Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association
Counsel
Ashley N. Moscarello
Alleged Violations
Article II Section 3 of Respondent’s bylaws
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Petitioner's claim, finding that the HOA violated Article II Section 3 of its bylaws by failing to hold the Annual Meeting on the second Monday of March (March 13, 2023). The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee, but a request for a civil penalty was denied.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to hold an annual meeting as required by bylaws
The HOA failed to hold the mandatory annual meeting on March 13, 2023, as explicitly required by the amended bylaws (Article II Section 3). The meeting was subsequently scheduled for May 8, 2023, 56 days late, constituting a violation, even though the later meeting failed to meet quorum.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is affirmed. Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00. Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H053-REL Decision – 1072068.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:32 (115.3 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H053-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H053-REL”, “case_title”: “Deborah L. Masear v. Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-07-10”, “alj_name”: “Brian Del Vecchio”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If the bylaws state a specific date for the annual meeting, can the HOA board reschedule it to a different month?”, “short_answer”: “No. If the bylaws use mandatory language like “shall,” the HOA cannot change the date.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ determined that when bylaws state a meeting “shall be held” on a specific date, this language is mandatory and not permissive. The HOA does not have the discretion to change the date of the annual meeting if the governing documents specify exactly when it must occur.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent’s Bylaws state, ‘[t]he annual meeting of the members shall be held,’ at the designated date and time annually. The phrase ‘shall be held’ is not permissive; there is no changing the date of the annual meeting.”, “legal_basis”: “Bylaws Article II Section 3”, “topic_tags”: [ “Annual Meetings”, “Bylaws Interpretation”, “HOA Obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Does a meeting count as being ‘held’ if the HOA schedules it but fails to reach a quorum?”, “short_answer”: “No. If a quorum is not present, the meeting is legally considered not to have been held.”, “detailed_answer”: “Even if the HOA sends notice and attempts to convene, the failure to achieve a quorum means the meeting cannot conduct business. The ALJ ruled that in such cases, the meeting was not actually held, resulting in a violation if the bylaws required a meeting on that date.”, “alj_quote”: “Respondent attempted to hold an annual meeting on May 8, 2023, and but for the lack of quorum, the meeting was not held.”, “legal_basis”: “Findings of Fact”, “topic_tags”: [ “Quorum”, “Annual Meetings”, “Procedural Requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If I win my dispute against the HOA, will I get my $500 filing fee back?”, “short_answer”: “Yes. The ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee to the prevailing homeowner.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this decision, after ruling in favor of the homeowner regarding the failure to hold the annual meeting, the judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the $500 filing fee the homeowner paid to initiate the case.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “Remedies”, “Filing Fees”, “Costs” ] }, { “question”: “Will the HOA automatically be fined a civil penalty if they are found to have violated the bylaws?”, “short_answer”: “No. The ALJ may deny a request for civil penalties even if they find that a violation occurred.”, “detailed_answer”: “While the homeowner in this case requested a civil penalty be levied against the HOA for the violation, the ALJ explicitly denied this request in the final order, despite ruling that the HOA had violated the bylaws.”, “alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.”, “legal_basis”: “Administrative Discretion”, “topic_tags”: [ “Penalties”, “Remedies”, “Enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA violated the rules?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing before the OAH, the person bringing the complaint must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ It is not up to the HOA to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article II Section 3 of the Bylaws.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “Burden of Proof”, “Legal Standards”, “Hearing Procedures” ] }, { “question”: “What kind of HOA disputes can I file with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?”, “short_answer”: “You can file petitions regarding violations of community documents (CC&Rs, bylaws) or state statutes regulating planned communities.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Department has jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners and associations specifically concerning violations of the community’s governing documents or the relevant Arizona statutes regulating these communities.”, “alj_quote”: “The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities…”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.”, “topic_tags”: [ “Jurisdiction”, “ADRE”, “Filing a Complaint” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Deborah Masear(petitioner) Paradise Park Condominiums Phase II HOA Member Also referred to as Deborah Maer
Respondent Side
Ashley Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Law Group Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Carl Westlund(witness) Management Trust Community Manager for the HOA
Neutral Parties
Brian Del Vecchio(ALJ) OAH Also referred to as Judge Delio
The HOA's petition was granted. Respondents were found to have violated CC&Rs Section 3(j) by installing tile without approval and were ordered to comply with the CC&Rs, reimburse the $500 filing fee, and pay a $100 civil penalty.
Why this result: Respondents admitted to the alleged conduct and failed to establish a sufficient affirmative defense (incomplete CC&Rs) against the violation, as the recorded CC&Rs provided constructive notice of all provisions. Respondents' conduct during testimony was also considered a factor in aggravation.
Respondents permanently installed tile on their front porch entryway without obtaining prior written approval. The ALJ rejected the Respondents' defense regarding missing CC&R pages, noting the HOA sustained its burden of proving a community document violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Orders: Respondents must henceforth abide by CC&Rs Section 3(j), reimburse the Petitioner $500.00 for the filing fee, and pay a $100.00 civil penalty to the Department.
Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?
Short Answer
No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
Legal Basis
Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
disclosure
compliance
Question
Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?
Short Answer
Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Contractual Obligations
Topic Tags
architectural control
maintenance
visibility
Question
Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?
Short Answer
No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.
Legal Basis
Remedy of Violation
Topic Tags
violations
remedies
architectural control
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
evidence
Question
If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?
Short Answer
Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
ADRE
Question
Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?
Short Answer
Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.
Alj Quote
Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors
Case
Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Am I excused from HOA rules if pages were missing from the copy of the CC&Rs I received at closing?
