HOA. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the violation, specifically concluding that the proposed cedar patio structure was a second detached structure or a temporary structure, both prohibited under the CC&Rs given the Petitioner already had a tool shed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by failing to prove that his proposed cedar patio structure was not a barred detached structure (since he already had a shed) or a barred temporary structure.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA for denial of detached patio structure construction

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) by denying his request to construct a approximately 150 square feet detached patio structure because he already had a tool shed on his property, while allowing another member to erect a Tuff Shed.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16
  • CC&Rs § 3.1(a)
  • Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918006-REL-RHG Decision – 692294.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:21 (119.5 KB)

19F-H1918006-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918006-REL/669528.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:48:30 (91.9 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County (“Blue Ridge”). The core of the conflict involves Mr. Mandela’s multiple failed attempts to gain approval for a 150-square-foot patio structure on his property, which already contained a tool shed.

Blue Ridge denied Mr. Mandela’s three separate requests on distinct grounds: the first for exceeding the size limit for a “play structure,” the second for submitting incomplete plans for an “attached structure,” and the third for violating the “one detached structure” rule. In response, Mr. Mandela filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that Blue Ridge had violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and engaged in discriminatory practices.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge conclusively denied Mr. Mandela’s petition. The judge found that Mr. Mandela failed to meet the burden of proof to establish any violation by Blue Ridge. The decisions affirmed that the HOA’s denials were consistent with its governing documents, that Mr. Mandela’s interpretation of key terms like “detached structure” and “temporary structure” was incorrect, and that his allegations of discrimination were unsubstantiated by evidence. The final order from the rehearing is binding on both parties.

Case Overview

This case documents a series of requests and denials between a homeowner and his HOA, culminating in a formal legal dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Petitioner

Charles P. Mandela

Respondent

Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County

Respondent’s Counsel

Paul Frame, Esq. (FRAME LAW PLLC)

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Timeline of Key Events

Date (Approx.)

Feb 1, 2018

Mr. Mandela submits his first request: a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. It is denied for exceeding the 80 sq. ft. size limit.

Mar 2, 2018

Mr. Mandela submits his second request: to attach a cedar patio shade to his home. Blue Ridge requests detailed plans.

Mar 8, 2018

Mr. Mandela’s second request is formally denied due to “incomplete information.”

Mar 23, 2018

Mr. Mandela files an appeal with Blue Ridge regarding the denial, which is subsequently denied.

Undisclosed

Mr. Mandela submits his third request: to build a detached 150 sq. ft. cedar patio structure. It is denied because he already has a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure.

Jul 31, 2018

Mr. Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging Blue Ridge violated CC&R § 3.1(a).

Oct 17, 2018

An evidentiary hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

Nov 6, 2018

The ALJ issues a decision denying Mr. Mandela’s petition.

Dec 12, 2018

The Department of Real Estate issues an order for a rehearing.

Feb 8, 2019

The rehearing is held.

Feb 28, 2019

The ALJ issues a final decision on the rehearing, once again denying the petition. This order is binding.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Requests and HOA Denials

Mr. Mandela made three distinct applications to the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee for his proposed patio structure, each of which was denied for violating a different set of rules.

Request 1: Play Structure Application

Mr. Mandela first attempted to gain approval by using a “Play Structure Approval Request” form from the Blue Ridge website.

• Request Details: Construction of a cedar patio structure of approximately 150 square feet.

• Reason for Denial: The request was denied because the structure’s size exceeded the established limit. The application form explicitly states that play structures such as a “Tree House, Tree Viewing Stand, Play House/Fort” cannot exceed 80 square feet.

Request 2: Attached Patio Shade Application

Mr. Mandela next submitted a request to attach the cedar patio shade directly to his home.

• Request Details: The proposal involved attaching a structure to the main residence.

• HOA Actions: Blue Ridge Chairman John Hart requested documents, such as plans and materials, to verify the structure would not be free-standing.

• Petitioner’s Response: In a March 3, 2018 email, Mr. Mandela stated: “I am building this myself. I am not an Architect, I have not software to show (6) 2 by 4”s to attach from the single family roof lie to the roof lien of the same roof. The structures will be attached.”

• Reason for Denial: The request was denied on March 8, 2018, due to “incomplete information.” The denial letter specified that Mr. Mandela needed to provide detailed drawings matching the proposed construction and use the official 9-page form as required by CC&R guidelines. The subsequent appeal was also denied, with the board noting a need for an “elevation drawing of your specific construction” showing dimensions, materials, and foundation/attachment methods.

Request 3: Detached Patio Structure Application

Finally, Mr. Mandela submitted a request to build the 150-square-foot structure as a detached unit.

• Request Details: A free-standing, detached patio structure in his backyard.

• Reason for Denial: This request was denied because Mr. Mandela already had a tool shed on his property. According to CC&R § 3.1(A) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D), only one detached structure is permitted on a lot.

