Case Summary
| Case ID | 20F-H2020059-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-02-12 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Michael J. Stoltenberg | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association | Counsel | Nicole Payne |
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 5.1; A.R.S. § 10-3842
Outcome Summary
The Petition was dismissed after rehearing because Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. The ALJ found that Petitioner continually refused Respondent access to his locked back yard for landscaping maintenance, and the CC&Rs requiring landscaping do not mandate pool maintenance.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation due to refusal of access to the back yard and misinterpretation of CC&R obligations regarding pool maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith
Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs by failing to maintain landscaping in 2020 and acting in bad faith, asserting that pool/hardscape maintenance was included in landscaping duties, and requesting the maximum fine. Respondent countered that they consistently maintained the front yard but were denied access to the locked backyard due to Petitioner's pool liability concerns.
Orders: Petitioner's Petition was dismissed/denied as Petitioner failed to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Respondent was ordered, going forward, to communicate the days and times they will be performing back yard landscaping so Petitioner can provide access.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- CC&Rs § 5.1
- CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
- A.R.S. § 10-3842
- 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Analytics Highlights
- CC&Rs § 5.1
- CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
- A.R.S. § 10-3842
- 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. § 32-1122(A)(1)
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
- A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
20F-H2020059-REL-RHG Decision – 855028.pdf
20F-H2020059-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020059-REL/815480.pdf
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Study Guide: Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Identify the Petitioner and Respondent in this case and describe the core issue of their dispute.
2. What specific provision of the governing documents did the Petitioner, Michael J. Stoltenberg, claim the Respondent violated?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what unique features did his property’s landscaping include, and what services did he believe the HOA was responsible for?
4. What was the primary reason the Respondent’s landscaping contractor, Mowtown Landscape, was unable to perform maintenance in the Petitioner’s backyard?
5. What was the testimony of Diana Crites, the property manager, regarding the scope of standard landscaping services provided by the HOA?
6. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge deny the Petitioner’s initial petition in the decision dated August 17, 2020?
7. For what primary reasons did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner a rehearing?
8. In the rehearing, what external sources did the Administrative Law Judge consult to determine the definition of “landscaping”?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and who bears the responsibility for meeting it?
10. What was the final order issued after the rehearing on February 12, 2021, and what reasonable suggestion did the judge offer for future interactions?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner was homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core dispute concerned the HOA’s alleged failure to maintain the landscaping on the Petitioner’s property as required by the community’s CC&Rs, specifically whether this obligation included maintaining the Petitioner’s private pool.
2. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated Section 5.1 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). This section outlines the Association’s duties, including the maintenance of landscaping on individual lots outside of structures. The Petitioner also initially alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842.
3. The Petitioner testified that his landscaping was unique, including xeriscape with geometric patterns, “water features” (a pool), and walking paths that needed staining. He contended that the HOA should be responsible for maintaining these features, including replenishing the rock in his front yard when it wore thin.
4. The landscaping contractor was unable to perform maintenance because the gate to the backyard was always locked. The Petitioner acknowledged he kept it locked for liability reasons due to the pool, and evidence showed that in March 2020, a woman at the residence explicitly told the landscapers she did not want anyone in the backyard.
5. Diana Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services, not “concierge” services. This includes front yard maintenance and mowing and blowing of backyards, but not maintaining potted plants, driveways, property-dividing walls, or individual homeowners’ pools.
6. The judge denied the petition because the evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admission, established that he had refused to allow the Respondent access to his backyard since January 2020. The decision noted the Respondent had made multiple attempts to access the yard and had consistently maintained the front yard.
7. The rehearing was granted for reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s rehearing request. These included claims of irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was not supported by evidence or was contrary to law. The Petitioner also cited ADA and privacy issues.
8. The Administrative Law Judge consulted various online dictionary definitions (Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Law Insider). She also analyzed the license classifications from the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, specifically the R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license and the R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair license.
9. The legal standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means the proof must convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the governing documents.
10. The final order dismissed the Petitioner’s petition again, finding he failed to prove the HOA was obligated to maintain his pool. However, the judge suggested that it would be reasonable for the Respondent to communicate the days and times of its landscaping services going forward so the Petitioner could provide access while maintaining safety precautions.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed essay response for each prompt.