Short Answer
No. Recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions to homeowners, regardless of errors in the specific copy provided at closing.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that missing pages in the document package provided by a disclosure company or previous owner do not excuse a homeowner from compliance. Because CC&Rs are recorded public documents, homeowners are deemed to have 'constructive notice' of all rules contained within the recorded version.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed by Mr. White’s incorrect legal interpretations regarding the annotated CC&Rs received by HomeWise, as the Pima County recorded CC&Rs provide constructive notice of all provisions contained within the community documents
Legal Basis
Constructive Notice
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
disclosure
compliance
Question
Can the HOA regulate changes to my property even if they aren't visible from the street or neighboring properties?
Short Answer
Yes, especially if the HOA is responsible for maintaining the exterior surfaces.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the HOA's authority to regulate exterior modifications regardless of visibility, particularly noting that when an owner acquires a lot where the HOA performs maintenance, they may give up rights to control the appearance of those areas.
Alj Quote
Each Owner of a Villas Lot understands, acknowledges and agrees that by acquiring an interest in a Lot in which landscaping and exterior maintenance is performed or arranged by the Villas Association, such Owner is giving up rights to control the appearance and use of the outside areas of such Owner’s Villas Lot.
Legal Basis
CC&Rs Contractual Obligations
Topic Tags
architectural control
maintenance
visibility
Question
Can I fix a violation for unapproved flooring by simply covering it with a rug?
Short Answer
No. Covering an unapproved permanent installation with a removable item like a rug does not cure the underlying violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the homeowner's argument that placing a custom rug over unapproved tiles resolved the issue. The violation (the unapproved installation) persisted despite being hidden from view.
Alj Quote
The Tribunal is not swayed… by Mr. White’s placement of a custom cut rug in lieu of paying the fine to the Association.
Legal Basis
Remedy of Violation
Topic Tags
violations
remedies
architectural control
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
The Petitioner (the party bringing the case) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The Petitioner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more likely true than not). Conversely, if the Respondent claims an affirmative defense (a legal excuse), they bear the burden of proving that defense.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Respondents bear the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
procedural
burden of proof
evidence
Question
If I lose the hearing, do I have to reimburse the HOA for their filing fee?
Short Answer
Yes. The prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ordered the losing homeowner to reimburse the HOA for the $500 filing fee they paid to bring the case. This is a statutory requirement under Arizona law.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall reimburse Petitioner its filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topic Tags
fees
costs
penalties
Question
Can the ALJ order me to pay a penalty to the state in addition to reimbursing the HOA?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ has the authority to impose a civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, in addition to ordering compliance and fee reimbursement to the HOA, the ALJ ordered the homeowner to pay a $100 civil penalty directly to the Department of Real Estate.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall pay a $100.00 civil penalty in certified funds to the Department within thirty (30) days of this ORDER, as authorized by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
civil penalty
fines
ADRE
Question
Does my behavior during the dispute process affect the judge's decision?
Short Answer
Yes. Obfuscating or evasive conduct can be considered an aggravating factor against you.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ specifically noted that the homeowner's conduct during testimony was 'obfuscating' (confusing or unclear) and weighed this as a factor in aggravation when making the final ruling.
Alj Quote
Moreover, Mr. White’s conduct during the testimony was obfuscating, and is considered a factor in aggravation.
Legal Basis
Judicial Discretion
Topic Tags
conduct
hearing process
aggravating factors
Case
Docket No
23F-H042-REL
Case Title
Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. vs. Randall & Gisela White
Decision Date
2023-05-09
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Shupe(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC Appeared as counsel for Petitioner
Carolyn B. Goldschmidt(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC Legal counsel for the Association; communication contact listed
Lori Don Woullet(Property Manager/Witness) Cadden Community Management Senior Community Association Manager
Diane Patricia Weber(Former Board Member/Witness) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Former Board Treasurer
Lynn Birleffi(Witness) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Called as a witness for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Randall White(Respondent) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Appeared pro se and testified
Gisela White(Respondent) Quail Creek Villas Association, Inc. Appearance waived
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
The petition was dismissed after the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent HOA did not violate CC&R Section 5.4, finding that this section applies to use restrictions on individual Lots and Members, not the Association itself.
Why this result: The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 5.4 because the HOA does not own or operate the nuisance-causing television, and the CC&R section governs restrictions on lot Owners/Members, not the Association. OAH jurisdiction is limited to finding the governing document or statute violated by the respondent.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA failed to perform its duty to enforce CC&R Section 5.4 by refusing to seek removal of a neighbor's large, outdoor television that created noise disturbances and was deemed a nuisance.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32- 2199.02(A)
CC&R Section 5.4
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Homeowners Association, CC&R, Nuisance, Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Outdoor TV
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 23F-H041-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “23F-H041-REL”, “case_title”: “In the Matter of Anthony Payson vs The Foothills Homeowners Association #1”, “decision_date”: “2023-05-01”, “alj_name”: “Velva Moses-Thompson”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can I use the ADRE administrative hearing process to force my HOA to enforce CC&R rules against a neighbor?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no, if the specific rule applies to member conduct rather than Association conduct.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) clarified that the dispute process is for determining if the Respondent (the HOA) violated a statute or governing document. If a CC&R provision restricts how a ‘lot’ may be used, a violation of that rule is a breach by the member (the neighbor), not the Association. Therefore, the HOA cannot be found guilty of violating a rule that governs homeowner behavior.”, “alj_quote”: “These provisions refer to what members may and may not do within the Association. Therefore, any breach of this Article would be a breach by a Member, not the Association. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated CC&R Section 5.4.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 5.4; OAH Jurisdiction”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement”, “jurisdiction”, “neighbor disputes” ] }, { “question”: “Does the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) have jurisdiction to decide if my HOA was negligent or violated common law duties?”, “short_answer”: “No, the OAH jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations of statutes and governing documents.”, “detailed_answer”: “The tribunal does not have the authority to hear claims based on common law, such as negligence or general failure to perform a duty, unless it is a specific violation of the statutes or the community documents tailored to the Association’s conduct.”, “alj_quote”: “To the extent that Petitioner alleged that Respondent may have violated common law, or any other laws, the OAH lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “common law”, “negligence” ] }, { “question”: “What remedies or penalties can I request from the administrative judge if I win my case against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Relief is limited to a finding of violation, an order to comply, return of filing fees, and civil penalties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The administrative process cannot award damages for things like pain, suffering, or lost property value. The remedies are strictly defined by statute: finding a violation occurred, ordering the HOA to abide by the provision, returning the petitioner’s filing fee, and levying a civil penalty.