Core Legal Arguments and Adjudication

In the hearings, Mr. Mandela presented several arguments to challenge the HOA’s decisions. The Administrative Law Judge addressed each claim and found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Definition of a “Detached Structure”

• Mandela’s Position: Argued that the proposed patio structure was not a “detached structure” under the CC&Rs because, unlike a shed, it could not be “easily converted into a second residence.” He claimed this interpretation was supported by a prior ALJ decision involving Blue Ridge.

• ALJ’s Conclusion: The Judge found this argument unpersuasive. The decision states that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that “prior administrative law judge decisions are not precedent or binding on future administrative law decisions.” It was undisputed that Mr. Mandela already had a shed, and the judge concluded the proposed patio was a “barred detached structure” under the governing rules.

Allegations of Discrimination and Unequal Enforcement

• Mandela’s Position: Mr. Mandela contended that Blue Ridge was discriminating against him. His claims included:

1. The play structure rule allowing a second detached structure under 80 sq. ft. unfairly discriminates against residents without children.

2. Blue Ridge was not enforcing the 80 sq. ft. limit against other homeowners.

3. Blue Ridge had previously approved a “Tuff Shed” for another member, showing unequal enforcement.

• ALJ’s Conclusion: The petitioner failed to provide credible evidence for these claims. Testimony from Blue Ridge Vice President Joseph Hancock refuted Mandela’s specific examples, showing that cited lots either had no violations or contained structures predating the relevant rules. The judge found Hancock’s testimony credible and noted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over potential constitutional equal protection claims.

Definition of a “Temporary Structure”

• Mandela’s Position: Mr. Mandela argued his proposed structure was not a prohibited temporary structure. He cited the product’s 5-year warranty against rot and his plan to use concrete pavers at the base, which he asserted constituted a “cement foundation” under the rules.

• HOA’s Position: Joseph Hancock testified that a concrete paver is not the equivalent of a “cement or slab foundation.”

• ALJ’s Conclusion: The judge agreed with the HOA. The decision states: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed play structure is a temporary structure under the Blue Ridge CC&Rs because it does not have a cement or block foundation. The preponderance of the evidence shows that concrete pavers are not the equivalent of cement or block foundation.”

Governing Rules and Regulations

The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of specific sections of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs and the Architectural Committee’s aligned regulations.

Regulation

Summary of Provision

CC&R § 3.1

Restricts property use to “Single Family Residential Use.” Prohibits any building or structure separate from the main residence, with the exception of a garage.

Arch. Committee Reg. 3(D)

Modifies CC&R § 3.1 by allowing one detached structure to be constructed on a property with prior committee approval.

CC&R § 3.6 & Aligned Reg.

Prohibits temporary structures. Defines a temporary structure as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”

CC&R § 3.24

Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any structure to be “commenced, erected, maintained, improved or altered.”

Modified Rules (April 6, 2016)

Establishes rules for “Play Structures.” Allows for one of each type but no more than two total. Limits Tree Houses, Viewing Stands, and Play Houses/Forts to a maximum of 80 square feet.

Final Orders and Outcome

The legal proceedings resulted in a definitive ruling in favor of the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association.

• Initial Decision (November 6, 2018): IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.

• Rehearing Decision (February 28, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.

The decision on the rehearing is noted as binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review filed with the superior court within 35 days of the order.






Study Guide – 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative law case involving petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. It is based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the initial hearing on October 17, 2018, and the rehearing on February 8, 2019.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Describe the three separate requests Charles Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA and the basis for the HOA’s denial of each.

2. What was Mr. Mandela’s central allegation in the petition he filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?

3. Explain the argument Mr. Mandela made regarding a prior Administrative Law Judge decision concerning detached structures, and why Judge Moses-Thompson found it unpersuasive.

4. According to the Blue Ridge governing documents, what is the definition of a “temporary structure,” and how did Mr. Mandela argue his proposed patio did not fit this definition?

5. What specific, incomplete information did the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee cite when denying Mr. Mandela’s second request to build an attached cedar patio shade?

6. Identify the two different rules that limit the size and number of structures on a property and explain how they were applied to Mr. Mandela’s requests.

7. What was Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s play structure policy, and what was the stated purpose for which he wanted to build the patio?

8. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key points did his testimony establish during the rehearing?

9. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and identify which party in this case was responsible for meeting this burden of proof.

10. What was the final, binding order issued by the Administrative Law Judge after the rehearing, and what was the petitioner’s next course of action for an appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot limit for play structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied for providing incomplete information and insufficient plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio, which was denied because he already had a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure per property.

2. In his petition, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its own CC&Rs, specifically § 3.1(a). He claimed the HOA was unfairly denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while it had allowed another member to erect a Tuff Shed.

3. Mr. Mandela contended that a prior ALJ decision had defined a “detached structure” as one that could be easily converted into a second residence, which his open-air patio could not. Judge Moses-Thompson rejected this argument, stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future cases.

