Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H032-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2025-05-22 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Jenna Clark |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Anne F. Segal | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. | Counsel | Wendy Ehrlich, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817, and CC&Rs Article VII
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the Association was legally permitted to amend its CC&Rs via written, notarized consent of the members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1), and that the actions taken did not violate the cited statutes or the governing documents.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; statutory requirements regarding voting (33-1812) and violation notices (33-1803) were inapplicable, and the process of using written consent and closed sessions for legal advice adhered to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1817 and 33-1804.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged unlawful procedures in replacing CC&Rs
Petitioner alleged the Association violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes and CC&Rs Article VII by using unlawful procedures to replace the existing CC&Rs. Specific complaints included the Board directing members to sign a notarized agreement without permitting open discussion or dissent on specific proposed changes, arguing that a full vote was required. Respondent argued compliance with ARS § 33-1817 and CC&Rs Article VII, which permits amendment via written consent.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
- CC&Rs Article VII
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1812
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(B-E)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817
- CC&Rs Article VII
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3704
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269718.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1269742.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274756.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1274775.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1277633.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1288621.pdf
25F-H032-REL Decision – 1308520.pdf
Briefing Document: Segal vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Anne F. Segal, Petitioner, vs. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent (No. 25F-H032-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centered on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent HOA utilized unlawful procedures to replace the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The petitioner argued that the HOA violated state statutes and the original governing documents by failing to hold sufficient open meetings for discussion, by not providing a proper ballot for a vote, and by circumventing a one-year discussion period intended by the original developer. Key evidence presented by the petitioner included testimony from the community’s original developer, who affirmed his intent for a lengthy, homeowner-driven amendment process, and testimony detailing significant, substantive changes to the CC&Rs that were allegedly not transparently communicated.
The respondent HOA defended its actions by asserting full compliance with Arizona law, particularly A.R.S. § 33-1817, which permits amendments via written consent of a majority of homeowners—a process legally distinct from a formal vote. The HOA maintained that state law superseded any conflicting provisions in the original CC&Rs. The board justified its decision to forgo a large, open-forum meeting by citing perceived “aggressive and threatening” communications from the petitioner, opting instead for a process of email-based “straw polls,” a formal Q&A period with its attorney, and a notarization event for collecting written consent.
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition. The final decision concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof. The ALJ found that the HOA acted lawfully by using executive sessions to obtain legal advice, by amending the CC&Rs through the statutory process of written consent, and that other statutes cited by the petitioner were inapplicable to the case.
Case Overview
The matter involves a formal petition filed on December 22, 2024, by homeowner Anne F. Segal with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged that the Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. violated multiple Arizona Revised Statutes (§§ 33-1812, 33-1803(B-E), 33-1804, 33-1817) and its own governing documents (initially cited as Article V, later amended to Article VII) during the process of replacing the community’s CC&Rs.
The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, with evidentiary hearings held on March 27, 2025, and May 2, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark. A final decision denying the petition was issued on May 22, 2025.
Key Parties and Witnesses
Name / Entity
Key Contributions
Anne F. Segal
Petitioner, Homeowner
Argued the HOA’s process was unlawful, lacked transparency, and violated open meeting laws and voting rights. Provided testimony and evidence regarding communications and the substance of the CC&R changes.
Prince Court Homeowners Association
Respondent
Defended its amendment process as compliant with state statutes for written consent and justified its communication methods based on legal advice and the petitioner’s conduct.
Mary Beth Snyder
President, HOA Board
Testified on behalf of the HOA (also called as an adverse witness by Petitioner). Detailed the board’s decision-making process, reliance on legal counsel, and rationale for avoiding an open-forum meeting.
Susan Matheson
Vice President, HOA Board
Corroborated Snyder’s testimony. Testified to managing the HOA’s email communications, including the accidental removal of David Zinfeld from the distribution list. Detailed complaints received from other homeowners about the petitioner’s communications.
David Zinfeld
Witness for Petitioner; Original Developer of Prince Court
Testified that he wrote the original CC&Rs with the intent for a year-long, homeowner-led discussion before any amendments. Stated he stopped receiving HOA communications and was not involved in or properly notified of the replacement process.
Dr. Robert Segal
Witness for Petitioner; Husband of Petitioner and Property Manager
Testified to the lack of open meetings and poor communication. Described the proposed CC&R changes as a “heart transplant” and highlighted discrepancies between the board’s “summary of changes” and the actual legal text.
Wendy Ehrlich, Esq.