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s relief in this venue is limited to e is limited to a finding that the governing document or statute at issue has been violated by the respondent, an order that Respondent abide by the provision in the future, and to have the filing fee returned to the petitioner and a civil penalty levied against Respondent.”, “legal_basis”: “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32- 2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “remedies”, “penalties”, “civil penalty” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner bringing the case must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not the HOA’s job to disprove the claims initially; the burden lies with the person filing the petition.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated on its CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “evidence”, “legal standard” ] }, { “question”: “What is the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard used in these hearings?”, “short_answer”: “It means the claim is more probable than not to be true.”, “detailed_answer”: “This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must convince the judge that the petitioner’s argument is more likely true than the opposing side’s argument. It is described as the ‘greater weight of the evidence.'”, “alj_quote”: ““A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.””, “legal_basis”: “Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standard”, “definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “How are vague or ambiguous rules in the CC&Rs interpreted by the judge?”, “short_answer”: “They are construed to give effect to the intent of the parties and the underlying purpose of the document.”, “detailed_answer”: “When interpreting restrictive covenants, the judge looks at the document as a whole. If the covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced exactly as written to match the intent.”, “alj_quote”: ““Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.””, “legal_basis”: “Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553”, “topic_tags”: [ “interpretation”, “CC&Rs”, “legal principles” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Anthony Payson(petitioner) Homeowner
Respondent Side
Sean K. Mohnihan(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley, PLLC Appeared for Respondent The Foothills Homeowners Association #1
Jason E Smith(attorney) Smith & Wamsley, PLLC Listed with counsel
Gabron(board member) The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Board representative/potential witness
Linda Armo(board member) The Foothills Homeowners Association #1 Board representative/potential witness
Philip Brown(former HOA attorney) Previously represented the HOA; wrote a letter to Petitioner
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Barry Callahan(neighbor) Alleged violator of CC&Rs, neighbor to Petitioner
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.
Key Issues & Findings
Annual meeting
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Decision Documents
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)
23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)
Study Guide – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H031-REL
Select all sources
1035344.pdf
1045278.aac
1049021.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H031-REL
3 sources
These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.
What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?
How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?
Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:17 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford S. Burnes(petitioner) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(HOA attorney) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez(board member) Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official transmittal.
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F); Deer Valley CC&Rs Articles 1.16, 6.2, 2.3, 7.1, 7.3; Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1 and 7.2
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated community documents by failing to replace trees on Member lots. The CC&Rs did not establish a duty for the HOA to replace homeowner trees.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; Petitioner was not an aggrieved party; Petitioner failed to establish causation by Respondent or duty to act by Respondent; trees belong to homeowners, and the Deer Valley CC&Rs do not require the HOA to replace trees under its maintenance obligations.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether Respondent is responsible for replacing dead and/or dying trees on all Member Lots in accordance with cited community documents.
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated governing documents by failing to replace dead trees on member lots, and sought an order compelling the replacement of 59 missing trees (at a rate of 10 per year).
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Sun City West Dec CC&Rs Article 4.2(F)
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 1.16
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 6.2
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 2.3
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.1
Deer Valley CC&Rs Article 7.3
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.1
Deer Valley HOA Rules & Regulations ¶ 7.2
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, Landscape maintenance, Tree replacement, Burden of proof, Standing
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs require the HOA to perform 'maintenance', does that legally obligate them to replace dead plants or trees?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. The term 'maintenance' does not automatically include 'replacement' unless specified in the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the HOA was found not to be in violation for refusing to replace trees because the CC&Rs governed 'maintenance,' which was interpreted as distinct from a requirement to replace items owned by the homeowner. The ALJ ruled the homeowner failed to prove the HOA had a duty to replace the trees.
Alj Quote
The Board declined Petitioner’s request, as it had concluded that the Deer Valley CC&Rs did not require replacement of trees under its maintenance obligations.
Legal Basis
Contract Interpretation / CC&Rs
Topic Tags
Maintenance vs Replacement
CC&Rs
Landscaping
Question
Can I file a petition against my HOA on behalf of the entire community regarding a general issue?
Short Answer
No. You must be an 'aggrieved party' with a specific injury to yourself or your property.
Detailed Answer
A homeowner cannot sue on behalf of other community members. To have standing, the petitioner must demonstrate that they personally suffered an injury. In this case, the petitioner had no dead trees on his own lot, so he was not considered an aggrieved party.
Alj Quote
Here, Petitioner is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner admitted that he brought forth his petition 'on behalf of all community members' and did not have a dead, dying, or missing tree on his lot.
Legal Basis
Standing / Aggrieved Party Status
Topic Tags
Standing
Procedural Requirements
Question
Can I argue that my neighbor's violations are diminishing my property value in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Generally, no, unless you have concrete evidence and it is a justiciable issue.
Detailed Answer
Claims that a neighbor's lack of maintenance (like dead trees) negatively impacts your property value may be dismissed as irrelevant or unsupported without significant proof. The tribunal may consider this non-justiciable.
Alj Quote
Notably, Petitioner’s allegation that his lot’s value has been diminished by neighboring lots due to their dead, dying, and/or missing trees is irrelevant, not supported by the record, and is not a justiciable issue for this tribunal.
Legal Basis
Evidence / Justiciable Issues
Topic Tags
Property Value
Evidence
Question
If I pay a filing fee for one issue, can I add other complaints to the hearing later?
Short Answer
No. The tribunal will only address the specific issue for which the filing fee was paid.