4. The HOA’s rules define a temporary structure as one without a cement or block foundation to which it is permanently attached. Mr. Mandela argued his proposed patio was not temporary because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he asserted constituted a cement foundation.

5. The Architectural Committee denied the request for an attached structure due to incomplete information, specifically the lack of an elevation drawing. The denial letter stated that such a drawing was needed to show detailed views, sizes, dimensions, specifications, construction methods, and foundation attachment details for his specific proposed construction.

6. Architectural Committee Regulation 3(D) limits homeowners to one detached structure per property. The modified Rules and Regulations for “Play Structures” allow for a second structure if it is a play structure, but it cannot exceed 80 square feet. Mr. Mandela’s request for a 150-square-foot detached patio was denied under the first rule because he already had a shed, and his initial request under the play structure rule was denied because it exceeded the 80-square-foot size limit.

7. Mr. Mandela argued that the play structure policy, which allows for a second detached structure, discriminates against people who do not have children. He explained that he did not want the structure for children’s play but so that his mother would have a shaded place to come outside and rest.

8. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of Blue Ridge and a licensed contractor who assisted in reviewing Mr. Mandela’s requests. He testified that Mr. Mandela’s plans for an attached structure were insufficient, failing to account for height and width differentials, and opined that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or slab foundation under the HOA’s rules.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the legal standard requiring proof that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, Charles P. Mandela, bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, making the decision binding on the parties. The notice specified that any further appeal must be made through judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case materials. Construct a detailed essay-format response for each.

1. Analyze the series of requests and denials between Charles Mandela and the Blue Ridge HOA. Discuss how the HOA’s different governing documents (CC&Rs, Architectural Committee regulations, and modified Rules and Regulations) were applied at each stage of the process and evaluate the consistency of their application.

2. Examine the legal arguments presented by Charles Mandela in the rehearing, including his claims of discrimination, his interpretation of a “temporary structure,” and his assertion that he provided sufficient information. Discuss why the Administrative Law Judge found each of these arguments unpersuasive, citing specific evidence and testimony from the hearing.

3. Trace the distinction made in the Blue Ridge governing documents between a primary residence, a detached structure (like a garage or shed), and a “play structure.” How did this distinction become the central point of conflict in the case of Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates?

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail the specific ways in which the petitioner, Charles Mandela, failed to meet this burden according to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

5. The Blue Ridge HOA has at least three layers of governing documents mentioned: the CC&Rs (Declaration), Architectural Committee Aligned Standards, and the Rules and Regulations. Explain the hierarchy and purpose of these documents as revealed in the case, and discuss how the authority to create and modify them is defined.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over hearings for government agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the Blue Ridge HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any construction, erection, maintenance, improvement, or alteration of structures on any lot, as per CC&R § 3.24.

Blue Ridge Estates HOA

The homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development in Happy Jack, Arizona, and the respondent in this case.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden of proof.

Charles P. Mandela

The homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA who filed the petition against the association; the petitioner in this case.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing document for the homeowners’ association, also referred to as the “Declaration.” It outlines land use, permitted structures, and restrictions.

Declaration

The formal term for the CC&Rs document. Amending it requires an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots.

Detached Structure

A building or structure erected or maintained separately from the Single Family Residence. Under Architectural Committee rules, only one is permitted per lot.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela.

Play Structure

A specific type of structure defined in the modified Rules and Regulations, including swing sets, tree houses, and playhouses. When detached, certain types are limited to 80 square feet.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.

Single Family Residential Use

The exclusive use for which property in Blue Ridge Estates is designated, as outlined in CC&R § 3.1.

Temporary Structure

A structure prohibited by the CC&Rs and defined by the Architectural Committee regulations as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”






Blog Post – 19F-H1918006-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the administrative law case involving petitioner Charles P. Mandela and respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County. It is based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from the initial hearing on October 17, 2018, and the rehearing on February 8, 2019.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.

1. Describe the three separate requests Charles Mandela submitted to the Blue Ridge Estates HOA and the basis for the HOA’s denial of each.

2. What was Mr. Mandela’s central allegation in the petition he filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 31, 2018?

3. Explain the argument Mr. Mandela made regarding a prior Administrative Law Judge decision concerning detached structures, and why Judge Moses-Thompson found it unpersuasive.

4. According to the Blue Ridge governing documents, what is the definition of a “temporary structure,” and how did Mr. Mandela argue his proposed patio did not fit this definition?

5. What specific, incomplete information did the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee cite when denying Mr. Mandela’s second request to build an attached cedar patio shade?

6. Identify the two different rules that limit the size and number of structures on a property and explain how they were applied to Mr. Mandela’s requests.

7. What was Mr. Mandela’s discrimination argument regarding the HOA’s play structure policy, and what was the stated purpose for which he wanted to build the patio?