Counsel for Respondent
Provided legal advice to the HOA board, which formed the basis for their procedural decisions. Argued the case for the Respondent during the hearings.
Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Presided over the hearings and issued the final decision, concluding the HOA acted lawfully and denying the petition.
——————————————————————————–
Central Arguments and Evidence
Petitioner’s Core Allegations
The petitioner’s case was built on the premise that the HOA’s procedure for replacing the CC&Rs was fundamentally flawed and unlawful.
• Violation of Governing Documents (Article VII): The petitioner argued the HOA ignored the original CC&Rs, which, according to the original developer David Zinfeld, intended a one-year period of open discussion prior to any amendment. Zinfeld testified, “I wanted it to be done at least a year beforehand…with discussion and meetings before any amendments should take place.”
• Improper Amendment Process: The petitioner contended that the “notarized agreement” process was not a valid “vote” and violated A.R.S. § 33-1812. This process did not provide a formal ballot or an opportunity for homeowners to vote “for or against” the action, effectively silencing dissent.
• Violation of Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804): The petitioner alleged a lack of genuine open meetings where the substance of the new CC&Rs could be debated. Testimony indicated that discussions about the CC&Rs primarily occurred in closed executive sessions, justified by the board as necessary for receiving legal advice.
• Inadequate and Misleading Communication: Dr. Robert Segal described the summary of changes provided by the board as misleading and incomplete. He gave specific examples, such as a new rule allowing the board to remove any “objectionable” vehicle, which was not mentioned in the summary provided to homeowners. The petitioner also argued that relying solely on an incomplete and unverified email list was an unreasonable means of notice.
• Substantive Overhaul Without Consent: Dr. Segal characterized the changes as a “heart transplant,” not a minor revision. He noted the new CC&Rs gave the board “much more power and authority,” including the ability to raise fees by 20% per year.
Respondent’s Defense
The respondent HOA maintained that its actions were deliberate, based on legal counsel, and fully compliant with Arizona law.
• Adherence to Statutory Process (A.R.S. § 33-1817): The HOA’s central defense was that A.R.S. § 33-1817 allows for CC&R amendments through either an “affirmative vote or written consent.” They argued they lawfully chose the written consent path, which does not require a formal ballot under A.R.S. § 33-1812. Their counsel stated, “Article 7 dictated written consent. There was no vote conducted.”
• State Law Supersedes Governing Documents: The HOA argued, and noted in its October 14, 2024 email to members, that “The time limitations for CC&R amendments set forth in our current CC&Rs, Article VII… have been superseded by Arizona law which allows CC&Rs to be amended at any time; see A.R.S. § 33-1817.”
• Justification for Avoiding an Open Forum: Both Mary Beth Snyder and Susan Matheson testified that the decision not to hold a large, in-person informational meeting was based on legal advice and the board’s concern that the petitioner would “hijack the meeting” due to her perceived “aggressive and threatening” emails and communications. Matheson read excerpts from petitioner’s emails, including phrases like “This unilateral decision of the board is buying a lawsuit” and “I’m willing to legally challenge this effort.”
• Reasonable Communication Efforts: The board defended its use of email as a reasonable means of notice. They testified to sending eight separate email communications regarding the CC&Rs, including “straw polls” to gauge opinion, drafts of the new CC&Rs, and a formal Q&A where the board’s attorney answered submitted questions.
——————————————————————————–
Final Adjudication: Administrative Law Judge Decision
On May 22, 2025, Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety, finding that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof.
Findings of Fact
The decision outlined a timeline of events from the initial announcement in March 2024 to the notarization event in December 2024. Key findings included:
• The board hired counsel in April 2024 to assist with updating the CC&Rs.
• The association conducted “straw poll” emails in July and August 2024.
• The board held closed executive sessions to discuss legal advice from its attorney regarding the CC&R revisions.
• A draft of the proposed CC&Rs was distributed to members via email on October 14, 2024.
• A Q&A process was conducted, with attorney-provided answers distributed on November 25, 2025.
• The association intentionally did not hold a large open meeting due to concerns over the petitioner’s perceived behavior.
• A majority of homeowners (at least 20 of 39) provided signed and notarized consent agreements.
Conclusions of Law
The ALJ made the following legal conclusions, which formed the basis of the denial:
1. Written Consent is a Lawful Process: The Tribunal found that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) explicitly allows an association to amend its declaration by “an affirmative vote or written consent.” The HOA lawfully chose the written consent method.
2. State Law Supersedes CC&Rs: The provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1817 supersede the edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs regarding the amendment timeline.