Detailed Answer
Administrative hearings are limited in scope to the specific issues properly petitioned and paid for. Tangential issues raised in addendums or during the hearing will likely not be adjudicated if a separate fee was not paid.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioner raised in the addendum to his petition.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Filing Fees
Scope of Hearing
Question
Does the HOA have the authority to remove items (like trees) from my private lot without permission?
Short Answer
No, unless the governing documents explicitly grant that authority.
Detailed Answer
The HOA generally cannot enter a homeowner's lot to remove property, such as trees, without the owner's permission, unless the record establishes specific authority to do so.
Alj Quote
There is nothing in the record that establishes Respondent has the authority to remove a tree from a homeowner’s lot without permission, or that Respondent has done so in the past.
Legal Basis
Property Rights / HOA Authority
Topic Tags
Homeowner Rights
Trespass/Authority
Question
What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win a case against their HOA?
Short Answer
The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner must prove that their claim is more likely true than not. This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases, but still requires superior evidentiary weight.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can I base my claim on the 'Master Association' CC&Rs if my specific HOA CC&Rs say something different?
Short Answer
Generally, the specific HOA CC&Rs form the enforceable contract for maintenance issues within that specific subdivision.
Detailed Answer
While a Master Association may have its own rules, the specific subdivision's CC&Rs are often the controlling documents regarding maintenance obligations for lots within that subdivision. The ALJ focused on the specific HOA's documents to determine liability.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that the Deer Valley CC&Rs govern landscaping maintenance for the Association… [and] did not require Respondent to replace dead, dying, or missing trees within the Association
Legal Basis
Governing Documents Hierarchy
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
Master Association
Case
Docket No
23F-H003-REL
Case Title
Matthew E Thompson vs. Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc.
Decision Date
2022-12-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Matthew E Thompson(petitioner) Also referred to as Mathew E. Thompson; Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Beth Mohei, Beth Moi, or Beth Mali
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Also referred to as Hayden Dorenzo
Charles Dean Otto(Board President; witness) Deer Valley Homeowners Association Inc. Also referred to as Charles Deano; President of the board of management
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Other Participants
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Constituent Services Manager
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Transmitted electronic order
c. serrano(OAH staff) OAH Transmitted Minute Entry
Sam Muza(Contractor President) Verde Valley Landscape Services Signed contract with HOA
Charlene Frost(homeowner) Filed Request for Exterior Change application
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official correspondence
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?
Short Answer
The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Gregory Ehle(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself.
Respondent Side
Emily H. Mann(HOA attorney) Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy(witness) CCMC Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Handled document transmission.
c. serrano(staff) OAH Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
Other Participants
Natasha Bell(community manager) CCMC Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) and Community Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6
Outcome Summary
The ALJ found the Board acted within its lawful authority because the governing documents and statute cited did not explicitly prohibit a Board Member from resigning and immediately being appointed to fill an unexpired term to elongate their service, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6. The Tribunal found the Board’s action, though potentially questionable, was not unlawful.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated ARS § 33-1243(B) and Bylaws 3.1 and 3.6 by appointing an existing board member to fill a vacancy, effectively extending her term.
The Board appointed existing Board member Joan Robley to fill the unexpired term of Board Member Gallu (expiring Jan 2023) immediately after she resigned her own seat (expiring Jan 2021), which Petitioner alleged violated governing documents by extending her term and not genuinely filling a vacancy.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
Community Bylaws 3.1
Community Bylaws 3.6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Board Vacancy, Term Extension, Bylaw Interpretation, Resignation and Reappointment, ARS 33-1243(B)
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(B)
Community Bylaws 3.1
Community Bylaws 3.6
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221021-REL Decision – 948752.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:33 (130.2 KB)
Questions
Question
Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.
Alj Quote
Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Term Limits
Board Appointments
Question
Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?
Short Answer
No, the board is not required to select a new person.
Detailed Answer
There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.
Alj Quote
There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Qualifications
Vacancies
Question
Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?
Short Answer
Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.
Alj Quote
The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Authority
Question
Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?
Short Answer
No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.
Alj Quote
Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.
Legal Basis
Board Discretion
Topic Tags
Board Conduct
Decision Making
Question
What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearings
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?
Short Answer
Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Contract Interpretation
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Procedure
Fees
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can a board member resign and immediately be appointed to a different vacancy to get a longer term?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the governing documents specifically prohibit it.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that a board member can resign their current seat and be appointed to a vacancy with a longer unexpired term. As long as the member is eligible (e.g., a unit owner) and the bylaws or statutes do not explicitly forbid this practice, it is considered a lawful exercise of the board's authority to fill vacancies.
Alj Quote
Neither Bylaws Section 3.6 nor ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1243(B) implicitly or explicitly prohibit what occurred.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B); Bylaws Section 3.6
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Term Limits
Board Appointments
Question
Does the HOA board have to choose a new person ('new blood') when filling a vacancy?
Short Answer
No, the board is not required to select a new person.
Detailed Answer
There is no legal requirement for a board to seek out new candidates or 'new blood' when filling a vacancy. The board may appoint a former or resigning director to a vacant seat as long as they meet the basic qualifications, such as being a unit owner.
Alj Quote
There is no presumption of 'new blood' as Petitioner argued. The sole requisite to fill the vacancy was that the choice be limited to unit owners, which Ms. Robley is.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Qualifications
Vacancies
Question
Does the board have the authority to fill vacancies without holding a general membership election?
Short Answer
Yes, the board generally has the statutory authority to appoint members to fill vacancies.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute allows the board of directors to fill vacancies in its membership for the remainder of an unexpired term without holding a full election, provided the bylaws align with this authority.
Alj Quote
The statute does note, however, that the board of directors may 'fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term.'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1243(B)
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Authority
Question
Is a board decision illegal just because it is 'questionable' or unpopular?
Short Answer
No, a questionable choice is not necessarily unlawful.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that even if a board makes a decision that is questionable or if they could have made a different determination, the decision is not unlawful unless it specifically violates the statutes or governing documents.