8. Who is Joseph Hancock, and what key points did his testimony establish during the rehearing?

9. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and identify which party in this case was responsible for meeting this burden of proof.

10. What was the final, binding order issued by the Administrative Law Judge after the rehearing, and what was the petitioner’s next course of action for an appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Mr. Mandela first submitted a “Play Structure Approval Request” for a 150-square-foot patio, which was denied for exceeding the 80-square-foot limit for play structures. His second request was to attach a cedar patio shade to his home, which was denied for providing incomplete information and insufficient plans. His third request was for a detached 150-square-foot patio, which was denied because he already had a tool shed, and rules permit only one detached structure per property.

2. In his petition, Mr. Mandela alleged that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its own CC&Rs, specifically § 3.1(a). He claimed the HOA was unfairly denying his request to place a patio structure in his backyard while it had allowed another member to erect a Tuff Shed.

3. Mr. Mandela contended that a prior ALJ decision had defined a “detached structure” as one that could be easily converted into a second residence, which his open-air patio could not. Judge Moses-Thompson rejected this argument, stating that Mr. Mandela misinterpreted the prior ruling and, more importantly, that prior administrative law judge decisions are not binding precedent for future cases.

4. The HOA’s rules define a temporary structure as one without a cement or block foundation to which it is permanently attached. Mr. Mandela argued his proposed patio was not temporary because he planned to use concrete pavers, which he asserted constituted a cement foundation.

5. The Architectural Committee denied the request for an attached structure due to incomplete information, specifically the lack of an elevation drawing. The denial letter stated that such a drawing was needed to show detailed views, sizes, dimensions, specifications, construction methods, and foundation attachment details for his specific proposed construction.

6. Architectural Committee Regulation 3(D) limits homeowners to one detached structure per property. The modified Rules and Regulations for “Play Structures” allow for a second structure if it is a play structure, but it cannot exceed 80 square feet. Mr. Mandela’s request for a 150-square-foot detached patio was denied under the first rule because he already had a shed, and his initial request under the play structure rule was denied because it exceeded the 80-square-foot size limit.

7. Mr. Mandela argued that the play structure policy, which allows for a second detached structure, discriminates against people who do not have children. He explained that he did not want the structure for children’s play but so that his mother would have a shaded place to come outside and rest.

8. Joseph Hancock is the Vice President of Blue Ridge and a licensed contractor who assisted in reviewing Mr. Mandela’s requests. He testified that Mr. Mandela’s plans for an attached structure were insufficient, failing to account for height and width differentials, and opined that concrete pavers are not equivalent to a cement or slab foundation under the HOA’s rules.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the legal standard requiring proof that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, Charles P. Mandela, bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Blue Ridge HOA had violated its CC&Rs.

10. The final order denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, making the decision binding on the parties. The notice specified that any further appeal must be made through judicial review by filing with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case materials. Construct a detailed essay-format response for each.

1. Analyze the series of requests and denials between Charles Mandela and the Blue Ridge HOA. Discuss how the HOA’s different governing documents (CC&Rs, Architectural Committee regulations, and modified Rules and Regulations) were applied at each stage of the process and evaluate the consistency of their application.

2. Examine the legal arguments presented by Charles Mandela in the rehearing, including his claims of discrimination, his interpretation of a “temporary structure,” and his assertion that he provided sufficient information. Discuss why the Administrative Law Judge found each of these arguments unpersuasive, citing specific evidence and testimony from the hearing.

3. Trace the distinction made in the Blue Ridge governing documents between a primary residence, a detached structure (like a garage or shed), and a “play structure.” How did this distinction become the central point of conflict in the case of Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates?

4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail the specific ways in which the petitioner, Charles Mandela, failed to meet this burden according to the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

5. The Blue Ridge HOA has at least three layers of governing documents mentioned: the CC&Rs (Declaration), Architectural Committee Aligned Standards, and the Rules and Regulations. Explain the hierarchy and purpose of these documents as revealed in the case, and discuss how the authority to create and modify them is defined.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over hearings for government agencies, in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the Blue Ridge HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any construction, erection, maintenance, improvement, or alteration of structures on any lot, as per CC&R § 3.24.

Blue Ridge Estates HOA

The homeowners’ association for the Blue Ridge Estates development in Happy Jack, Arizona, and the respondent in this case.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden of proof.

Charles P. Mandela

The homeowner and member of the Blue Ridge Estates HOA who filed the petition against the association; the petitioner in this case.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing document for the homeowners’ association, also referred to as the “Declaration.” It outlines land use, permitted structures, and restrictions.

Declaration

The formal term for the CC&Rs document. Amending it requires an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots.

Detached Structure

A building or structure erected or maintained separately from the Single Family Residence. Under Architectural Committee rules, only one is permitted per lot.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal or administrative action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela.