3. Executive Sessions Were Permissible: The board was permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) to go into executive session to receive legal advice from its attorney, even if the advice was unrelated to pending litigation.
4. Inapplicability of Other Statutes: The statutes regarding voting procedures (A.R.S. § 33-1812) and violation notices (A.R.S. § 33-1803) were deemed inapplicable and irrelevant to the matter at hand, as no formal vote was conducted and no violation notice was issued to the petitioner.
5. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The decision concluded that the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had violated any of the cited statutes or its governing documents. The petition was therefore denied.
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “25F-H032-REL”, “case_title”: “Anne F. Segal v. Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2025-05-22”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can an HOA amend its CC&Rs by obtaining written consent from homeowners rather than holding a vote?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, an HOA is permitted to amend CC&Rs by written consent under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), and voting statutes do not apply to this process.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the association was permitted to modify its CC&Rs by written consent of its members. Because this process falls under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1), the statutes governing voting (A.R.S. § 33-1812) are considered unrelated and irrelevant to the proceedings.”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association … was also permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1)… Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “Written Consent”, “Voting Rights” ] }, { “question”: “Does state law override CC&R provisions that restrict when amendments can be made (e.g., only every 10 years)?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) supersedes original CC&R restrictions regarding periodic renewal or specific timelines for amendments.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision clarifies that state statute supersedes ‘edicts’ in original CC&Rs regarding timing for amendments. Even if the original documents specify a renewal period, the association can amend the documents via the statutory written consent process.”, “alj_quote”: “…permitted to modify or otherwise amend its CC&Rs by written consent of its Members under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(A)(1); which supersedes any edicts outlined in Article VII of the original CC&Rs.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “CC&R Amendments”, “State Statute Supremacy”, “Governing Documents” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA Board hold a closed executive session to get legal advice if there is no pending lawsuit?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Board may meet in executive session to receive legal advice from their attorney, even if it is unrelated to pending litigation.”, “detailed_answer”: “Homeowners often believe legal advice must relate to a lawsuit for a meeting to be closed. However, the ALJ ruled that the Board is permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).”, “alj_quote”: “It is clear from the record that the Association was not only permitted to go into executive session to receive legal advice unrelated to pending litigation from its attorney under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)…”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Open Meetings”, “Executive Session”, “Legal Advice” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to hold an open discussion or town hall meeting before amending the CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, the tribunal found that there is no requirement to permit members to openly deliberate proposed changes for a specific period if the statutory process is followed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner argued that the HOA was required to permit open deliberation for at least one year. The ALJ disagreed, ruling that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof for this contention, implying statutory compliance for written consent is sufficient.”, “alj_quote”: “Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent was required to permit Members to openly deliberate proposed changes to the CC&Rs for at least 1 year… the Tribunal is not in agreement with either of Petitioner’s contentions, and holds that she has not sustained her burden of proof in this matter.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817”, “topic_tags”: [ “Procedural Requirements”, “Open Discussion”, “CC&R Amendments” ] }, { “question”: “Do statutes regarding monetary penalties apply to the process of amending CC&Rs?”, “short_answer”: “No, statutes regarding fines and penalties are irrelevant to the amendment process if no actual violation notice was issued or penalty imposed.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding A.R.S. § 33-1803 (which governs monetary penalties) because they were inapplicable to a dispute centered on the procedural validity of amending CC&Rs where no fines were levied.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1812(A) and 33-1803 are inapplicable to the proceedings at bar as unrelated and irrelevant. No violations of these statutes have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1803”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Statutory Application”, “Relevance” ] }, { “question”: “Who bears the burden of proof in a hearing regarding HOA procedural violations?”, “short_answer”: “The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “In administrative hearings regarding HOA disputes, it is up to the homeowner filing the petition to prove that their allegations are more probably true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory and/or governing document violation(s).”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Procedure”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Procedure” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Anne F. Segal (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf. - David Zeinfeld (witness)
Original developer and declarant of the subdivision. - Robert J. Seagull (witness)
Petitioner's husband and property manager.
Respondent Side
- Wendy Ehrlich (HOA attorney)
Counsel for Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc. - Mary Beth Snyder (board member)
Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
President of the Association and witness. - Susan Matheson (board member)
Prince Court Homeowners Association, Inc.
Vice President of the Association and witness.
Neutral Parties
- Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH - Susan Nicolson (ADRE Commissioner)
ADRE - Dianna Tidle (observer)
- vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE - djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE - labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE - mneat (ADRE staff)
ADRE - lrecchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE - gosborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