Alj Quote
Just because the Association could have made any number of different determinations after Mr. Gallu resigned, does not mean that its questionable choice to appoint Ms. Robley to his seat was unlawful.
Legal Basis
Board Discretion
Topic Tags
Board Conduct
Decision Making
Question
What burden of proof does a homeowner have when challenging an HOA in a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this standard, the petition will be denied.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Hearings
Question
Does the Administrative Law Judge have the power to interpret the HOA's CC&Rs and Bylaws?
Short Answer
Yes, the OAH tribunal can interpret the contract between the parties.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the specific authority to hear contested cases and interpret the contract (the CC&Rs and Bylaws) that exists between the homeowner and the association.
Alj Quote
OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
Jurisdiction
Contract Interpretation
Question
If I pay for a single-issue petition, can the judge rule on other related issues?
Short Answer
No, the tribunal is limited to the specific issue paid for.
Detailed Answer
The tribunal's scope is limited to the specific issue(s) for which the filing fee was paid. They cannot adjudicate outside that scope even if related violations are alleged.
Alj Quote
Because Petitioner only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may only determine whether Respondent committed a violation… based on the same event or series of alleged conduct.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.05
Topic Tags
Procedure
Fees
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221021-REL
Case Title
Dean A Yelenik vs. Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-02-18
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Arthur Dean Yelenik(petitioner) Also goes by Dean Yelenik
Kristen Terry Beloo(homeowner/past board president) Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (6 years)
Kathleen Moles(homeowner/past board president) Part of petitioner's working group; Past president (3 years)
David Moles(homeowner) Part of petitioner's working group
Respondent Side
Eadie Rudder(respondent attorney)
Nick Eicher(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Margo McInnis(board president/witness) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Testified for Respondent
Joan Robley(board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Appointment subject of dispute
Annette(property manager) Century Management Referred to as Community Manager
Quinton Phillips(HOA attorney) Attorney for the Association
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardner(HOA Coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Chris Gallu(former board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Resignation created the contested vacancy; referred to as Mr. Beloo/Blue in transcript
Fran McGovern(board member) Meridian Condominiums Homeowners Association Elected to Robley's former seat in Jan 2021
The ALJ granted the Petitioner's petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by requiring the Petitioner to inspect records before providing copies and failing to comply with the 10-day statutory deadline. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to fulfill records request
Petitioner alleged the Association failed to fulfill his request for copies of records within the statutory 10-day period because the Association improperly required him to inspect the documents first. The ALJ found the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, as the statute does not permit an HOA to mandate prior inspection before providing requested copies.
Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds and ordered to henceforth comply with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
U.S. Parking v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 772 P.2d 33 (App. 1989)
Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221010-REL Decision – 930949.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:34 (139.0 KB)
Questions
Question
Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.
Alj Quote
Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
inspection
homeowner rights
Question
How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?
Short Answer
The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.
Alj Quote
On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
records request
HOA obligations
Question
What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records request
costs
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records review
homeowner rights
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
reimbursement
penalties
legal costs
Question
Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, if you designate them in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
representation
records request
homeowner rights
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure
Question
Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.
Detailed Answer
The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.
Alj Quote
Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
excuses
mailing
HOA obligations
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA force me to inspect records in person before they will provide me with copies?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot require an in-person inspection as a prerequisite to providing copies.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled that Arizona statute allows homeowners to request copies directly. While the HOA can make records available for inspection, they cannot force a member to inspect them first if the member has requested copies. Doing so violates the statutory requirement to provide copies within ten business days.
Alj Quote
Nothing in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 can be read to permit an HOA to require members to first inspect records before it provides copies of records requested by members.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
inspection
homeowner rights
Question
How many days does the HOA have to provide copies of records I requested?
Short Answer
The HOA must provide copies within 10 business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, once a member requests to purchase copies of records, the association has a strict deadline of ten business days to fulfill that request.
Alj Quote
On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
deadlines
records request
HOA obligations
Question
What is the maximum amount the HOA can charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA cannot charge more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
The statute limits the fee an association may charge for copying records to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records request
costs
Question
Can the HOA charge me a fee just to look at or review records?
Short Answer
No. The HOA cannot charge for making materials available for review.
Detailed Answer
While the HOA can charge for copies, they are explicitly prohibited from charging a member for the act of making the material available for examination/review.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
fees
records review
homeowner rights
Question
If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my $500 filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes, the judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this case, because the homeowner prevailed in proving the violation, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $500.00 in certified funds.
Legal Basis
Order
Topic Tags
reimbursement
penalties
legal costs
Question
Can I authorize someone else to look at the HOA records for me?
Short Answer
Yes, if you designate them in writing.
Detailed Answer
The statute allows records to be examined by the member or any person the member designates in writing as their representative.
Alj Quote
…all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
representation
records request
homeowner rights
Question
What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The petitioner (homeowner) must prove that their contention is more probably true than not. It requires superior evidentiary weight, though not necessarily freedom from all doubt.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
Legal Standard
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure
Question
Is it a valid excuse if the HOA says mailing the records to the wrong name/address was just a mistake?
Short Answer
No. If the HOA has the correct legal name and address on file, mailing to a nickname or wrong address does not satisfy the requirement to provide records on time.
Detailed Answer
The HOA attempted to shift blame to the homeowner for using a nickname in emails, but the judge noted the HOA had the official member list with the legal name. Failing to use the correct information resulted in a violation of the 10-day deadline.
Alj Quote
Respondent cannot be said to have provided Petitioner with copies of the records he requested within 10 days of his request.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
excuses
mailing
HOA obligations
Case
Docket No
22F-H2221010-REL
Case Title
Clifford Burnes vs. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-12-09
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Clifford Burnes(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also identified as Clifford (Norm) Burnes or Norm Burnes,,,.
Respondent Side
John T. Crotty(respondent attorney) Farley, Choate & Wood Represented Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,,.