Play Structure

A specific type of structure defined in the modified Rules and Regulations, including swing sets, tree houses, and playhouses. When detached, certain types are limited to 80 square feet.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case, defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party that must respond to the petitioner’s claims. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates HOA.

Single Family Residential Use

The exclusive use for which property in Blue Ridge Estates is designated, as outlined in CC&R § 3.1.

Temporary Structure

A structure prohibited by the CC&Rs and defined by the Architectural Committee regulations as one “without a cement or block foundation to which the structure or building is permanently attached.”


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P. Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself,.

Respondent Side

  • Paul K. Frame (HOA attorney)
    FRAME LAW PLLC
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent Blue Ridge Estates HOA,.
  • John Hart (board member)
    Blue Ridge Estates HOA
    Chairman of Blue Ridge,.
  • Joseph Hancock (board member/witness)
    Blue Ridge Estates HOA
    Vice President of Blue Ridge; presented testimony,.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Felicia Del Sol (staff)
    Transmitted decision.

Charles Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Brian C. Axt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1. The ALJ determined that the HOA correctly clarified the status of play structures through an amendment to the Architectural Committee's regulations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) regarding allowing play structures (swing sets, treehouses) when another detached structure (garage or shed) is present.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) by permitting members to construct play structures (swingsets, treehouses, etc.) on properties that already contained one detached structure (garage or shed), arguing that the rules allowed only one detached structure of any type.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied because he failed to establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances. All play structures that the Architectural Committee has previously approved are allowed to remain, and the Architectural Committee may consider and grant future Play Structure Approval Requests.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, CC&R interpretation, detached structures, play structures, Architectural Committee regulations, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:47 (155.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817006-REL


Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.






Study Guide – 18F-H1817006-REL


Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 18F-H1817006-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817006-REL, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific violation did the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, allege against the Respondent?

3. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bears the initial burden?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the CC&Rs and amending the “Rules and Regulations”?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary evidence to support his claim that the HOA historically enforced a “one detached structure” rule?

6. How did the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates HOA, legally justify its decision to permit play structures even on lots that already had a detached garage or shed?

7. How did the Respondent explain the document from its website which stated that the Board had voted to “adopt changes to the CCR’s”?

8. What did the law firm Poli & Ball conclude regarding the permissibility of play structures within the community?

9. What did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky determine was the primary intent of Article III of the CC&Rs?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, and the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association. Mr. Mandela is a homeowner within the Blue Ridge Estates development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D). He claimed the HOA wrongly allowed members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on their properties when another detached structure, such as a garage or shed, already existed.

3. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must convince the judge that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Charles Mandela, bears the initial burden of proof to establish that a violation occurred.

4. To amend the CC&Rs (the Declaration), an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots is required. In contrast, the Board of Directors can adopt, amend, or repeal “Rules and Regulations” by a simple majority vote of the Board.

5. The Petitioner testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA removed nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo and a playhouse. He also submitted a 2006 letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, which opined that the HOA could enforce a “one detached structure” requirement.

6. The Respondent argued that the intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent second residential dwellings on a lot, not to prohibit recreational items consistent with a family community. Therefore, the Board acted within its authority under CC&R § 4.2 to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to clarify that play structures are permitted.

7. The Respondent’s president, Joseph Hancock, testified that the wording was a typographical error made by the previous Chair of the Architectural Committee (the Petitioner). Board meeting minutes from December 2016 and October 2017 were submitted as evidence to show the Board’s actual intent was to modify the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs.

8. The Poli & Ball law firm opined that play structures are “perfectly consistent with recreation and family use” in a community intended to be a planned recreation property. The firm concluded that the HOA could change the Architectural Committee’s regulations to allow them as long as the change was consistent with the CC&Rs.

9. The Judge concluded that the purpose of Article III is to keep the community single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second dwelling. Since a play structure cannot be easily converted into a second residence, allowing one did not violate the intent of the CC&Rs.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not established that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances, and that the HOA had properly resolved the issue by amending its regulations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon specific facts, arguments, and legal principles from the source document.

1. Discuss the critical distinction between amending the community’s CC&Rs and amending the Architectural Committee’s regulations. Explain how this distinction became the central pivot upon which the entire case turned.

2. Analyze the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s exhibits and testimony, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s evidence more persuasive.

3. The “Conclusions of Law” section discusses the legal principle of interpreting restrictive covenants based on the “intent of the parties.” How did Judge Mihalsky apply this principle to CC&R § 3.1, and how did the community’s stated purpose as a “uniquely planned recreation property” influence this interpretation?

4. Charles Mandela, the Petitioner, was a former board member and president of the Architectural Committee who drafted one of the key documents in question. Discuss how his past involvement in HOA governance may have shaped his legal position and the evidence he presented.