1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain who held the burden, what they were required to prove, and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that they failed to meet this burden in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.
2. Discuss the role of access in the dispute between Michael J. Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro HOA. How did the issue of the locked gate impact the initial ruling, and how did the Petitioner attempt to reframe this issue in the rehearing?
3. The interpretation of the word “landscaping” was central to the rehearing. Detail the Petitioner’s interpretation versus the conclusion reached by the Administrative Law Judge. What evidence and legal reasoning did the Judge use to support her conclusion that pool maintenance is not included in landscaping?
4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing on April 21, 2020, to the final order after the rehearing. Identify the key events, the specific reasons cited for the rehearing, and the legal basis for the final dismissal.
5. Based on the testimony of Diana Crites and Rian Baas, describe the standard landscaping services provided by the Rancho Del Oro HOA and its contractor. How does this standard practice contrast with the specific and unique services the Petitioner demanded for his property?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
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 bore the burden of proof.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or homeowners’ association.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), the state agency with jurisdiction over HOA dispute resolution petitions.
Homeowners’ Association. An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Oro HOA.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg.
Petition
A formal written request filed with a court or administrative body to initiate a legal proceeding. Mr. Stoltenberg filed a petition alleging the HOA violated its CC&Rs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the fact-finder that their claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Registrar of Contractors
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating contractors. The ALJ referenced its license classifications for landscaping (R-21) and swimming pools (R-6) to help define the scope of services.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Briefing on Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from two administrative hearings concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged the HOA violated its governing documents by failing to maintain landscaping at his property. The case was ultimately dismissed after an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on two key issues: the scope of “landscaping” services required by the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the Petitioner’s denial of access to his backyard. The Petitioner argued that the undefined term “landscaping” in the CC&Rs should be interpreted broadly to include maintenance of his private swimming pool, which he referred to as a “water feature.” Concurrently, he acknowledged keeping his backyard gate locked for liability reasons related to the pool, preventing the HOA’s contractor from performing any work.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The judge concluded that the HOA had made repeated, documented attempts to perform its duties, but was actively prevented from doing so by the Petitioner. Critically, the judge ruled that a reasonable interpretation of “landscaping,” supported by dictionary definitions and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ distinct licensing classifications for landscaping and swimming pool services, does not include the maintenance of a private pool and its associated mechanical equipment.
I. Case Overview
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
20F-H2020059-REL and 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG (Rehearing)
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg (Homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Yuma, AZ)
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA)
Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Hearing Dates
August 3, 2020 (Initial Hearing) and February 2, 2021 (Rehearing)
Final Disposition
Petition Dismissed (February 12, 2021)
II. Petitioner’s Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about April 21, 2020, alleging the HOA acted in “bad faith” and failed to perform its duties in 2020. The core of his case was built on the following claims:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The Petitioner alleged a violation of § 5.1 of the HOA’s CC&Rs, which mandates that the “Association shall maintain… landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” He also alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 10-3842, although this was not addressed at the hearing.
• Broad Interpretation of “Landscaping”: The Petitioner contended that since the CC&Rs do not define “landscaping,” the term should encompass all features on his lot. He specifically asserted that the HOA was responsible for maintaining:
◦ His swimming pool (referred to as a “water feature”), including the pump, filter, and chemicals.
◦ His unique xeriscape with geometric patterns.
◦ Walking paths that required staining.
◦ Replenishing decorative rock when it wears thin.
◦ The patio and all hardscape.
• Denial of Access: The Petitioner acknowledged that the gate to his backyard was “always locked for liability reasons” due to the pool. At the rehearing, he argued that the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule, which would have afforded him an opportunity to unlock the gate.
• Rehearing Claims: In his request for a rehearing, the Petitioner cited several grounds, including an abuse of discretion by the judge, errors in evidence, and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming hearing loss put him at a “severe disadvantage.” At the rehearing itself, he also asserted that the Respondent was “falsely representing themselves as an HOA” and did not have an elected Board.
III. Respondent’s Defense and Evidence
The HOA, represented by Nicole Payne, Esq., argued that it had fulfilled its obligations and that any failure to maintain the Petitioner’s backyard was due to his own actions.
• Consistent Maintenance of Front Yard: The HOA established that its contractor, Mowtown Landscape, had continuously maintained the Petitioner’s front yard since their contract began in January 2020.
• Denied Access to Backyard: The central defense was that the HOA’s contractor was repeatedly and deliberately denied access to the backyard. This was supported by substantial evidence:
◦ Testimony of Rian Baas (Mowtown Landscape): Mr. Baas testified that his crews were at the community every Wednesday and Thursday. He stated they knocked on the Petitioner’s door and left notes or business cards four or five times between January and March 2020.
◦ Testimony of Diana Crites (Property Manager): Ms. Crites presented a text message from Mr. Baas dated March 24, 2020, which read:
◦ Documentary Evidence: A photograph of the locked gate was submitted, along with a letter from Mr. Baas stating, “There is a lock on the gate going to the back yard and we were trying to see if they [sic] people inside the house wanted us to maintenance the back yard. No one ever answered or came to the door.”
• Scope of HOA Services: Ms. Crites testified that the HOA provides uniform services (front yard maintenance, mowing and blowing of back yards, sprinkler system maintenance) and does not offer “concierge” services like maintaining potted plants or private pools. The community pool, she noted, is maintained by a different company entirely (Crystal Clear Pool Maintenance).
IV. Judicial Findings and Legal Rulings
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella found in favor of the Respondent in both the initial decision and the rehearing, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Initial Decision (August 17, 2020)
The initial petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The judge’s reasoning was:
1. Denial of Access: The Petitioner’s own admission, coupled with “credible, probative, and substantial evidence,” established that he had refused to allow the HOA access to his backyard since January 2020.
2. HOA Attempts: The evidence demonstrated that the HOA had attempted to access the yard on multiple occasions and was “specifically instructed in March 2020, that Respondent was not permitted to access Petitioner’s back yard.”
3. Scope of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that while § 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain yards, “nothing therein requires Respondent to maintain an individual member’s pool.”
Rehearing Decision (February 12, 2021)
After the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted a rehearing, Judge Vanella again dismissed the petition, providing a more detailed legal analysis of the term “landscaping.”
1. Burden of Proof: The judge reiterated that the Petitioner bore the burden to establish that the HOA was legally obligated to maintain his pool, but “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent must do so.”
2. Definition of “Landscaping”: The judge found that the definitions of “landscaping” from various sources, including dictionaries, “cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and the associated mechanical equipment.”
3. State Licensing as Key Differentiator: The most definitive part of the ruling relied on the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’ licensing classifications, which treat landscaping and pool maintenance as two separate and distinct services.
License Classification
Description & Relevance
R-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (Formerly Landscaping and Irrigation Systems)
Allows for installation and repair of non-loadbearing concrete, patios, decorative walls, irrigation systems, and water features not attached to swimming pools. The classification specifically precludes the licensee from contracting for work on “swimming pools, pool deck coatings.”
R-6 Swimming Pool Service and Repair
A separate license required “to service and perform minor repair of residential pools and accessories.”
The judge concluded: “The Registrar’s licensing scheme supports a conclusion that landscaping maintenance and pool maintenance are two separate and distinct services… the CC&Rs cannot reasonably be interpreted to include pool maintenance when it required Respondent to maintain landscaping.”
Judicial Recommendation
While ruling against the Petitioner, the judge offered a forward-looking, non-binding recommendation:
“…given that Petitioner is required to keep his gate secured due to having a pool, it is reasonable, going forward, for Respondent to communicate the days and times that it will be performing the landscaping of Petitioner’s back yard so that Petitioner can provide access for that service while maintaining safety precautions.”
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
Respondent Side
- Nicole Payne (HOA attorney)
- Diana Crites (property manager/witness)
Crites and Associates
Owner of Respondent's property management company; licensed broker - Rian Baas (witness/contractor owner)
Mowtown Landscape
Owner of landscaping company contracted by Respondent - Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP - Luis (landscaping staff)
Staff member mentioned in text regarding access attempts - Jill (staff/employee)
Staff member mentioned printing paper for Luis regarding access attempts
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH - Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