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Listed as Administrative Law Judge.
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Signed the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmission of the Decision.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email contact listed for transmission ([email protected]).
Other Participants
Joseph Martinez(unknown) Petitioner verbally notified him regarding the undelivered certified mail package.
The Petition was dismissed because Petitioners failed to prove the Respondent HOA violated the Bylaws regarding the filling of a vacant Board seat. The ALJ determined the Bylaws did not impose a timeframe for filling the vacancy and the Board acted according to Article IV, Section 3.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Bylaws do not contain a provision providing a timeframe in which a vacancy on the Board must be filled.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Bylaws regarding Board of Directors composition and appointment
Petitioners alleged the HOA violated Bylaws Article 4 Section 1 by leaving a Board seat open following a resignation (August 2020) and not filling it until November 2020. The ALJ found the Bylaws (Sections 1, 2, and 3) did not mandate a timeframe for filling a vacancy, and the HOA followed procedures for appointment.
Orders: Petitioners’ Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Governance, Board of Directors, Bylaws, Board Vacancy
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
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
21F-H2121033-REL Decision – 862059.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:41 (132.3 KB)
Questions
Question
If a Board member resigns, does the HOA have to hold an election to fill the seat?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws may allow the remaining Board members to appoint a successor for the unexpired term.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Bylaws explicitly stated that in the event of a resignation, the remaining Board members select the successor. The ALJ found that the Board was not required to put this seat up for a general election, distinguishing it from seats with expiring terms.
Alj Quote
In the event of death, resignation or removal of a director, his successor shall be selected by the remaining members of the Board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his predecessor.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 3
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Elections
Bylaws
Question
Is there a specific deadline for the Board to fill a vacant seat after a resignation?
Short Answer
Only if the governing documents specify one. If the Bylaws are silent, there is no strict timeframe.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that because the community's Bylaws did not specify a deadline, the HOA did not violate the rules by waiting several months (from August to November) to fill the vacancy.
Alj Quote
The Bylaws do not contain a timeframe in which the Board must appoint a successor director after the resignation of a director.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Timelines
Bylaws
Question
Can the Community Manager appoint or remove Board members?
Short Answer
No. The authority to appoint or remove directors typically lies with the Board or the membership, not the manager.
Detailed Answer
The Community Manager testified that they lacked the authority to make such appointments, confirming that this power resides with the Board itself.
Alj Quote
Mr. Nurse further testified that he does not have the authority to appoint or remove members of the Board.
Legal Basis
Testimony / Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
Community Manager
Authority
Board Composition
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires the homeowner to show that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' It is not enough to simply make an allegation; superior evidentiary weight is required.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can I force the Board to hold a vote for a vacant seat if the term hasn't expired yet?
Short Answer
Generally, no. If the term is unexpired, it may not be eligible for a member vote if the Bylaws provide for appointment.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the explanation that a seat vacated by resignation was not eligible for the general member vote because the original term had not yet expired (it ran until 2022), whereas other seats were up for election because their terms had ended.
Alj Quote
Mr. Nurse explained that the term for the Board member who resigned does not expire until 2022, and as such was not eligible for a member vote.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Bylaws
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Terms
Voting
Question
Does personal dislike or bias by the Board constitute a violation of the Bylaws?
Short Answer
Not on its own. The homeowner must prove a specific violation of the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
Although the homeowner claimed the Board disliked her and was trying to keep her out, the ALJ dismissed the petition because the HOA followed the technical requirements of the Bylaws regarding elections and appointments.
Alj Quote
Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Bylaws as alleged in the Petition.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
Discrimination/Bias
Enforcement
Board Conduct
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121033-REL
Case Title
Carlos J. Sanchez & Marinda K. Minch v. Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If a Board member resigns, does the HOA have to hold an election to fill the seat?
Short Answer
Not necessarily. Bylaws may allow the remaining Board members to appoint a successor for the unexpired term.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Bylaws explicitly stated that in the event of a resignation, the remaining Board members select the successor. The ALJ found that the Board was not required to put this seat up for a general election, distinguishing it from seats with expiring terms.
Alj Quote
In the event of death, resignation or removal of a director, his successor shall be selected by the remaining members of the Board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his predecessor.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 3
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Elections
Bylaws
Question
Is there a specific deadline for the Board to fill a vacant seat after a resignation?
Short Answer
Only if the governing documents specify one. If the Bylaws are silent, there is no strict timeframe.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ ruled that because the community's Bylaws did not specify a deadline, the HOA did not violate the rules by waiting several months (from August to November) to fill the vacancy.
Alj Quote
The Bylaws do not contain a timeframe in which the Board must appoint a successor director after the resignation of a director.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Interpretation
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Timelines
Bylaws
Question
Can the Community Manager appoint or remove Board members?
Short Answer
No. The authority to appoint or remove directors typically lies with the Board or the membership, not the manager.
Detailed Answer
The Community Manager testified that they lacked the authority to make such appointments, confirming that this power resides with the Board itself.
Alj Quote
Mr. Nurse further testified that he does not have the authority to appoint or remove members of the Board.
Legal Basis
Testimony / Findings of Fact
Topic Tags
Community Manager
Authority
Board Composition
Question
What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Detailed Answer
This legal standard requires the homeowner to show that their claims are 'more probably true than not.' It is not enough to simply make an allegation; superior evidentiary weight is required.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Question
Can I force the Board to hold a vote for a vacant seat if the term hasn't expired yet?
Short Answer
Generally, no. If the term is unexpired, it may not be eligible for a member vote if the Bylaws provide for appointment.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ accepted the explanation that a seat vacated by resignation was not eligible for the general member vote because the original term had not yet expired (it ran until 2022), whereas other seats were up for election because their terms had ended.
Alj Quote
Mr. Nurse explained that the term for the Board member who resigned does not expire until 2022, and as such was not eligible for a member vote.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Bylaws
Topic Tags
Elections
Board Terms
Voting
Question
Does personal dislike or bias by the Board constitute a violation of the Bylaws?