5. Trace the timeline of the “play structure” controversy as detailed in the hearing evidence, from the 2015 discrimination claim to the “clarification vote” in October 2017. How does this sequence of events illustrate the challenges of community governance and rule interpretation within a homeowners’ association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, the ALJ from the Office of Administrative Hearings heard the dispute between the homeowner and the HOA.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for approving any construction, alteration, or improvement to the exterior of any property to ensure it complies with community standards.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. It outlines the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Declaration

The formal legal document that creates the homeowners’ association and its CC&Rs. In this case, amending the Declaration required a 75% vote of the members.

Detached Structure

A building on a property that is separate from the main residence. The dispute centered on whether play structures counted as the “one detached structure” permitted by the CC&Rs.

Improvements

A broad term defined in the CC&Rs (§ 1.17) to include buildings, garages, fences, walls, landscaping, and all other structures of every type and kind on a property.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The judge noted that if Title 33 did not apply, the Office of Administrative Hearings would lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Charles Mandela.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&Rs that limits the use of the property. The “one detached structure” rule is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Single Family Residential Use

The designated purpose of the properties in Blue Ridge Estates, meaning they are to be used exclusively as private homes for single families, not for commercial or multi-family dwelling purposes.






Blog Post – 18F-H1817006-REL


Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf; previously served as president of the Architectural Committee.

Respondent Side

  • Brian C. Axt (attorney)
    Resnick & Louis, P.C.
    Represented Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.
  • Joseph Hancock (board member)
    Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association
    Board's president; presented testimony/witness for Respondent.
  • Jason Miller (counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Provided an email opinion supporting the Respondent's position.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1817006-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-12-06
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Brian C. Axt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.1(a); Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the HOA did not violate its CC&Rs by allowing play structures on properties that already contained a detached garage or shed, because play structures are not easily convertible into a second residence, which was the underlying concern of the relevant CC&R section.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated CC&R § 3.1. The ALJ determined that the HOA correctly clarified the status of play structures through an amendment to the Architectural Committee's regulations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) regarding allowing play structures (swing sets, treehouses) when another detached structure (garage or shed) is present.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D) by permitting members to construct play structures (swingsets, treehouses, etc.) on properties that already contained one detached structure (garage or shed), arguing that the rules allowed only one detached structure of any type.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied because he failed to establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances. All play structures that the Architectural Committee has previously approved are allowed to remain, and the Architectural Committee may consider and grant future Play Structure Approval Requests.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, CC&R interpretation, detached structures, play structures, Architectural Committee regulations, burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1817006-REL Decision – 604710.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:05 (155.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1817006-REL


Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.






Study Guide – 18F-H1817006-REL


Study Guide for Administrative Law Judge Decision No. 18F-H1817006-REL

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, based on the provided source document.

1. Who were the primary parties in case No. 18F-H1817006-REL, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific violation did the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, allege against the Respondent?

3. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and which party bears the initial burden?

4. According to the CC&Rs, what is the procedural difference between amending the CC&Rs and amending the “Rules and Regulations”?

5. What was the Petitioner’s primary evidence to support his claim that the HOA historically enforced a “one detached structure” rule?

6. How did the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates HOA, legally justify its decision to permit play structures even on lots that already had a detached garage or shed?

7. How did the Respondent explain the document from its website which stated that the Board had voted to “adopt changes to the CCR’s”?

8. What did the law firm Poli & Ball conclude regarding the permissibility of play structures within the community?

9. What did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky determine was the primary intent of Article III of the CC&Rs?

10. What was the final Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Charles Mandela, and the Respondent, Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association. Mr. Mandela is a homeowner within the Blue Ridge Estates development and a member of the homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated CC&Rs § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee regulation 3(D). He claimed the HOA wrongly allowed members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on their properties when another detached structure, such as a garage or shed, already existed.

3. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must convince the judge that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner, Charles Mandela, bears the initial burden of proof to establish that a violation occurred.

4. To amend the CC&Rs (the Declaration), an affirmative vote or written consent from members owning at least 75% of all lots is required. In contrast, the Board of Directors can adopt, amend, or repeal “Rules and Regulations” by a simple majority vote of the Board.

5. The Petitioner testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA removed nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo and a playhouse. He also submitted a 2006 letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, which opined that the HOA could enforce a “one detached structure” requirement.

6. The Respondent argued that the intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent second residential dwellings on a lot, not to prohibit recreational items consistent with a family community. Therefore, the Board acted within its authority under CC&R § 4.2 to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to clarify that play structures are permitted.

7. The Respondent’s president, Joseph Hancock, testified that the wording was a typographical error made by the previous Chair of the Architectural Committee (the Petitioner). Board meeting minutes from December 2016 and October 2017 were submitted as evidence to show the Board’s actual intent was to modify the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs.

8. The Poli & Ball law firm opined that play structures are “perfectly consistent with recreation and family use” in a community intended to be a planned recreation property. The firm concluded that the HOA could change the Architectural Committee’s regulations to allow them as long as the change was consistent with the CC&Rs.