Short Answer
Not on its own. The homeowner must prove a specific violation of the governing documents.
Detailed Answer
Although the homeowner claimed the Board disliked her and was trying to keep her out, the ALJ dismissed the petition because the HOA followed the technical requirements of the Bylaws regarding elections and appointments.
Alj Quote
Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the Bylaws as alleged in the Petition.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
Discrimination/Bias
Enforcement
Board Conduct
Case
Docket No
21F-H2121033-REL
Case Title
Carlos J. Sanchez & Marinda K. Minch v. Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carlos J. Sanchez(petitioner) Candidate for Board election
Marinda K. Minch(petitioner) Candidate for Board election; considered for vacancy appointment; testified
Respondent Side
Ashley Moscarello(HOA attorney) Goodman Lawgroup
Bradley Hudson(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board President of the Board; testified as witness
Shawn Nurse(community manager) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Testified as witness; received ballots for election
William Skanadore(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Incumbent candidate; elected
Will Terrick(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Incumbent candidate; elected
Wendelyn Neal(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Made motion to appoint Marinda Minch
Joel Krick(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board
Kathy Hudson(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board
Christiane Pieraggi(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Appointed to fill vacancy
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(commissioner) ADRE
Other Participants
John Neelsen(unknown) Candidate for Board election
Tania Almonte(board member) Tempe Villages Homeowners Association, Inc. Board Former Board member whose resignation created a vacancy
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2021-03-08
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Michael J Stoltenberg
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Counsel
Nicole Payne, Esq.
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs Section 14.8
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's petition following a rehearing. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8, as that section applies only to the Association's notice obligation to members and not to assessment payments sent by members to the Association.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof because the CC&R provision cited was inapplicable to the dispute. Additionally, the Petitioner was found to have inadvertently caused delays in payment receipt by using restricted delivery, contrary to instructions.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs 14.8.
Petitioner alleged the Association violated CC&Rs Section 14.8 by failing to handle his monthly assessment payments correctly, resulting in late fees and threats of foreclosure. The ALJ found that Section 14.8 governs the Association's notice obligations to members and is inapplicable to the Petitioner's delivery of assessment payments to the Association.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied on rehearing.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: CC&Rs, Assessments, Late Fees, Notice Provision, Burden of Proof, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael J. Stoltenberg (Petitioner) and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner’s complaint, alleging the Association violated its governing documents and acted in bad faith regarding the handling of his monthly assessment payments, was comprehensively reviewed and ultimately denied. This denial was subsequently affirmed in a rehearing.
The core of the dispute centered on the Petitioner’s unilateral decision to send his monthly payments via restricted U.S. Postal Service delivery to a specific, unpaid volunteer board member. This action, taken despite clear instructions to mail payments to the Association’s P.O. Box, resulted in delayed receipt and returned mail, leading to the imposition of late fees and threats of foreclosure against the Petitioner.
The Administrative Law Judge’s central finding was that the Petitioner fundamentally misinterpreted Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The judge concluded this section is unambiguously applicable only to notices sent from the Association to its members, and imposes no obligations on the Association regarding mail received from members. The payment delays and resulting penalties were determined to be the direct consequence of the Petitioner’s own “volitionally took” actions, for which the Association bore no responsibility. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s claims of “bad faith” under Arizona’s nonprofit corporation statutes were dismissed as falling outside the jurisdictional authority of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
I. Case Overview
The legal matter concerns a petition filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, alleging violations of the community’s governing documents and state law.
Case Number
20F-H2020049-REL / 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Michael J. Stoltenberg
Respondent
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Adjudicating Body
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Administrative Law Judge
Jenna Clark
The Petitioner’s initial complaint, filed on March 2, 2020, alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith,” specifically citing violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and Section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. He sought an order compelling the Association’s compliance and the issuance of a civil penalty.
II. Procedural History and Timeline
The dispute progressed through an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding order.
• March 2, 2020: Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).
• March 24, 2020: Respondent files an ANSWER, denying all complaint items.
• April 1, 2020: The Department refers the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.
• July 14, 2020: The initial evidentiary hearing is held.
• August 3, 2020: An AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.
• August 28, 2020: Petitioner submits a request for a rehearing.
• September 9, 2020: The Petitioner’s request for a rehearing is granted.
• February 16, 2021: A rehearing is held before the same Administrative Law Judge.
• March 8, 2021: A final ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION is issued, again denying the Petitioner’s petition.
III. Central Dispute: Assessment Payments and CC&R Section 14.8
The conflict originated from the Petitioner’s method of submitting monthly assessment payments and his interpretation of the Association’s obligations under its CC&Rs.
The Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
• Instruction: On January 4, 2016, the Petitioner was advised that the Association’s “primary address for receiving all correspondence and all assessment payments from its members” was PO Box 4333, Yuma, Arizona 85366.
• Unilateral Change in Method: Beginning in November 2019, the Petitioner began sending his monthly payments via restricted delivery through the United States Postal Service (USPS), designated for “board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.”
• Petitioner’s Rationale: He took this action based on a belief that an agent of the Association’s property management company had previously thrown away one of his mailed payments.
• Petitioner’s Acknowledged Awareness: The Petitioner was aware that the Association employed a property management company to collect mail and that Ms. Carlisle was an “unpaid volunteer board member,” not an employee of that company.
• Resulting Delays and Penalties: This restricted delivery method caused significant issues.
◦ One payment was returned by USPS on January 25, 2020.
◦ Another was returned by USPS on June 8, 2020.
◦ Other payments were picked up late on various dates.
◦ For each instance where the payment was received late, the Petitioner was assessed a late fee and his residence was placed in danger of foreclosure.
The Disputed Provision: CC&Rs Section 14.8
The legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim rested on his interpretation of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Bylaws.
• Full Text of Section 14.8, Notices:
• Respondent’s Argument: The Association argued that this section was “inapplicable to the facts as presented” because it governs the Association’s obligation when sending notices to homeowners, not the other way around.
IV. Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across two separate decisions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consistently found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and that his interpretation of the governing documents was incorrect.
Initial Decision (August 3, 2020)
• Inapplicability of Section 14.8: The ALJ’s primary conclusion was a complete rejection of the Petitioner’s legal argument.
• Petitioner’s Culpability: The ALJ placed the responsibility for the late payments squarely on the Petitioner.
• Outcome: The petition was denied.
Rehearing Decision (March 8, 2021)
The rehearing was granted on the Petitioner’s grounds of an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law” and that the initial decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” The ALJ found no merit in these claims.
• Reaffirmation of Core Finding: The ALJ reiterated and strengthened the conclusion regarding Section 14.8.
• Jurisdictional Ruling: The ALJ explicitly addressed the Petitioner’s “bad faith” claim by citing ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers of nonprofit corporations.
• Failure to Support Rehearing Claims: The ALJ noted a complete lack of new evidence to justify the rehearing.
• Final Outcome: The petition was again denied. The order was made final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Blog Post – 20F-H2020049-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based entirely on the provided legal documents.
1. Who are the two primary parties in case No. 20F-H2020049-REL, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the specific allegation Michael Stoltenberg made against the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association in his petition?
3. Why did the Petitioner, beginning in November 2019, change the way he mailed his monthly assessment payments?
4. What is the specific subject of Section 14.8 of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
5. What were the consequences for the Petitioner each time the Association received his monthly assessment payment late?
6. According to the Administrative Law Judge, why was Section 14.8 of the CC&Rs inapplicable to the facts of this case?
7. What was the legal standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition?
8. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued?
9. Why did the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the Petitioner’s argument regarding Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3842 during the rehearing?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, and the rehearing on February 16, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Quiz Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael J Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” The Petitioner is a condominium owner and member of the Association who filed a petition alleging violations, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association that governs the development.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association was in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 10-3842 and 10-801, and section 14.8 of the Association’s CC&Rs. Specifically, he alleged that the Association “fail to do their job, and are acting in bad faith.”
3. The Petitioner changed his mailing method because he believed an agent of the Association’s property management company had thrown away one of his mailed payments. As a result, he began sending payments via restricted delivery by the USPS, for board member Rhea Carlisle’s pickup only.
4. Section 14.8, titled “Notices,” pertains to any notice permitted or required by the Declaration or Bylaws. It specifically addresses the Association’s notice obligation to its members when mailing them information, outlining when such notices are deemed delivered.
5. Each time the Petitioner’s monthly assessment was received late, he was assessed a late fee by the Association. Additionally, each late payment occurrence put his residence in danger of foreclosure by the Association.
6. The Judge concluded Section 14.8 was inapplicable because its language speaks specifically to the Association’s obligation to provide notice to its members. The section has no binding authority or control over homeowners sending mail to the Association.
7. The Petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” or evidence with the most convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side of an issue.
8. The Petitioner’s rehearing request was granted on the grounds that there was an alleged “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” He also claimed that the initial findings of fact or decision were “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
9. The argument regarding ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3842, which concerns standards of conduct for officers, was dismissed because it falls outside of the Department of Real Estate’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner had been advised of the Department’s jurisdictional limitations when he first filed his petition.
10. In both the initial decision (dated August 03, 2020) and the final order after the rehearing (dated March 08, 2021), the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The Judge concluded in both instances that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to be answered in a detailed essay format, synthesizing information from across the provided documents. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning used by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark to deny the Petitioner’s claims in both the initial hearing and the rehearing. Discuss the interpretation of CC&R Section 14.8, the concept of burden of proof, and jurisdictional limitations.
2. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 20F-H2020049-REL from the filing of the petition to the final order. Include all key dates, actions taken by the parties and the Department, and the specific reasons for each major step, such as the granting of the rehearing.
3. Evaluate the actions taken by the Petitioner, Michael Stoltenberg, regarding his assessment payments. Explain why his unilateral decision to use restricted mail delivery, despite being aware of the Association’s procedures, ultimately caused the negative outcomes he sought to avoid.
4. Explain the contractual relationship between a homeowners’ association and a property owner as described in the legal documents. How do the CC&Rs function as an enforceable contract, and how was this concept central to the dispute?
5. Discuss the roles and authorities of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in resolving HOA disputes, as demonstrated by this case. What are their powers, and what specific limitations on their jurisdiction are identified in the text?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.
ARIZ. REV. STAT.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
Association
The Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, a condominium association whose membership is comprised of the condominium owners in the Rancho Del Oro residential real estate development in Yuma, Arizona.
Board of Directors (the Board)
The body that oversees the Homeowners Association.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to prove their contention. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.
An abbreviation for the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. These governing documents form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, empowering the Association to control certain aspects of property use.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers matters for an evidentiary hearing. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret the contract (CC&Rs) between parties.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael J Stoltenberg, a homeowner and member of the Association.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and is considered the “greater weight of the evidence.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Statutory Agent
An individual listed as an official agent for an entity. For the years 2019 and 2020, Diana Crites was listed as the Association’s Statutory Agent.
Abbreviation for the United States Postal Service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael J Stoltenberg(petitioner) Rancho Del Oro condominium owner Appeared on his own behalf,
Respondent Side
Nicole Payne(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Appeared on behalf of Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association,,
Rhea Carlisle(board member) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Unpaid volunteer board member; Petitioner directed mail specifically to her,,,
Diana Crites(statutory agent) Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Statutory Agent for 2019 and 2020,
Lydia Peirce(HOA attorney staff/contact) Linsmeier Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Listed as contact for Respondent in 2020 decision transmission
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(ADRE commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner receiving the OAH order,
Dan Gardner(HOA coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate HOA Coordinator contact for the Commissioner