9. The Judge concluded that the purpose of Article III is to keep the community single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second dwelling. Since a play structure cannot be easily converted into a second residence, allowing one did not violate the intent of the CC&Rs.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge found that the Petitioner had not established that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances, and that the HOA had properly resolved the issue by amending its regulations.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each, drawing upon specific facts, arguments, and legal principles from the source document.

1. Discuss the critical distinction between amending the community’s CC&Rs and amending the Architectural Committee’s regulations. Explain how this distinction became the central pivot upon which the entire case turned.

2. Analyze the evidence presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s exhibits and testimony, and explain why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found the Respondent’s evidence more persuasive.

3. The “Conclusions of Law” section discusses the legal principle of interpreting restrictive covenants based on the “intent of the parties.” How did Judge Mihalsky apply this principle to CC&R § 3.1, and how did the community’s stated purpose as a “uniquely planned recreation property” influence this interpretation?

4. Charles Mandela, the Petitioner, was a former board member and president of the Architectural Committee who drafted one of the key documents in question. Discuss how his past involvement in HOA governance may have shaped his legal position and the evidence he presented.

5. Trace the timeline of the “play structure” controversy as detailed in the hearing evidence, from the 2015 discrimination claim to the “clarification vote” in October 2017. How does this sequence of events illustrate the challenges of community governance and rule interpretation within a homeowners’ association?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, the ALJ from the Office of Administrative Hearings heard the dispute between the homeowner and the HOA.

Architectural Committee

A committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for approving any construction, alteration, or improvement to the exterior of any property to ensure it complies with community standards.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

A legally binding document that governs a planned community or subdivision. It outlines the rights and obligations of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Declaration

The formal legal document that creates the homeowners’ association and its CC&Rs. In this case, amending the Declaration required a 75% vote of the members.

Detached Structure

A building on a property that is separate from the main residence. The dispute centered on whether play structures counted as the “one detached structure” permitted by the CC&Rs.

Improvements

A broad term defined in the CC&Rs (§ 1.17) to include buildings, garages, fences, walls, landscaping, and all other structures of every type and kind on a property.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The judge noted that if Title 33 did not apply, the Office of Administrative Hearings would lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Charles Mandela.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It requires the trier of fact (the judge) to be convinced that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or CC&Rs that limits the use of the property. The “one detached structure” rule is an example of a restrictive covenant.

Single Family Residential Use

The designated purpose of the properties in Blue Ridge Estates, meaning they are to be used exclusively as private homes for single families, not for commercial or multi-family dwelling purposes.






Blog Post – 18F-H1817006-REL


Briefing Document: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (No. 18F-H1817006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision regarding a dispute between a homeowner, Charles Mandela (“Petitioner”), and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by permitting homeowners to install play structures (e.g., swing sets, treehouses) on lots that already contained another detached structure, such as a garage or shed.

The Petitioner argued that the HOA had historically enforced a strict “one detached structure” rule and that its recent allowance of play structures constituted a violation of CC&R § 3.1. In contrast, the Respondent contended that the underlying intent of the CC&Rs was to prevent secondary residential dwellings, not to prohibit recreational structures consistent with a family-oriented community. The HOA asserted it had properly amended its Architectural Committee regulations, not the CC&Rs, to clarify this distinction.

The ALJ ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent HOA. The central finding was that the intent of the restrictive covenant was to maintain the single-family residential character of the community. Because play structures cannot be easily converted into secondary residences, they are not inconsistent with this intent. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was not required to amend the CC&Rs (which requires a 75% member vote) but acted within its authority to amend its rules and regulations via a simple board vote. The Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 18F-H1817006-REL

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Charles Mandela

◦ Respondent: Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association

• Hearing Date: November 28, 2017

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 3.1(a) and Architectural Committee Aligned Standard 3(D) by allowing members to build play structures, swing sets, or treehouses on properties that already had another detached structure like a garage or shed.

Central Arguments and Presented Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Charles Mandela)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the premise of a long-standing, strict interpretation of the “one detached structure” rule.

• Core Argument: For 18 years, the Respondent interpreted CC&R § 3.1 to permit only one detached structure on any given lot, regardless of its type.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Historical Enforcement: Testified that between 2002 and 2016, the HOA enforced this rule by removing nine non-compliant structures, including a gazebo, a playhouse, an observation deck, and a zipline structure.

◦ 2006 Legal Opinion: Submitted a February 7, 2006, letter from the law firm Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC, which opined on the ambiguity of CC&R § 3.1. The letter stated, “It still appears that only one structure (garage or shed) is permitted,” and supported the HOA’s ability to “enforce the ‘one detached structure’ requirement.” The letter did not specifically mention play structures.

◦ Invalid Approval Form: Presented a “Play Structure Approval Request” form he had drafted while on the board. This form incorrectly stated that the Board of Directors had voted on June 25, 2016, “to adopt changes to the CCR’s [sic], which will allow play structures.” Petitioner argued this was invalid because changing the CC&Rs requires a 75% vote of the membership, which was not obtained.

◦ Ancillary Documents: Submitted documents related to a housing discrimination claim filed by the HOA’s current president, Joseph Hancock, and a letter concerning another member. Petitioner testified these matters involved play structures, though the documents themselves did not mention CC&R § 3.1.

Respondent’s Position (Blue Ridge Estates HOA)

The Respondent’s defense centered on the purpose of the CC&Rs and its authority as a board to clarify and amend its own rules and regulations.

• Core Argument: The HOA did not violate the CC&Rs because the intent of the relevant articles is to prohibit secondary residential dwellings, not recreational structures suitable for a community intended to be a “uniquely planned recreation property.”

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ Community Status: There are currently 16 swingsets or play structures within the 193-lot development. The HOA president, Joseph Hancock, testified he has a swingset used by his children, grandchildren, and neighbors.

◦ Legal Counsel: The HOA retained the firm of Poli & Ball, PLC, which opined that because the community is for recreation and family use, “[p]lay structures are perfectly consistent with recreation and family use.” The firm advised that the Architectural Committee’s regulations could be changed to reflect this without amending the CC&Rs. Another law firm, Carpenter Hazlewood, generally agreed with this opinion.

◦ Correction of Clerical Error: Mr. Hancock testified that the form submitted by the Petitioner contained a typographical error. The board’s intent in its June 25, 2016, vote was to amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations, not the CC&Rs.

◦ Board Meeting Minutes: The HOA submitted minutes from board meetings in December 2016 and October 2017. These minutes document the board’s discovery of the error on the website form and subsequent votes to formally clarify that the change was to the rules and regulations, not the CC&Rs, thereby ratifying its decision.

◦ Amended Approval Form: Respondent submitted the corrected “Play Structure Approval Request” form, which states, “Per the modified Rules and Regulations dated April 6, 2016, this form must be submitted to Architectural Committee for approval of any Play Structure.”

Governing Rules and Covenants

The dispute hinged on the interpretation and interplay of several key provisions in the community’s governing documents.

Document / Section

Key Provision

CC&R § 3.1

“No building or structure shall be erected or maintained separate from the Single Family Residence located on any Lot, other than a garage… No garage or shed shall be built prior to the issuance of a Coconino County building permit for the construction of a Single Family Residence.”

Architectural Regulation 3(D)

“One detached structure may, with Architectural Committee approval, be constructed on a property. The residence must be constructed and completed before the detached structure is built.”

CC&R § 4.2

“By a majority vote of the Board, the Association may, from time to time… adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules and Regulations.’”

CC&R § 12.2

Amending the Declaration of CC&Rs requires “the affirmative vote… or written consent of Members owning at least seventy-five percent (75%) of all Lots.”

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Legal Rationale

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that the Respondent acted properly within its authority.

• Intent of the Covenant: The Judge determined that CC&R Article III is fundamentally “concerned with keeping Respondent single-family residential by prohibiting structures and vehicles that could be used as a second residential dwelling on a lot.” This interpretation is supported by other rules in the article prohibiting mobile homes and clarifying that “If you can live/sleep in it, you cannot park it” in the development.

• Status of Play Structures: The decision concludes that a play structure “cannot be easily converted into a second residence.” Therefore, permitting a play structure in addition to a garage or shed is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of CC&R § 3.1.

• Board Authority vs. Member Vote: Because allowing play structures was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs, the Respondent was not required to amend the CC&Rs through a 75% member vote. Instead, the Board was empowered by CC&R § 4.2 to “amend the Architectural Committee’s regulations to provide clarification on the status of play structures” through a majority vote of the Board.

• History of Enforcement: The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to establish a uniform history of enforcement against play structures. Rather, “it appears that the status of play structures, swingsets, and tree houses has been unsettled and the subject of some contention,” partly due to the Petitioner’s own advocacy.

• Conclusion: The Respondent properly resolved the ambiguity by amending its regulations.

Final Order and Implications

• Decision: The petition was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that CC&R § 3.1 prohibits play structures under any circumstances.

• Outcome for the Community:

1. The HOA’s amendment of its rules to explicitly permit play structures was deemed valid.

2. All play structures previously approved by the Architectural Committee are allowed to remain on members’ properties.

3. The Architectural Committee is authorized to consider and approve future Play Structure Approval Requests that are submitted in accordance with the established regulations.


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf; previously served as president of the Architectural Committee.

Respondent Side

  • Brian C. Axt (attorney)
    Resnick & Louis, P.C.
    Represented Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association.
  • Joseph Hancock (board member)
    Blue Ridge Estates Homeowner Association
    Board's president; presented testimony/witness for Respondent.
  • Jason Miller (counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood
    Provided an email opinion supporting the Respondent's position.

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate