Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
John A Sellers
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Counsel
Edward D. O'Brien, Edith I. Rudder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by establishing that the Respondent HOA violated its CC&Rs. The governing documents grant the HOA the right, but not the obligation, to enforce maintenance duties specifically assigned to Unit Owners concerning the drainage easement.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA was found to have a right to enforce maintenance of the drainage easement, but not a mandatory obligation to do so under the terms of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to enforce unit owner maintenance obligations regarding stormwater drainage easement
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to enforce unit owner responsibility to keep the stormwater drainage area free of obstructions like vegetation and fencing materials, potentially causing a risk of flooding to his unit.
Orders: The petition was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs assign Unit Owners the responsibility to clear the drainage area and grant the HOA the right, but not an obligation, to enforce this maintenance.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
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)
Dispute Analysis: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of a dispute between homeowner John A. Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was Mr. Sellers’ allegation that the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, thereby creating a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.
The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in a process that included an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding decision. In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge ruled against the Petitioner.
The initial decision, issued in December 2018, concluded that Mr. Sellers failed to provide sufficient evidence that the materials in the channel actually impeded water flow or posed an unreasonable flood risk. The ruling highlighted that the channel had functioned as intended since 2012 without any flooding incidents. Following a rehearing in April 2019, the second and final decision in May 2019 reinforced this conclusion. It further clarified a crucial distinction in the CC&Rs: while the Association possesses the right to enforce maintenance rules upon homeowners, the governing documents do not impose an explicit obligation to do so proactively before any damage has occurred. The responsibility for maintaining the drainage area rests with the individual unit owners, and the Association’s primary duty is to repair damages after the fact, billing the responsible owner. The petition was ultimately dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This case documents a formal complaint filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, which was resolved through the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918010-REL
• Petitioner: John A. Sellers, owner of Unit 12 in Rancho Madera
• Respondent: Rancho Madera Condominium Association, a 46-unit development in Cave Creek, Arizona.
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Key Chronology of Events
Aug 23, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Oct 23, 2018
An OAH order vacates the initial hearing after the Petitioner indicates a wish to withdraw the petition.
Nov 5, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing convenes, indicating the withdrawal was rescinded.
Dec 12, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing concludes.
Dec 26, 2018
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky issues a decision denying the petition.
Feb 1, 2019
Petitioner files a Rehearing Request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Feb 22, 2019
The Commissioner grants the Rehearing Request.
Apr 15, 2019
The rehearing convenes and concludes before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
May 7, 2019
OAH issues an order striking a supplemental, post-hearing filing by the Petitioner from the record.
May 10, 2019
Judge Eigenheer issues a final Administrative Law Judge Decision, again dismissing the petition.
——————————————————————————–
II. Petitioner’s Core Allegation
Mr. Sellers’ petition was based on a single issue: the alleged violation of Section 3.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs.
• The Violation: The Petitioner claimed the Association failed in its duty to require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions from a shared stormwater channel.
• The Obstructions: The materials of concern included “large succulents, shrubs, and cacti” growing in the drainage area’s rip-rap, as well as chicken wire that at least one owner had installed to contain a pet.
• The Perceived Risk: Mr. Sellers testified that these items “could catch storm debris and cause the drainage channel to become clogged,” leading to a risk of flooding for his Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains and flooding in other parts of Cave Creek as evidence of the potential danger.
• Financial Impact Claim: The Petitioner was undergoing a contentious divorce, and Unit 12, as a community asset, was for sale under a court order. He asserted that the unresolved drainage issue and his required disclosure of the dispute had reduced the unit’s market price by $40,000.
——————————————————————————–
III. Respondent’s Position and Actions
The Rancho Madera Condominium Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, denied any violation of the CC&Rs and presented a multi-faceted defense.
• Lack of Historical Precedent: Mr. Kaplan, an owner since 2012, testified that water had never entered the property from the east, and Unit 12 had never sustained any damage from flooding. This held true even during a “100-year storm in 2014.” After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the drainage easement and “did not see any water in it.”
• Origin of Vegetation: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that was shown in the Petitioner’s photographic evidence.
• Proactive Communication: To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Board instructed its management company to act. Letters were sent to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the easement free of obstructions.
• Jurisdictional Confirmation: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials from the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek. Both agencies confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain map, and therefore, the Association was “solely responsible” for its maintenance and enforcement.
• Contradictory Evidence: The Association submitted a June 22, 2018 email from the Petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly contradicted the Petitioner’s claims. She wrote, “There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing.” She also referred to his claims as “nonsense.”
——————————————————————————–
IV. Analysis of Governing CC&Rs
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific sections of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The judges in both hearings analyzed these sections to determine the respective duties of the homeowners and the Association.
Section
Provision Summary
Key Language
Establishes a perpetual “Drainage Easement” over the eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18 for stormwater conveyance.
“…for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, repairing and replacing a drainage channel…”
3.10.2
Assigns the primary maintenance duty to the individual unit owners within the easement area.
“Each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit shall keep his Drainage Easement Area Free of weeds and other debris so that the stormwater can flow freely… No Improvement… shall be… allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water…”
3.10.4
Defines the Association’s role in the event of damage resulting from a unit owner’s failure to maintain the easement.
“If the failure of one Unit Owner to maintain his Drainage Easement Area… results in damage… the Association shall repair or replace such damage… and the cost… shall be paid by the Unit Owner that caused the damage…”
13.1.1
Grants the Association the power to enforce the CC&Rs.
“The Association shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants…”
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge Decisions and Rationale
The Petitioner’s case was heard twice and denied both times, with the second decision providing a definitive interpretation of the Association’s duties under the CC&Rs.
Initial Decision (December 26, 2018)
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• Rationale: The judge found a critical failure in the Petitioner’s evidence. While he successfully “established that there are some plants and chicken wire in the stormwater drainage canal,” he “did not establish that the plants or chicken wire impede the flow of water.” The Respondent, in contrast, successfully established that the channel had always “functioned as intended” and that “Unit 12 has never flooded.” The judge concluded there was “no unreasonable risk that Unit 12 will flood.”
• Order: The petition was denied.
Rehearing and Final Decision (May 10, 2019)
• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer
• Context: The rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities and legal errors in the first hearing.
• Petitioner’s Refined Argument: During the rehearing, the Petitioner argued that the Association’s right to enforce the CC&Rs (under Section 13.1.1) becomes an obligation when safety and property values are affected.
• Conclusion: The petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The final decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. The judge determined that the documents create a clear hierarchy of responsibility:
1. Unit Owners: Bear the primary responsibility for keeping the easement clear (Section 3.10.2).
2. The Association: Has a responsibility to act only after damage occurs due to an owner’s failure, at which point it must repair the damage and bill the responsible owner (Section 3.10.4).
• Final Legal Interpretation: The judge concluded, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.” The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner could not prove the Association had violated any actual obligation laid out in the governing documents. This decision was issued as final and binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL, Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal proceedings between Petitioner John A. Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. It is designed to assess comprehension of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source documents.
1. What was the central allegation John A. Sellers filed against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association on August 23, 2018?
2. Identify the specific sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that were central to the dispute.
3. Who is responsible for maintaining the Drainage Easement Area according to CC&R § 3.10.2?
4. What actions did the Association’s management company take in response to the Petitioner’s concerns?
5. What was the testimony of Jeffrey Kaplan, the Association’s President, regarding the history of flooding at Rancho Madera?
6. Why did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
7. What was the procedural outcome of Petitioner Sellers’ attempt to submit supplemental arguments after the April 15, 2019, rehearing?
8. How did Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer distinguish between a “right to enforce” and an “obligation to enforce” in her final decision?
9. What evidence did the Petitioner present to support his claim that the drainage channel was at risk of clogging?
10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision dated May 10, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner John A. Sellers alleged that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically § 3.10, by failing to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel. Sellers claimed this failure created a risk of flooding for his unit.
2. The central CC&R sections were § 3.10, which establishes the stormwater drainage easement; § 3.10.2, which outlines the maintenance responsibilities of Unit Owners; § 3.10.4, which details the Association’s role in repairing damages; and § 13.1.1, which grants the Association the right to enforce the CC&Rs.
3. According to CC&R § 3.10.2, each individual Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit is responsible for keeping their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The text explicitly states that no improvements, including plants, should be allowed that might impede the flow of water.
4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018. These letters reminded the owners of their responsibility to keep the easement area clear of obstructions and debris.
5. Jeffrey Kaplan testified that he bought one of the first units in 2012 and that water has never entered Rancho Madera from the east. He specifically noted that no flooding occurred even during the 100-year storm in 2014, and that after a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he inspected the easement and saw no water in it.
6. The Commissioner granted the Rehearing Request “for the reasons outlined in the Petitioners’ Rehearing Request.” The request itself alleged irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
7. After the rehearing concluded, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument. The Respondent argued this filing was untimely, and Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer ordered the filing to be stricken from the record and closed the record on May 7, 2019.
8. Judge Eigenheer’s decision concluded that while the Association has the right to enforce the CC&Rs under § 13.1.1, nothing in the documents creates an obligation for it to proactively do so regarding maintenance. The only obligation specified is to repair damage after it occurs, with the cost being billed to the responsible unit owner.
9. The Petitioner provided photographs showing large succulents, shrubs, and cacti growing in the rip rap of the Drainage Easement Area. He also showed at least one instance where chicken wire had been placed across the channel to contain a pet, testifying that these items could catch storm debris and cause a clog.
10. The final ruling, issued on May 10, 2019, was that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed essay responses to the following prompts, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents to support your analysis.
1. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 19F-H1918010-REL from the initial petition to the final order. Detail the key dates, presiding judges, significant filings, and the outcome of each stage of the proceedings.
2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judges in both the initial decision (December 26, 2018) and the rehearing decision (May 10, 2019). Compare and contrast their interpretations of the CC&Rs and the standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”
3. Evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner, John A. Sellers, and the Respondent, represented by Jeffrey Kaplan. What were the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case as detailed in the hearing summaries?
4. Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Unit Owners versus the Condominium Association as defined by CC&R Sections 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, and 13.1.1. How did the interpretation of these sections ultimately determine the outcome of the case?
5. Examine the external factors mentioned in the hearings, such as the Petitioner’s divorce, the market value of his unit, and communications with the Maricopa County Flood Control District. How did the Administrative Law Judge address these issues and determine their relevance (or irrelevance) to the central legal question?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the initial hearing and Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over the rehearing.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for the Rancho Madera condominium development.
Common Elements
Areas within the condominium development designed for common use, such as areas for stormwater conveyance mentioned in the CC&Rs.
Drainage Easement Area
The eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18, over which a perpetual non-exclusive drainage easement was created for the purpose of stormwater drainage.
Drainage Improvements
The drainage channel constructed within the Drainage Easement Area, which may consist of decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner is John A. Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent is the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of a property. The CC&Rs in this case are a form of restrictive covenant.
Unit Owner
An individual who owns a condominium unit within the development and is a member of the owners’ association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.
The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War
Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.
This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.
A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.
1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm
The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”
But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”
The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.
2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”
After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.
Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”
The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.
“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”
This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.
3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow
Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.
The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.
“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”
In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.
4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard
Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.
Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.
The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.
A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner
What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.
It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John A Sellers(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward D. O'Brien(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Edith I. Rudder(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Jeffrey Kaplan(board president/witness) Rancho Madera Condominium Association President of Respondent, testified
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ for initial proceedings
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ for rehearing proceedings
Judy Lowe(commissioner (ADRE)) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
c. serrano(clerk) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmittal/filing clerk
F. Del Sol(clerk) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmittal/filing clerk
Other Participants
Debborah Sellers(witness/spouse) Petitioner's wife, testimony via email submitted by Respondent
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
John A Sellers
Counsel
—
Respondent
Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Counsel
Edward D. O'Brien, Edith I. Rudder
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs § 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition following a rehearing, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by establishing that the Respondent HOA violated its CC&Rs. The governing documents grant the HOA the right, but not the obligation, to enforce maintenance duties specifically assigned to Unit Owners concerning the drainage easement.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs because the HOA was found to have a right to enforce maintenance of the drainage easement, but not a mandatory obligation to do so under the terms of the CC&Rs.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to enforce unit owner maintenance obligations regarding stormwater drainage easement
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated the CC&Rs by failing to enforce unit owner responsibility to keep the stormwater drainage area free of obstructions like vegetation and fencing materials, potentially causing a risk of flooding to his unit.
Orders: The petition was dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the CC&Rs assign Unit Owners the responsibility to clear the drainage area and grant the HOA the right, but not an obligation, to enforce this maintenance.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
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)
Dispute Analysis: Sellers vs. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of a dispute between homeowner John A. Sellers (Petitioner) and the Rancho Madera Condominium Association (Respondent). The core of the conflict was Mr. Sellers’ allegation that the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to compel other homeowners to remove vegetation and fencing from a common stormwater drainage channel, thereby creating a flood risk to his property, Unit 12.
The case was adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in a process that included an initial hearing, a decision, a granted request for rehearing, and a final binding decision. In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge ruled against the Petitioner.
The initial decision, issued in December 2018, concluded that Mr. Sellers failed to provide sufficient evidence that the materials in the channel actually impeded water flow or posed an unreasonable flood risk. The ruling highlighted that the channel had functioned as intended since 2012 without any flooding incidents. Following a rehearing in April 2019, the second and final decision in May 2019 reinforced this conclusion. It further clarified a crucial distinction in the CC&Rs: while the Association possesses the right to enforce maintenance rules upon homeowners, the governing documents do not impose an explicit obligation to do so proactively before any damage has occurred. The responsibility for maintaining the drainage area rests with the individual unit owners, and the Association’s primary duty is to repair damages after the fact, billing the responsible owner. The petition was ultimately dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
This case documents a formal complaint filed by a homeowner against his condominium association, which was resolved through the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Case Number: 19F-H1918010-REL
• Petitioner: John A. Sellers, owner of Unit 12 in Rancho Madera
• Respondent: Rancho Madera Condominium Association, a 46-unit development in Cave Creek, Arizona.
• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Key Chronology of Events
Aug 23, 2018
Petitioner files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Oct 23, 2018
An OAH order vacates the initial hearing after the Petitioner indicates a wish to withdraw the petition.
Nov 5, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing convenes, indicating the withdrawal was rescinded.
Dec 12, 2018
The first evidentiary hearing concludes.
Dec 26, 2018
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky issues a decision denying the petition.
Feb 1, 2019
Petitioner files a Rehearing Request with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.
Feb 22, 2019
The Commissioner grants the Rehearing Request.
Apr 15, 2019
The rehearing convenes and concludes before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
May 7, 2019
OAH issues an order striking a supplemental, post-hearing filing by the Petitioner from the record.
May 10, 2019
Judge Eigenheer issues a final Administrative Law Judge Decision, again dismissing the petition.
——————————————————————————–
II. Petitioner’s Core Allegation
Mr. Sellers’ petition was based on a single issue: the alleged violation of Section 3.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs.
• The Violation: The Petitioner claimed the Association failed in its duty to require owners of “Drainage Easement Units” to remove obstructions from a shared stormwater channel.
• The Obstructions: The materials of concern included “large succulents, shrubs, and cacti” growing in the drainage area’s rip-rap, as well as chicken wire that at least one owner had installed to contain a pet.
• The Perceived Risk: Mr. Sellers testified that these items “could catch storm debris and cause the drainage channel to become clogged,” leading to a risk of flooding for his Unit 12. He submitted videos of heavy rains and flooding in other parts of Cave Creek as evidence of the potential danger.
• Financial Impact Claim: The Petitioner was undergoing a contentious divorce, and Unit 12, as a community asset, was for sale under a court order. He asserted that the unresolved drainage issue and his required disclosure of the dispute had reduced the unit’s market price by $40,000.
——————————————————————————–
III. Respondent’s Position and Actions
The Rancho Madera Condominium Association, represented by its President, Jeffrey Kaplan, denied any violation of the CC&Rs and presented a multi-faceted defense.
• Lack of Historical Precedent: Mr. Kaplan, an owner since 2012, testified that water had never entered the property from the east, and Unit 12 had never sustained any damage from flooding. This held true even during a “100-year storm in 2014.” After a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he personally inspected the drainage easement and “did not see any water in it.”
• Origin of Vegetation: Mr. Kaplan stated that the builder had originally planted the vegetation in the drainage easement that was shown in the Petitioner’s photographic evidence.
• Proactive Communication: To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Board instructed its management company to act. Letters were sent to the relevant homeowners on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018, reminding them of their responsibility to keep the easement free of obstructions.
• Jurisdictional Confirmation: Mr. Kaplan contacted officials from the Maricopa County Flood Control District and the Town of Cave Creek. Both agencies confirmed the drainage area was not on any official floodplain map, and therefore, the Association was “solely responsible” for its maintenance and enforcement.
• Contradictory Evidence: The Association submitted a June 22, 2018 email from the Petitioner’s wife, Debborah Sellers, which directly contradicted the Petitioner’s claims. She wrote, “There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing.” She also referred to his claims as “nonsense.”
——————————————————————————–
IV. Analysis of Governing CC&Rs
The dispute centered on the interpretation of specific sections of the Rancho Madera CC&Rs. The judges in both hearings analyzed these sections to determine the respective duties of the homeowners and the Association.
Section
Provision Summary
Key Language
Establishes a perpetual “Drainage Easement” over the eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18 for stormwater conveyance.
“…for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, repairing and replacing a drainage channel…”
3.10.2
Assigns the primary maintenance duty to the individual unit owners within the easement area.
“Each Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit shall keep his Drainage Easement Area Free of weeds and other debris so that the stormwater can flow freely… No Improvement… shall be… allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water…”
3.10.4
Defines the Association’s role in the event of damage resulting from a unit owner’s failure to maintain the easement.
“If the failure of one Unit Owner to maintain his Drainage Easement Area… results in damage… the Association shall repair or replace such damage… and the cost… shall be paid by the Unit Owner that caused the damage…”
13.1.1
Grants the Association the power to enforce the CC&Rs.
“The Association shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants…”
——————————————————————————–
V. Administrative Law Judge Decisions and Rationale
The Petitioner’s case was heard twice and denied both times, with the second decision providing a definitive interpretation of the Association’s duties under the CC&Rs.
Initial Decision (December 26, 2018)
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky
• Conclusion: The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• Rationale: The judge found a critical failure in the Petitioner’s evidence. While he successfully “established that there are some plants and chicken wire in the stormwater drainage canal,” he “did not establish that the plants or chicken wire impede the flow of water.” The Respondent, in contrast, successfully established that the channel had always “functioned as intended” and that “Unit 12 has never flooded.” The judge concluded there was “no unreasonable risk that Unit 12 will flood.”
• Order: The petition was denied.
Rehearing and Final Decision (May 10, 2019)
• Presiding Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer
• Context: The rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities and legal errors in the first hearing.
• Petitioner’s Refined Argument: During the rehearing, the Petitioner argued that the Association’s right to enforce the CC&Rs (under Section 13.1.1) becomes an obligation when safety and property values are affected.
• Conclusion: The petition was dismissed.
• Rationale: The final decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the CC&Rs. The judge determined that the documents create a clear hierarchy of responsibility:
1. Unit Owners: Bear the primary responsibility for keeping the easement clear (Section 3.10.2).
2. The Association: Has a responsibility to act only after damage occurs due to an owner’s failure, at which point it must repair the damage and bill the responsible owner (Section 3.10.4).
• Final Legal Interpretation: The judge concluded, “While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.” The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner could not prove the Association had violated any actual obligation laid out in the governing documents. This decision was issued as final and binding on the parties.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Case No. 19F-H1918010-REL, Sellers v. Rancho Madera Condominium Association
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative legal proceedings between Petitioner John A. Sellers and Respondent Rancho Madera Condominium Association. It is designed to assess comprehension of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and procedural history.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the source documents.
1. What was the central allegation John A. Sellers filed against the Rancho Madera Condominium Association on August 23, 2018?
2. Identify the specific sections of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that were central to the dispute.
3. Who is responsible for maintaining the Drainage Easement Area according to CC&R § 3.10.2?
4. What actions did the Association’s management company take in response to the Petitioner’s concerns?
5. What was the testimony of Jeffrey Kaplan, the Association’s President, regarding the history of flooding at Rancho Madera?
6. Why did the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
7. What was the procedural outcome of Petitioner Sellers’ attempt to submit supplemental arguments after the April 15, 2019, rehearing?
8. How did Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer distinguish between a “right to enforce” and an “obligation to enforce” in her final decision?
9. What evidence did the Petitioner present to support his claim that the drainage channel was at risk of clogging?
10. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge Decision dated May 10, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Petitioner John A. Sellers alleged that the Association had violated its CC&Rs, specifically § 3.10, by failing to require condominium owners to remove vegetation and fencing materials from the stormwater channel. Sellers claimed this failure created a risk of flooding for his unit.
2. The central CC&R sections were § 3.10, which establishes the stormwater drainage easement; § 3.10.2, which outlines the maintenance responsibilities of Unit Owners; § 3.10.4, which details the Association’s role in repairing damages; and § 13.1.1, which grants the Association the right to enforce the CC&Rs.
3. According to CC&R § 3.10.2, each individual Unit Owner of a Drainage Easement Unit is responsible for keeping their respective Drainage Easement Area free of weeds and other debris. The text explicitly states that no improvements, including plants, should be allowed that might impede the flow of water.
4. To address the Petitioner’s concerns, the Association’s management company sent letters to the owners of the Drainage Easement Units on April 18, 2018, and July 19, 2018. These letters reminded the owners of their responsibility to keep the easement area clear of obstructions and debris.
5. Jeffrey Kaplan testified that he bought one of the first units in 2012 and that water has never entered Rancho Madera from the east. He specifically noted that no flooding occurred even during the 100-year storm in 2014, and that after a significant rainstorm in August 2018, he inspected the easement and saw no water in it.
6. The Commissioner granted the Rehearing Request “for the reasons outlined in the Petitioners’ Rehearing Request.” The request itself alleged irregularity in the proceedings, newly discovered evidence, errors in the admission of evidence, and that the original decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
7. After the rehearing concluded, the Petitioner submitted supplemental authority and argument. The Respondent argued this filing was untimely, and Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer ordered the filing to be stricken from the record and closed the record on May 7, 2019.
8. Judge Eigenheer’s decision concluded that while the Association has the right to enforce the CC&Rs under § 13.1.1, nothing in the documents creates an obligation for it to proactively do so regarding maintenance. The only obligation specified is to repair damage after it occurs, with the cost being billed to the responsible unit owner.
9. The Petitioner provided photographs showing large succulents, shrubs, and cacti growing in the rip rap of the Drainage Easement Area. He also showed at least one instance where chicken wire had been placed across the channel to contain a pet, testifying that these items could catch storm debris and cause a clog.
10. The final ruling, issued on May 10, 2019, was that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Section 3.10 of the CC&Rs. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Construct detailed essay responses to the following prompts, drawing exclusively from the provided source documents to support your analysis.
1. Trace the complete procedural history of case No. 19F-H1918010-REL from the initial petition to the final order. Detail the key dates, presiding judges, significant filings, and the outcome of each stage of the proceedings.
2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judges in both the initial decision (December 26, 2018) and the rehearing decision (May 10, 2019). Compare and contrast their interpretations of the CC&Rs and the standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”
3. Evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the Petitioner, John A. Sellers, and the Respondent, represented by Jeffrey Kaplan. What were the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case as detailed in the hearing summaries?
4. Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the Unit Owners versus the Condominium Association as defined by CC&R Sections 3.10, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, and 13.1.1. How did the interpretation of these sections ultimately determine the outcome of the case?
5. Examine the external factors mentioned in the hearings, such as the Petitioner’s divorce, the market value of his unit, and communications with the Maricopa County Flood Control District. How did the Administrative Law Judge address these issues and determine their relevance (or irrelevance) to the central legal question?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky presided over the initial hearing and Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over the rehearing.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for the Rancho Madera condominium development.
Common Elements
Areas within the condominium development designed for common use, such as areas for stormwater conveyance mentioned in the CC&Rs.
Drainage Easement Area
The eastern five feet of Units 9 through 18, over which a perpetual non-exclusive drainage easement was created for the purpose of stormwater drainage.
Drainage Improvements
The drainage channel constructed within the Drainage Easement Area, which may consist of decomposed granite, rip rap (large stones), or concrete.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner is John A. Sellers.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue rather than the other, making the contention more probably true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent is the Rancho Madera Condominium Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of a property. The CC&Rs in this case are a form of restrictive covenant.
Unit Owner
An individual who owns a condominium unit within the development and is a member of the owners’ association.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918010-REL-RHG
I Read an Entire HOA Lawsuit. Here Are 4 Shocking Lessons About Power, Rules, and Reality.
The Anatomy of a Neighborhood War
Living under a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) often means navigating a complex world of rules, regulations, and neighborhood politics. For most, disagreements are minor annoyances. But sometimes, a seemingly small issue can escalate into a full-blown legal war.
This is the story of one homeowner’s single-minded crusade against his HOA over a stormwater drainage channel he believed was a serious flooding risk. After filing a formal petition, the dispute escalated into a multi-stage legal battle that spanned nearly a year. The official court documents reveal that even after a judge ruled decisively against him, the homeowner doubled down, demanding a rare rehearing.
A deep dive into this protracted case reveals a fascinating and cautionary tale. The legal reasoning that ultimately settled the matter highlights several surprising lessons that apply to anyone living in a planned community.
1. Proving a Rule Was Broken Isn’t the Same as Proving Harm
The initial hearing, held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky in late 2018, centered on a seemingly straightforward argument from the petitioner, John Sellers. He pointed out that his neighbors had placed plants—including large succulents, shrubs, and cacti—as well as chicken wire in a stormwater drainage channel. This, he argued, was a clear violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which stated that no improvement “shall be constructed, installed or allowed to grow… that may… impede the flow of water.”
But in her December 26, 2018 decision, the judge ruled against him. While Sellers successfully proved the obstructions existed, he failed to meet the legal burden of proof that they actually “impede the flow of water.” His claim was defeated by testimony from the HOA President, Jeffrey Kaplan, who stated that the unit had never sustained any flood damage, not even during a “100-year storm in 2014.”
The lesson from this first round is stark: in this legal context, simply pointing out a technical rule break was not enough. The petitioner had to prove that the violation was causing a tangible, negative impact. Without evidence of actual harm or impeded water flow, the theoretical risk was insufficient to win the case.
2. An HOA’s “Right” to Enforce Is Not an “Obligation”
After losing the first round on a question of evidence, Sellers’ argument evolved. He requested a rehearing, which was granted, and the case landed before a new judge, Tammy L. Eigenheer, in the spring of 2019. This shifted the legal focus from physical proof of impeded water flow to a more fundamental question of the HOA’s duties.
Sellers argued that because safety and property values were at stake, the association had a duty to enforce the CC&Rs and compel his neighbors to clear the drainage channel. He contended that at a certain point, an organization’s “right” to act becomes an “obligation.”
The judge’s final decision on May 10, 2019, was clear, absolute, and is where the most powerful lesson of the entire case lies.
“While Respondent has the right to enforce the requirements that the Unit Owners keep the Drainage Easement Area clear, nothing in the CC&Rs provides that Respondent has an obligation to do so.”
This distinction is critical for any homeowner. An HOA can possess the legal power to act but may not be legally compelled to use it. According to the judge’s interpretation, the governing documents placed the responsibility for keeping the channel clear on the individual unit owners. The association’s only stated obligation was to repair damage after it happened, with the cost being billed back to the responsible party.
3. Outside Conflicts Can Cast a Long Shadow
Legal disputes are rarely just about the facts of the case. During the initial hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner was going through a “contentious divorce” and that the condo unit at the center of the dispute was a community asset being sold by the court.
The most dramatic evidence, however, came from an email written by the petitioner’s own wife, Debborah Sellers. The email, submitted as evidence by the HOA, directly undermined his claims about the severity of the drainage issue.
“There has never been any issue with the storm drain behind our house and it is not a major disclosure item… Stop making something out of nothing. AND I HOPE YOU AREN[’]T FREAKING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND OTHER REALTORS WITH THIS NONSENSE.”
In her decision, Judge Mihalsky officially stated that the divorce was “not relevant” to the technical question of whether the HOA violated the CC&Rs. However, she immediately added that the situation “cast a long shadow over his administrative complaint,” suggesting that the personal context, and especially the damaging email, severely harmed the petitioner’s credibility.
4. Writing Letters Isn’t the Same as Being Heard
Throughout the dispute, the petitioner made his concerns known by writing “many letters” to the HOA president. He was persistent in his written communications, attempting to force the issue onto the association’s radar.
Yet, this effort was contrasted with a notable lack of direct participation. According to the testimony of HOA President Kaplan during the first hearing, Sellers “never attended any of Respondent’s noticed Board meetings” where his concerns could have been discussed among the board members.
The HOA’s response to his letters was limited; it sent two general reminder letters to all residents in the affected area but did not take direct enforcement action against any specific homeowner. The practical takeaway is that to effect change or be taken seriously in an HOA dispute, visibility and participation are critical. Writing letters is a start, but attending official meetings to present a case in person can be a more effective strategy for ensuring an issue is formally addressed.
A Cautionary Tale for Any Homeowner
What began as a seemingly straightforward complaint about drainage and rule enforcement devolved into a legal battle that consumed nearly a year, involving two multi-day hearings before two different administrative law judges. The petitioner lost his case on the evidence, then lost it again on the law.
It serves as a potent cautionary tale, demonstrating that in the world of HOA disputes, the obvious path is not always the winning one. It leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When you see a problem in your community, how do you decide if a fight is worth the cost—not just in money, but in time, credibility, and peace?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John A Sellers(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent Side
Edward D. O'Brien(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Edith I. Rudder(respondent attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC/LLP
Jeffrey Kaplan(board president/witness) Rancho Madera Condominium Association President of Respondent, testified
Neutral Parties
Diane Mihalsky(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ for initial proceedings
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ for rehearing proceedings
Judy Lowe(commissioner (ADRE)) Arizona Department of Real Estate
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of official orders
c. serrano(clerk) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmittal/filing clerk
F. Del Sol(clerk) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmittal/filing clerk
Other Participants
Debborah Sellers(witness/spouse) Petitioner's wife, testimony via email submitted by Respondent
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2019-04-22
Administrative Law Judge
Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome
loss
Filing Fees Refunded
$0.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
William P. Lee
Counsel
—
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Counsel
Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.
Alleged Violations
A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809; CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3; Greenlaw Rules and Regulations
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited governing documents (CC&Rs/Rules) or state statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809) by banning street parking and contracting for vehicle booting/towing.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding violations of CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. The ALJ found the July 2018 revised Rules, which banned parking, were controlling.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation regarding banning parking and use of towing/booting company.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly banned street parking and contracted with a towing/booting company, arguing this violated specific CC&R amendments, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. He also claimed the 2018 revised Rules were invalid due to improper electronic notice instead of personal delivery or mail.
Briefing Document: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses HOA Parking Dispute
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner William P. Lee and the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (“Greenlaw”). The core of the dispute was Greenlaw’s 2018 implementation of a complete ban on street parking within the community and its subsequent contract with a towing company to “boot” vehicles in violation.
Mr. Lee’s petition, filed on September 12, 2018, alleged that this parking ban violated specific amendments to the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and was enacted through an invalid revision of the community’s Rules and Regulations.
Following an initial hearing on December 13, 2018, and a subsequent rehearing on April 1, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclusively denied Mr. Lee’s petition. The final decision, issued on April 22, 2019, determined that Mr. Lee failed to meet his burden of proof. The ALJ found that the May 2018 revised Rules and Regulations, which explicitly ban all street parking, were the controlling authority. Furthermore, the decision established that these rules do not conflict with the CC&R amendments, as the amendments only prohibit parking in specific, limited scenarios (e.g., fire lanes, snow removal) and do not grant a general right to park on association streets.
Case Overview
Case Name
William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Case Number
19F-H1918019-REL
Jurisdiction
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (referred by the Department of Real Estate)
Adjudicator
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Petitioner
William P. Lee
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (“Greenlaw”)
Key Dates
– Petition Filed: September 12, 2018 – Initial Hearing: December 13, 2018 – Rehearing: April 1, 2019 – Final Decision: April 22, 2019
Core Allegation
The central issue, as defined in the Notice of Hearing, was Mr. Lee’s single-issue petition alleging that Greenlaw “violated Community Document CC&Rs amendments 1, 2, & 3 and Association Rules and Regulations… when it banned all parking on the association streets and contracted with a towing service to boot vehicles.”
Analysis of Governing Documents
The case revolved around the interpretation of and interplay between Greenlaw’s CC&Rs, its Rules and Regulations, and its Bylaws.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
• Association Authority: Section (I)(b) of the CC&Rs grants Greenlaw ownership of the common areas, which include the streets in question (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops). It specifies that the “maintenance and use shall be controlled by the Association.”
• Parking Amendments: Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were central to Mr. Lee’s argument. These amendments add specific parking prohibitions to the CC&Rs under Article II, PERMITTED USES.
Amendment
Provision
Amendment #1
Prohibits parking in designated fire lanes, which are to be marked with signs and red-painted curbs after consultation with the Flagstaff Fire Marshal.
Amendment #2
Prohibits residents or visitors from parking on association roads during periods of snow removal. Violators may be towed at the vehicle owner’s expense.
Amendment #3
Prohibits parking vehicles at the curb side in an obvious state of disrepair for more than 72 hours. Such vehicles are considered abandoned and may be towed.
Rules and Regulations
• 2003 Revised Rules and Regulations: Mr. Lee contended that this was the controlling document and that it allowed for parking on association streets. He argued that Greenlaw’s booting of vehicles in 2017 was a violation of these rules.
• May 2018 Revised Rules and Regulations: Greenlaw asserted that this was the new, controlling document, effective July 2018. Section 8 of these rules institutes a complete ban on street parking:
Association Bylaws (1986)
• Notice Requirement: Mr. Lee cited Article V, Section 1 of the Bylaws, which states that notices to lot owners “shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the directors or lot owners at their addresses appearing on the books of the corporation.” This formed the basis of his argument that the email distribution of the 2018 rules was improper.
Key Arguments Presented
Petitioner (William P. Lee)
• Violation of CC&Rs: The general parking ban enacted in the 2018 Rules contradicted the CC&R amendments, which only banned parking in specific situations.
• Invalidity of 2018 Rules: The May 2018 Rules and Regulations were invalid because Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice of the revision as required by the 1986 Bylaws, instead sending an email which he contended was insufficient and unclear.
• Controlling Document: The 2003 Rules, which he claimed permitted street parking, should be considered the controlling authority.
• Improper Motivation: The parking ban was enacted solely to appease a board member, Barbara, who did not want cars parked behind her property.
• Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep being booted and that the Greenlaw manager’s response to his inquiry confirmed the association’s policy.
Respondent (Greenlaw HOA)
• Authority Over Common Areas: The CC&Rs grant Greenlaw the authority to control the use of association streets.
• Validity of 2018 Rules: The May 2018 Rules and Regulations were properly adopted and represent the current, controlling regulations.
• No Conflict with CC&Rs: The CC&R amendments do not authorize parking; they are a list of specific prohibitions. A general ban on parking does not conflict with these specific restrictions.
• Notice Sufficiency: Greenlaw argued that the Bylaw’s requirement for personal or postal mail delivery only applies to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs, not to amendments to the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Lee did, in fact, receive the revised rules via email on July 6, 2018.
• Cure of Prior Violations: Any alleged violation of the prior (2003) rules was rendered moot and “cured” by the valid enactment of the May 2018 revised rules.
Administrative Law Judge’s Rulings and Rationale
The ALJ’s decisions in both the initial hearing and the rehearing were consistent, leading to the denial of Mr. Lee’s petition.
• Burden of Proof: The ALJ established that Mr. Lee, as the petitioner, bore the burden of proving his claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In both decisions, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Lee failed to meet this standard. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Controlling Authority: The “weight of the evidence presented at hearing” showed that the May 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were the controlling rules at the time the petition was filed. Mr. Lee failed to establish that the 2003 Rules were still in effect.
• Interpretation of CC&Rs: The ALJ found the restrictive covenants in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 to be unambiguous. The ruling states, “Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs do not allow parking on the streets, but rather, provide specific scenarios in which parking on the streets is banned.” Therefore, Greenlaw’s decision to ban all street parking did not violate these amendments.
• Lack of Evidence for Harm: The ALJ noted that Mr. Lee “did not even allege that Greenlaw booted or towed one of his vehicles.” Furthermore, regarding the booted jeep he observed, “there was no evidence provided that the Greenlaw manager stated that Greenlaw was responsible for booting the jeep. Moreover, Mr. Lee did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.”
Final Disposition
Petition Denied: The final order, issued April 22, 2019, following the rehearing, states: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
The decision concluded that Mr. Lee failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Greenlaw violated its CC&Rs or its Rules and Regulations when it banned parking and contracted with a towing company. This order is final and binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in superior court.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
Study Guide: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA
This study guide provides a review of the administrative legal case between Petitioner William P. Lee and Respondent Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions No. 19F-H1918019-REL and No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties in this case, and what was the central dispute?
2. What was Petitioner William P. Lee’s main argument regarding the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)?
3. On what grounds did the Greenlaw HOA claim it had the authority to ban all parking on its streets?
4. What three specific parking prohibitions were explicitly listed in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs?
5. What was the significance of the May 2018 revised Rules and Regulations in the judge’s final decisions?
6. How did Mr. Lee challenge the validity of the revised 2018 Rules and Regulations during the rehearing?
7. What legal standard of proof was required for Mr. Lee’s petition to succeed, and did the judge find that he met it?
8. According to the case findings, what evidence did Mr. Lee present to prove that Greenlaw was responsible for booting or towing member vehicles?
9. What was Greenlaw’s defense against the claim that it failed to provide proper notice of the new rules?
10. What was the final outcome of both the initial hearing on December 13, 2018, and the rehearing on April 1, 2019?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner William P. Lee, a townhouse owner, and Respondent Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association. The central dispute was Mr. Lee’s allegation that Greenlaw’s ban on all street parking and its contract with a towing company to “boot” vehicles violated the community’s governing documents.
2. Mr. Lee argued that because CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3 only banned parking in specific scenarios (fire lanes, snow removal, abandoned vehicles), they implicitly permitted parking at all other times. He contended that a total ban therefore violated these amendments.
3. The Greenlaw HOA argued that Section (I)(b) of its CC&Rs grants it control over the maintenance and use of common areas, which include the association’s streets. They contended this authority was sufficient to ban parking and contract with a towing company.
4. The three amendments prohibited parking in designated fire lanes, on subdivision roads during periods of snow removal, and for vehicles parked at curbside in an obvious state of disrepair for more than 72 hours.
5. The May 2018 revised Rules and Regulations explicitly banned parking on any association street at any time. The judge found these to be the controlling rules, superseding any previous versions, and that they “cured” any purported violations that may have occurred under older rules.
6. During the rehearing, Mr. Lee argued that the 2018 rules were invalid because Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice. He contended that the association’s Bylaws required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, not by email as was done on July 6, 2018.
7. Mr. Lee was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Administrative Law Judge concluded in both decisions that Mr. Lee failed to meet this burden of proof.
8. Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep that had been booted but provided no evidence that Greenlaw was responsible for booting it or any other vehicles belonging to members. The judge found that he did not establish that Greenlaw had booted or towed any vehicles.
9. Greenlaw argued that the Bylaw’s requirement for notice by mail or personal delivery only applied to notices required by statute or the CC&Rs. The association contended it was not required by law or its CC&Rs to provide notice of an amendment to its Rules and Regulations in that specific manner.
10. The final outcome of both hearings was a denial of Mr. Lee’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge ordered in both the December 31, 2018 decision and the April 22, 2019 decision that the petition be denied because Mr. Lee failed to prove Greenlaw violated its CC&Rs or Rules and Regulations.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: Consider the following questions for a deeper analysis of the case. Develop an essay-format response for each, drawing evidence and examples from the case documents.
1. Analyze the legal reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge in determining that the CC&R amendments did not grant an affirmative right to park. How did the judge’s interpretation of “restrictive covenants” shape the outcome?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to William P. Lee’s petition. Using specific examples from the hearings, explain why the judge concluded he failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
3. Trace the evolution of Mr. Lee’s arguments from the initial petition to the rehearing. How did his focus shift, particularly regarding the notification method for the revised Rules and Regulations, and what impact did this shift have on the proceedings?
4. Examine the conflicting interpretations of Greenlaw’s Bylaws regarding the proper method for notifying homeowners of changes. Evaluate the arguments made by both Mr. Lee and Greenlaw on this point and discuss which interpretation the judge implicitly supported.
5. The judge in the initial hearing noted that Greenlaw “has in effect cured any purported previous violation through the enactment of the May 2018 Revised Rules and Regulations.” Discuss the legal implications of this finding for homeowners’ associations and their ability to amend rules to address ongoing disputes.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Answer (Legal)
A formal written response filed by the respondent to a petition, addressing the allegations made.
Bylaws
The formal rules governing the internal management of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. Greenlaw’s Bylaws were recorded on June 16, 1986.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)
A set of rules established by a developer or homeowners’ association that govern a planned community. All owners are legally bound by these rules.
Common Area
Property within a planned community that is owned by the homeowners’ association for the benefit and use of all lot owners. In this case, the streets (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops) are considered common areas.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions from HOA members.
Evidentiary Hearing
A formal proceeding where parties present evidence (such as testimony and exhibits) before a judge to resolve a factual dispute.
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium development that makes and enforces rules for the properties and their residents.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent state agency in Arizona where administrative law judges conduct evidentiary hearings for other state agencies.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, William P. Lee.
Petition
A formal written request to a court or administrative body, asking for a specific action or decision on a matter.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The standard of proof in most civil cases, meaning the evidence must show that a claim is more likely to be true than not true. This was the burden of proof placed on Mr. Lee.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to allow for reconsideration of the initial decision, often based on new evidence or arguments.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The principle is that such covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Rules and Regulations
A set of operational rules created by an HOA’s board that provide specific details on how to follow the broader principles outlined in the CC&Rs and Bylaws.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
5 Surprising Truths About HOA Power: Lessons from a Homeowner’s Losing Battle Over Parking
For many homeowners, the relationship with their Homeowners Association (HOA) is a delicate balance, and nowhere is this more apparent than with parking rules. A single violation notice can escalate into a years-long conflict. But what happens when a homeowner, convinced the HOA has overstepped its authority, decides to fight back?
William P. Lee believed his HOA’s governing documents were his shield. The court, however, ruled they were a blank check for the board’s authority. Mr. Lee took his HOA to court over a newly enacted, total ban on street parking, contending the rule was not only unreasonable but enacted merely to appease a board member who didn’t want cars parked behind her property. He lost his case, requested a rehearing, and lost again. His determined but ultimately failed battle provides a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive extent of an HOA’s power, revealing five critical lessons for every homeowner.
——————————————————————————–
1. What Isn’t Forbidden Can Still Be Banned
Mr. Lee’s primary argument was rooted in the community’s founding documents, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He pointed out that the CC&Rs only prohibited parking in a few specific situations: in designated fire lanes, during snow removal, or for vehicles that were obviously abandoned. By his logic, if parking wasn’t explicitly forbidden at other times, it must be allowed.
The judge’s decision, however, hinged on a critical legal distinction. The ruling concluded that the CC&Rs did not grant an affirmative right to park on the streets; they only listed a few specific prohibitions. This legal gray area gave the HOA Board the authority to create new, more restrictive rules to fill in the gaps.
The Takeaway: This case is a stark warning about “permissive silence.” Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a list of guaranteed rights, but as a minimum set of restrictions. The absence of a specific prohibition does not guarantee a right, and a future board can—and likely will—build upon those foundational rules to enact stricter policies.
2. The Board Can Retroactively ‘Cure’ Its Own Violations
Part of Mr. Lee’s case was that the HOA had been improperly booting vehicles back in 2017, under the old, more permissive rules. He argued that these past actions were a violation, regardless of any later changes.
The judge found that the HOA’s new rule effectively neutralized this argument. The decision explicitly states that even if the association had acted improperly in the past, “Greenlaw has in effect cured any purported previous violation through the enactment of the May 2018 Revised Rules and Regulations.”
The Takeaway: This finding sets a sobering precedent, revealing an HOA’s power to “move the goalposts” retroactively. By codifying its desired policy into a new rule, a board can effectively legitimize its past actions. This makes it incredibly difficult for homeowners to win disputes over actions that, while questionable at the time, are now sanctioned by current regulations.
3. The “Fine Print” Is Now a PDF Attachment
Mr. Lee also argued that the rule change itself was invalid because he was never properly notified. He cited the association’s 1986 Bylaws, which required official notices to be delivered personally or by postal mail.
The court rejected this argument. The HOA successfully contended—and the judge agreed—that the old bylaw for mail delivery was narrow in scope. It only applied to notices that were required to be sent to homeowners under statute or the CC&Rs, and there was no such underlying requirement for a simple rule change. Therefore, the court found that an email sent in early July 2018 with a PDF attachment titled “Greenlaw II Townhomes Rules and Regulations – May 2018.pdf” constituted sufficient legal notice.
The Takeaway: This ruling underscores the shifting legal definition of “notice” in the digital age. It creates a vulnerability for less tech-savvy residents or those simply overwhelmed by digital clutter. A routine email from your HOA can carry the full weight of a formal legal notice, and the excuse “I didn’t see the email” is no longer a valid defense.
4. An HOA Can Ban Parking on Streets It Owns
The new rule implemented by the Greenlaw HOA was absolute. Its language leaves no room for interpretation:
Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time. Eva, Heidi and Jeffrey Loops are not city streets. They are owned and maintained solely by the HOA. Under city code, the streets are considered “Private Fire Access Lanes.” Consequently, cars parked in violation may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company.
The critical factor here is ownership. The streets within the Greenlaw community were not public city streets; they were private property, common areas owned and maintained by the HOA. This distinction gave the board sweeping authority to control them.
The Takeaway: If your community’s streets are private property owned by the HOA, the board’s power to regulate them is immense—far exceeding what would be possible on public roads. As this case demonstrates, that authority can extend to a complete and total ban on all street parking, at any time.
5. Suspicion Isn’t Proof: The High Bar of Evidence
In any legal hearing, the person bringing the complaint has the “burden of proof.” Mr. Lee had to convince the judge that his claims were “more probably true than not,” a standard known as a “preponderance of the evidence.”
He failed to meet this standard. The court decision notes that he “provided no evidence that Greenlaw booted or towed any of the vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members.” While he testified to seeing a booted Jeep, his case unraveled under questioning. When he inquired with the HOA manager, her response was non-committal and did not admit responsibility. In court, Mr. Lee admitted he “did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.” Critically, his own vehicle had never been booted or towed.
The Takeaway: There is a vast difference between observing something you believe to be a violation and proving it in a formal hearing. For any homeowner considering legal action, this is a vital lesson. Without documented, concrete evidence—admissions in emails, dated photos, official violation notices, or direct witness testimony—a complaint built on suspicion alone is likely to fail.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Vigilant Homeowner
The case of William P. Lee serves as a powerful illustration of the “presumption of board authority” that often prevails in community governance disputes. Courts tend to defer to the board’s interpretation of its own rules and its authority to act, unless there is an explicit, unambiguous violation of the law or the governing documents themselves. His story demonstrates that winning a dispute requires more than a sense of injustice; it demands a deep understanding that an HOA’s power is often broader and more flexible than many residents assume. For the modern homeowner, vigilance is not just a good idea—it is an essential practice.
This homeowner scrutinized the rules and bylaws, yet the board’s power expanded beyond them. Are you prepared for the rules you follow today to change tomorrow?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
William P. Lee(petitioner) Testified on behalf of himself,
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(respondent attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Timothy D. Butterfield(respondent attorney) Appeared on behalf of Respondent for the initial hearing and rehearing,
Barbara(board member) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association Board member who Petitioner alleged influenced policy
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge for the initial hearing and rehearing,
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate,
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement
Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs § 4.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.
◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).
• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.
• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.
• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.
• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:
1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.
2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.
• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)
The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.
• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.
• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):
◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.
◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.
◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.
◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.
• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):
◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.
◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”
◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.
Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.
CC&R Section
Key Language
Implication & Ruling
Article IV, Section 4.1
Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.
Article V, Section 5.1(a)
“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”
This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.
Legal Conclusions and Final Order
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.
• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”
• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918038-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?
4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.
5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?
6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?
7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?
8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?
10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.
3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.
4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.
5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.
6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.
7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.
8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.
9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.
1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?
3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?
4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?
5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Assessments
Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
Common Area
Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”
Common Expenses
Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.
Easements
A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918038-REL
He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner
Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration
For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.
This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.
Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It
Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.
His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.
Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:
At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.
Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.
Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”
The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”
In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.
Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.
Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.
• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.
• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:
Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.
Conclusion: The Contract You Live In
The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”
This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Stoltenberg(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association(Respondent Entity) Entity, not human
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.
Key Issues & Findings
HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement
Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs § 4.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.
The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL
• Parties Involved:
◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.
◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).
• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019
• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge
• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.
Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)
The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.
• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.
• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.
• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:
1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.
2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.
• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.
Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)
The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.
• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.
• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):
◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.
◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.
◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.
◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.
• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):
◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.
◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”
◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.
Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.
CC&R Section
Key Language
Implication & Ruling
Article IV, Section 4.1
Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.
Article V, Section 5.1(a)
“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”
This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.
Legal Conclusions and Final Order
• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.
• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.
• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”
• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918038-REL
Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association
This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Short-Answer Quiz Questions
Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.
1. Who are the primary parties involved in this case, and what are their respective roles?
2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?
3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?
4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.
5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?
6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?
7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?
8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?
9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?
10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.
3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.
4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.
5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.
6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.
7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.
8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.
9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.
10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.
1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.
2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?
3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?
4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?
5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary
Definition from Source Context
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Assessments
Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.
Common Area
Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”
Common Expenses
Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.
Easements
A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”
Homeowners’ Association (HOA)
The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918038-REL
He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner
Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration
For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.
This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.
Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It
Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.
His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.
Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:
At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.
Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.
Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”
The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”
In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.
Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.
Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu
Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.
• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.
• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”
The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:
Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.
Conclusion: The Contract You Live In
The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”
This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Michael Stoltenberg(Petitioner)
Respondent Side
Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association(Respondent Entity) Entity, not human
A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809; CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3; Greenlaw Rules and Regulations
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the cited governing documents (CC&Rs/Rules) or state statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809) by banning street parking and contracting for vehicle booting/towing.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding violations of CC&Rs Amendments 1, 2, and 3, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. The ALJ found the July 2018 revised Rules, which banned parking, were controlling.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation regarding banning parking and use of towing/booting company.
Petitioner alleged the HOA improperly banned street parking and contracted with a towing/booting company, arguing this violated specific CC&R amendments, the Rules and Regulations, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1803 and 1809. He also claimed the 2018 revised Rules were invalid due to improper electronic notice instead of personal delivery or mail.
Administrative Hearing Briefing: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Executive Summary
This document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG, where Petitioner William P. Lee’s complaint against the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association (Greenlaw) was denied. Mr. Lee, a homeowner, alleged that Greenlaw’s complete ban on street parking and its contract with a towing company to enforce the ban violated the association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Lee failed to meet the required burden of proof. The central conclusion was that Greenlaw’s revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, are the controlling authority and explicitly permit a total ban on street parking. The ALJ determined that the specific parking prohibitions detailed in the CC&R amendments—concerning fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles—do not preclude the association from enacting a more comprehensive ban via its rules. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that Greenlaw had actually taken the alleged enforcement actions (booting or towing) against any member’s vehicle.
Case Overview
Detail
Information
Case Name
William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
Case Number
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Petitioner
William P. Lee (Homeowner)
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Homeowners Association)
Hearing Date
April 1, 2019 (Rehearing)
Decision Date
April 22, 2019
Final Order
Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Presiding ALJ
Velva Moses-Thompson
Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Arguments
William P. Lee’s petition, filed on September 12, 2018, centered on the claim that Greenlaw acted outside its authority by banning all street parking and contracting with a towing company for enforcement. His arguments were:
• Violation of CC&Rs: The total parking ban directly contradicted CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Lee contended these amendments established an exhaustive list of permissible parking restrictions, limited to:
◦ Designated fire lanes (Amendment #1).
◦ Periods of snow removal (Amendment #2).
◦ Vehicles in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours (Amendment #3).
• Invalidity of Revised Rules: Mr. Lee argued that the July 2018 revised Rules and Regulations, which contain the parking ban, were not valid or controlling due to improper notification.
◦ He contended that Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required that such notices be delivered personally or by postal mail.
◦ He received notice only via a July 6, 2018 email, which he claimed did not clearly indicate that the rules had been substantively changed.
• Improper Motive: Mr. Lee contended that “the only reason that the Association banned parking was to please Barbara, a board member who did not want anyone to park behind her property.”
Respondent’s Defense
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two asserted that its actions were proper and within the scope of its authority as an HOA. Its defense included the following points:
• Controlling Authority: Greenlaw maintained that its revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018, were the controlling documents governing parking.
• Notice Protocol: The association contended that the Bylaw provision requiring personal or postal mail notice applies only to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs. Greenlaw argued there is no such requirement for providing notice of amendments to the Rules and Regulations.
• Sufficient Notice: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee received actual notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
Analysis of Key Governing Documents
The case revolved around the interpretation of and interplay between several of Greenlaw’s governing documents.
Document
Key Provision / Content
Relevance to Case
CC&R Amendments 1, 2, & 3
These amendments, added to Article II (Permitted Uses), establish specific, conditional parking prohibitions related to fire lanes, snow removal, and abandoned vehicles.
The petitioner argued these amendments represented the only circumstances under which parking could be banned. The ALJ found they were not an exhaustive list.
Bylaws, Article V, Section 1
“Notices to directors and lot owners shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the directors or lot owners at their addresses appearing on the books of the corporation.”
The petitioner cited this to argue that the email notice for the revised rules was improper, thus invalidating the rules. The ALJ sided with the Respondent’s interpretation.
Rules and Regulations (July 2018), Section 8
“Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time… cars parked in violation may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company.” The rule specifies that the streets (Eva, Heidi, Jeffrey Loops) are private and owned by the HOA.
This document contains the explicit, total parking ban at the heart of the dispute. The ALJ found this rule to be the valid and controlling authority.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The ALJ’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and legal standards, ultimately concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his case.
Burden of Proof
The decision established that Mr. Lee bore the burden of proof “to establish that Greenlaw violated amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, and the Greenlaw Rules and Regulations by a preponderance of the evidence.” A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Key Conclusions of Law
1. Validity of the 2018 Rules: The ALJ concluded that “the weight of the evidence presented at hearing shows that Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations were revised effective July 2018 and are the controlling Rules and Regulations of Greenlaw.” Mr. Lee failed to establish that any prior version remained in effect.
2. Scope of CC&R Amendments: The decision found that the CC&R amendments only “provide specific scenarios in which parking on the streets is banned.” They do not restrict the association from implementing a broader ban through its Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the total ban did not violate the CC&Rs.
3. No Violation of Rules: Because the July 2018 rules were found to be controlling, and they explicitly authorize a total parking ban, the ALJ concluded that Greenlaw’s decision did not violate its own Rules and Regulations.
4. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: A critical failure in the petitioner’s case was the lack of evidence.
◦ The decision notes, “Mr. Lee provided no evidence that Greenlaw booted or towed any of the vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members.”
◦ His testimony about observing a booted jeep was dismissed as insufficient, as he “did not know who owned the jeep, nor who was responsible for booting the jeep.” The Greenlaw manager’s subsequent comment was not found to be an admission of responsibility.
◦ Mr. Lee did not allege that any of his own vehicles had been booted or towed.
5. No Statutory Violation: The judge found that Mr. Lee failed to establish any violation of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-1803 and 33-1809.
Final Order and Implications
Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final, binding order.
• Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”
• Appeal Process: As the order resulted from a rehearing, it is binding on the parties. Any party wishing to appeal must seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.
Study Guide – 19F-H1918019-REL
Study Guide: Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two (Case No. 19F-H1918019-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between William P. Lee and the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association. It covers the central conflict, the arguments presented by both parties, the key legal documents involved, and the final decision rendered by the Administrative Law Judge.
Case Overview
This case centers on a dispute between a homeowner, William P. Lee, and his Homeowners Association (HOA), Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two. Mr. Lee filed a petition alleging that the HOA’s decision to ban all parking on association streets and contract with a towing company violated the community’s governing documents. The matter was decided by an Administrative Law Judge following a rehearing on April 1, 2019.
Key Parties and Roles
Party/Role
Name / Entity
Description
Petitioner
William P. Lee
A homeowner in Greenlaw Unit Two and member of the HOA who filed the petition against the association.
Respondent
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two
The Homeowners Association (HOA) responsible for governing the community, against which the petition was filed.
Legal Counsel
Timothy D. Butterfield, Esq.
Appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Greenlaw Townhouses.
Adjudicator
Velva Moses-Thompson
The Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presided over the rehearing and issued the decision.
Timeline of Key Events
June 16, 1986
Greenlaw Bylaws were recorded at the Coconino County Recorder.
July 2, 1999
Greenlaw Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) was recorded.
July 6, 2018
Greenlaw sent an email to members with an attachment containing the revised Rules and Regulations, effective July 2018.
September 12, 2018
William P. Lee filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
December 13, 2018
The original hearing on the petition was conducted.
February 11, 2019
The Department of Real Estate issued an order for a rehearing.
April 1, 2019
The rehearing was held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
April 22, 2019
The Administrative Law Judge issued the final decision, denying the petitioner’s petition.
The Central Conflict: Parking Regulations
The core of the dispute was Mr. Lee’s allegation that Greenlaw’s comprehensive ban on street parking, as stated in its revised 2018 Rules and Regulations, violated the more specific parking restrictions outlined in the community’s CC&Rs. The validity of the 2018 Rules and Regulations, and the method by which they were distributed to homeowners, was also a key point of contention.
• Violation of CC&Rs: The general ban on street parking violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, which only banned parking in specific situations (fire lanes, snow removal, abandoned vehicles).
• Improper Notice: Greenlaw failed to provide proper notice of the revised Rules and Regulations. Mr. Lee argued that the HOA’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, not by email.
• Unclear Communication: The email sent on July 6, 2018, did not clearly state that the rules had been recently changed.
• Invalidity of New Rules: Due to the improper notice, Mr. Lee contended that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid or controlling.
• Improper Motivation: Mr. Lee alleged the only reason for the ban was to appease a board member named Barbara who did not want anyone parking behind her property.
• Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee testified that he observed a jeep being booted in a driveway and that the Greenlaw manager’s response implied the HOA’s contracted towing company could boot vehicles in violation.
• Notice Was Sufficient: Greenlaw contended that the Bylaw’s requirement for mail or personal delivery only applied to notices mandated by statute or the CC&Rs.
• No Notice Requirement: The HOA argued that it was not required by law or the CC&Rs to provide homeowners with notice of an amendment to the Rules and Regulations.
• Notice Was Received: Greenlaw asserted that Mr. Lee did, in fact, receive notice of the revised rules via the email sent on July 6, 2018.
• No Proof of Harm: Greenlaw pointed out that Mr. Lee provided no evidence that any vehicles belonging to Greenlaw members had been booted or towed by the association, nor did he allege that one of his own vehicles had been affected.
Governing Documents and Legal Principles
• Amendment #1: Bans parking in designated fire lanes.
• Amendment #2: Bans parking on subdivision roads during snow removal periods.
• Amendment #3: Allows for the towing of vehicles parked at the curb in an obvious state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
• Article V, Section 1: States that notices to directors and lot owners “shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed.”
• Section 8: Explicitly states, “Parking is not allowed on any association street or alleyway at any time.” It identifies the streets (Eva, Heidi, and Jeffrey Loops) as “Private Fire Access Lanes” owned by the HOA and states that vehicles in violation may be booted and/or towed.
• The petitioner, Mr. Lee, bore the burden of proof to establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The source defines preponderance of the evidence as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force.”
The Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The Administrative Law Judge, Velva Moses-Thompson, denied Mr. Lee’s petition. The key conclusions of law were:
1. Controlling Document: The 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were found to be the valid and controlling rules for the Greenlaw HOA.
2. Authority to Ban Parking: The 2018 Rules and Regulations explicitly allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to enforce this rule by booting or towing vehicles.
3. No Violation of CC&Rs: The judge concluded that Mr. Lee failed to prove that the general parking ban violated the specific, situational bans outlined in CC&R Amendments 1, 2, and 3. The amendments did not preclude the HOA from enacting a broader rule.
4. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Mr. Lee did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Greenlaw’s actions violated either the CC&Rs or the Rules and Regulations.
5. Insufficient Evidence of Enforcement: Mr. Lee failed to provide any evidence that Greenlaw was actually responsible for booting the jeep he observed. His testimony was not sufficient to prove the HOA had taken action against any member.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Test Your Understanding
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information in the study guide.
1. What was the central allegation in William P. Lee’s petition against the Greenlaw HOA?
2. What three specific scenarios for parking restrictions are outlined in Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the Greenlaw CC&Rs?
3. On what grounds did Mr. Lee argue that the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations were not valid?
4. How did Greenlaw defend its use of email to distribute the revised Rules and Regulations to homeowners?
5. According to Section 8 of the revised Rules and Regulations, what are the potential consequences for parking on an association street?
6. What was the judge’s conclusion regarding the validity and authority of the 2018 revised Rules and Regulations?
7. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof to meet it in this case?
8. Why did the judge find Mr. Lee’s testimony about a booted jeep to be insufficient evidence?
9. Did the judge find that Greenlaw’s general parking ban violated Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs? Explain why or why not.
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Mr. Lee’s central allegation was that the Greenlaw HOA had violated its CC&Rs and Rules and Regulations. Specifically, he claimed the association’s decision to ban all parking on its streets and to contract with a company to boot vehicles was improper.
2. The CC&R amendments outline three specific parking restrictions. Amendment 1 bans parking in designated fire lanes, Amendment 2 bans parking on roads during snow removal, and Amendment 3 allows for the towing of abandoned vehicles in a state of disrepair for over 72 hours.
3. Mr. Lee argued the 2018 rules were invalid because he was not given proper notice. He contended that the HOA’s Bylaws required notice to be delivered personally or by postal mail, and that the email he received was not a valid method of distribution.
4. Greenlaw defended its use of email by arguing that the Bylaw’s requirement for personal or mail delivery only applied to notices that were required by statute or the CC&Rs. The HOA contended it was not required by law to provide notice for an amendment to its Rules and Regulations.
5. Section 8 states that cars parked in violation on an association street may be booted and/or towed by a contracted independent towing company. The rule identifies the streets as “Private Fire Access Lanes.”
6. The judge concluded that the Rules and Regulations revised in July 2018 were the controlling rules for Greenlaw. Furthermore, the judge found that these rules do allow the association to ban all parking on its streets and to tow or boot cars in violation.
7. A “preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof that convinces a judge that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the petitioner, William P. Lee, bore the burden of proving his claims by this standard.
8. The evidence was insufficient because Mr. Lee did not know who owned the jeep or who was responsible for booting it. There was no direct evidence provided that proved Greenlaw or its contractor was responsible for the action.
9. No, the judge did not find that the ban violated the CC&Rs. The judge reasoned that the amendments only provided specific scenarios where parking was banned and did not prevent the HOA from enacting a broader, more general parking ban in its Rules and Regulations.
10. The final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge was that the Petitioner’s (Mr. Lee’s) petition is denied.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis
The following questions are for further reflection. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between Greenlaw’s Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) regarding notice and its 2018 distribution of revised Rules and Regulations. Discuss both parties’ arguments and explain how the judge’s ultimate decision implies a resolution to this conflict.
2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did William P. Lee’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard affect the outcome of his claims regarding both the parking ban and the alleged booting/towing incidents?
3. Compare and contrast the parking restrictions detailed in the CC&R Amendments with the broader ban instituted in Section 8 of the 2018 Rules and Regulations. Explain why the existence of the specific amendments did not prevent the HOA from enacting a more general rule.
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by Mr. Lee. What were the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments and testimony, particularly concerning the booted jeep and the motivation behind the parking ban?
5. Imagine you are legal counsel for the Greenlaw HOA. Based on the arguments and outcome of this case, what advice would you give the Board of Directors regarding future amendments to its Rules and Regulations to avoid similar disputes?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings at administrative agencies. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ for the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Affirmative Defenses: Arguments made by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the petitioner’s claim. The Respondent (Greenlaw) bears the burden to establish these defenses.
• Burden of Proof: The obligation of a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this case, Mr. Lee had the burden of proof to establish his claims.
• Bylaws: A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, for governing its internal operations. Greenlaw’s bylaws addressed the method for providing notices to members.
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A set of rules governing the use of land in a planned community or subdivision. Owners agree to be bound by the CC&Rs.
• Homeowners Association (HOA): An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the HOA in this case.
• Petitioner: The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. William P. Lee is the Petitioner.
• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in which the trier of fact is convinced that a contention is “more probably true than not.” It is described as “the greater weight of the evidence.”
• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the claims. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two is the Respondent.
• Rules and Regulations: A set of rules established by the HOA, in addition to the CC&Rs and Bylaws, that govern the day-to-day life and conduct within the community. The 2018 revised parking ban was located in Greenlaw’s Rules and Regulations.
Blog Post – 19F-H1918019-REL
Select all sources
703187.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
19F-H1918019-REL-RHG
1 source
This document presents an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between William P. Lee, a homeowner, and Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two, his Homeowners Association. The central issue revolved around the Greenlaw HOA’s implementation of a comprehensive ban on street parking and its contracting with a towing company to enforce the rule, which Mr. Lee contended violated the association’s governing documents, specifically amendments to the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the proper notification procedures for revised rules. The findings of fact detail the history of the parking rules, the homeowner’s receipt of the electronic notification of the revised rules, and Mr. Lee’s arguments that the association failed to use the required postal mail or personal delivery methods for notice. The Conclusions of Law determined that the controlling rules were the revised July 2018 Rules and Regulations and that Mr. Lee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated either the CC&Rs or relevant Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Judge ordered that the petitioner’s petition be denied.
Based on 1 source
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
William P. Lee(petitioner) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association member Testified on behalf of himself
Respondent Side
Mark K. Sahl(HOA attorney) CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Timothy D. Butterfield(HOA attorney) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association
Barbara(board member) Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two Homeowners Association Contended by Lee to be the reason for the parking ban
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.
Case Summary
Case ID
18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Agency
ADRE
Tribunal
OAH
Decision Date
2018-12-26
Administrative Law Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome
partial
Filing Fees Refunded
$500.00
Civil Penalties
$0.00
Parties & Counsel
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Counsel
—
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners' Association
Counsel
—
Alleged Violations
Bylaw 2.4
Outcome Summary
In the initial decision, Petitioner established violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (election materials disposal) and A.R.S. § 33-1804 (closed/improperly noticed meetings), but failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Issue 1). The rehearing only addressed Issue 1, which was ultimately dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 violation) because the ALJ found that while the Bylaw applied to Members, Petitioner failed to show it prohibited a Director from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned, and the investigation was initiated by a Board member immediately following the meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Election Objection Waiver)
Whether Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on an objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting, given that the Bylaw requires members to object to irregularities 'at the meeting' to avoid waiver.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed as to Issue 1.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Challenge, Bylaw Violation, Meeting Notice, Record Retention, Rehearing
This document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative legal dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) concerning the HOA’s board election of March 18, 2017. The core of the dispute involved the HOA board’s decision to investigate and ultimately overturn the initially announced election results, leading to a run-off election.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overseeing the case and a subsequent rehearing issued a mixed final decision. The Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, successfully proved that the Desert Ranch HOA committed two statutory violations:
1. Destruction of Election Materials: The HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by destroying ballot envelopes shortly after the election, materials which are required to be retained for at least one year.
2. Improper Closed Meeting: The HOA violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding a board meeting with its attorney at a private residence without providing the required notice to its members.
However, the Petitioner’s primary challenge—that the board violated its own Bylaw 2.4 by acting on an objection raised after the annual meeting had adjourned—was dismissed. The ALJ ruled that the bylaw’s waiver of claims applied to general “Members” but not to “Directors” acting in their official capacity. This ruling effectively upheld the board’s authority to investigate the election, which led to the discovery of invalid ballots and the eventual run-off election won by Brian Schoeffler.
As the prevailing party on two of the three issues, Mr. Barrs was awarded a reimbursement of his $1,000.00 filing fee. The judge, however, found that no civil penalty against the HOA was appropriate.
——————————————————————————–
I. Case Overview
• Parties:
◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs
◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch HOA, represented by Catherine Overby (President) and Brian Schoeffler (Vice President)
• Case Number: 18F-H1818035-REL
• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
• Subject of Dispute: Alleged violations of Arizona statutes and HOA bylaws related to the handling and outcome of the March 18, 2017, annual board election.
II. Chronology of the Contested Election
The dispute originated from the following sequence of events surrounding the 2017 election for two vacant seats on the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors.
1. Pre-Election: Absentee ballots were distributed to members, listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates and providing a space for a write-in candidate.
2. March 18, 2017 (Annual Meeting): Ballots were submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger (a write-in) were announced as the winning candidates. No members present objected to the results before the meeting was adjourned.
3. Immediately Following the Meeting: Board member Patrick Rice gathered the ballots and “expressed his concerns with the election results.”
4. Circa March 18, 2017: All ballot envelopes from the election were destroyed.
5. March 19, 2017: Candidate Brian Schoeffler sent an email regarding the election, stating, “I’m asking you to review the situation and make a decision if there is enough concern that there should be a revote.”
6. March 20, 2017: Board President Catherine Overby emailed the members, announcing that the election had been “contested.” In the email, she asserted that the bylaws did not permit write-in candidates and declared that she and Mr. Schoeffler were the new directors.
7. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Ms. Overby and Mr. Rice, held an unannounced meeting with an attorney at Ms. Overby’s home. During this meeting, it was discovered that “duplicate ballots and a proxy ballot” had been improperly counted.
8. Post-March 29, 2017: After consulting the attorney, the board determined that the valid vote count resulted in a tie between Mr. Schoeffler and Mr. Klinger. The board decided to hold a run-off election.
9. April 29, 2017: The run-off election was held, and Brian Schoeffler was announced as the winner.
10. May 10, 2017: The newly constituted Board of Directors held its organizational meeting.
III. Adjudicated Issues and Rulings
The petition, originally filed as a single issue, was converted to a multiple-issue case. At the hearing, the dispute was clarified into three distinct issues, each with a specific ruling from the ALJ.
Petitioner’s Allegation
Legal Basis
Final Ruling
The HOA improperly overturned the election results based on an objection raised after the annual meeting had adjourned.
Bylaw 2.4
Dismissed
The HOA unlawfully discarded ballot envelopes and related election materials.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
Violation Found
The HOA held closed board meetings without providing proper notice to the membership.
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Violation Found
——————————————————————————–
A. Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Improperly Overturning Election)
• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs contended that the board was barred from investigating or acting on any concerns about the election after the meeting had concluded. His argument was based on Bylaw 2.4, which states:
• ALJ Finding: The petition on this issue was dismissed. The judge’s finding was affirmed after a rehearing requested by the Petitioner.
• ALJ Rationale:
1. Initiation of Investigation: Testimony established that Board member Patrick Rice expressed concerns “immediately after the Annual Meeting adjourned.” Therefore, Mr. Schoeffler’s email the following day did not initiate the board’s investigation.
2. Distinction Between “Member” and “Director”: The judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific and non-interchangeable meanings. The waiver in Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member,” and the Petitioner failed to prove that a “Director” was prohibited from raising questions about the validity of an election after a meeting.
B. Issue 2: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (Destruction of Election Materials)
• Statutory Requirement: Arizona law mandates that “Ballots, envelopes and related materials… shall be retained… for at least one year after completion of the election.”
• Respondent’s Action: The HOA destroyed the ballot envelopes at or around the time of the election.
• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner established that the HOA violated the statute.
• ALJ Rationale: The ruling was based on “uncontroverted evidence” presented at the hearing that established the destruction of the materials.
C. Issue 3: Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Improper Closed Meetings)
• Statutory Requirement: Arizona law requires all HOA board meetings to be open to all members. A meeting can only be closed for specific reasons, such as receiving legal advice, and the board must provide notice and cite the legal authority for entering a closed session.
• Respondent’s Action: Certain board members met with an attorney at a private residence on March 29, 2017, to discuss the election. No notice was provided to the membership regarding this meeting.
• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner established that the HOA violated the statute.
• ALJ Rationale: The ruling was based on “uncontroverted evidence” that the meeting occurred and that the board “did not provide any notice of the upcoming meeting and/or provide notice that the meeting would be closed because it involved legal advice from an attorney.”
IV. Final Order and Disposition
The final decision, issued on August 23, 2018, and upheld after a rehearing decision on December 26, 2018, ordered the following:
• Dismissal: The petition regarding Issue 1 (violation of Bylaw 2.4) was dismissed.
• Prevailing Party: The Petitioner, Tom Barrs, was deemed the prevailing party as to Issue 2 and Issue 3.
• Monetary Award: The Respondent, Desert Ranch HOA, was ordered to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00.
• Civil Penalty: The judge determined that “No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.”
• Finality: The decision after rehearing was binding on the parties, with any further appeal requiring judicial review in the superior court.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Study Guide:Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA
This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA, based on the Administrative Law Judge Decisions issued on August 23, 2018, and December 26, 2018.
——————————————————————————–
Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their roles?
2. What were the initially announced results of the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors election on March 18, 2017?
3. What were the two primary procedural violations that the Desert Ranch HOA Board committed following the March 18, 2017 election?
4. What was the Petitioner’s central argument regarding the violation of Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4?
5. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismiss the Petitioner’s claim regarding Bylaw 2.4?
6. Explain the violation related to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1812(A)(7) that the ALJ found the Respondent had committed.
7. Describe the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 concerning open meetings.
8. What was the final order from the initial hearing on August 23, 2018?
9. What was the specific focus of the rehearing held on December 6, 2018?
10. What was the ultimate outcome of the rehearing, and what legal recourse was available to the parties afterward?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Petitioner Tom Barrs, who filed the dispute, and Respondent Desert Ranch HOA. The HOA was represented by its President, Catherine Overby, and Vice President, Brian Schoeffler. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.
2. At the Annual Board Meeting on March 18, 2017, the ballots were counted and Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger were announced as the winning candidates for the two vacant seats on the Board of Directors. No members present raised an objection before the meeting was adjourned.
3. The HOA Board committed two primary procedural violations. First, they destroyed the ballot envelopes at or around the time of the election, and second, certain Board members met with an attorney without providing notice to the association members that a meeting was being held or that it would be a closed session.
4. The Petitioner argued that candidate Brian Schoeffler’s challenge to the election was invalid because it was raised the day after the meeting adjourned. According to Bylaw 2.4, any “Member” who fails to object to an irregularity at the meeting waives their claim, and the Petitioner argued this rule should also apply to Board members.
5. The ALJ dismissed the claim because the investigation was initiated by Board member Patrick Rice, who expressed concerns immediately after the meeting, not by Mr. Schoeffler’s later email. The judge also determined that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific, non-interchangeable meanings, and the Petitioner failed to show that a Director was barred from raising concerns after a meeting.
6. The ALJ found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) based on uncontroverted evidence presented at the hearing. This statute requires that ballots, envelopes, and related election materials be retained for at least one year after an election, but the HOA discarded the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.
7. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 when certain Board members met with an attorney at Ms. Overby’s house on March 29, 2017. The HOA failed to provide any notice of this meeting to the members and did not announce that the meeting would be closed to discuss legal advice, as required by the statute.
8. In the initial order, the ALJ dismissed the petition as to Issue 1 (the Bylaw 2.4 violation) but found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party on Issues 2 and 3 (the statutory violations). The judge ordered the Respondent HOA to pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $1,000.00 but found that no civil penalty was appropriate.
9. The rehearing focused exclusively on the first issue from the initial hearing: whether the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on objections to the election results after the Annual Meeting had adjourned. The Petitioner did not seek reconsideration of the lack of penalties for the other two violations.
10. The rehearing upheld the original decision, dismissing the petition as to Issue 1. The decision from the rehearing was final and binding, and any party wishing to appeal the order was required to seek judicial review in the superior court within thirty-five days.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, drawing upon specific facts and legal arguments presented in the source documents.
1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4, specifically the distinction between a “Member” and a “Director.” Discuss the strength of the Petitioner’s counter-argument and why the judge’s reasoning ultimately prevailed.
2. Examine the series of actions taken by the Desert Ranch HOA Board of Directors following the March 18, 2017 election announcement. Evaluate whether their actions to investigate irregularities, consult an attorney, and hold a run-off election were ultimately justified, despite the procedural violations they committed.
3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as the burden of proof in this case. For each of the three issues presented, explain how the Petitioner either met or failed to meet this standard, citing specific evidence mentioned in the decisions.
4. Based on the events described, from the initial election to the final administrative ruling, critique the effectiveness of the HOA’s internal governance and dispute resolution processes. What systemic failures are evident, and how did they lead to a formal administrative hearing?
5. Although the Petitioner was the “prevailing party” on two of the three issues, the remedy was limited to a refund of his filing fee, with no civil penalty imposed. Argue for or against the appropriateness of this remedy, considering the nature of the HOA’s violations and their impact on the integrity of the election process.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Statute
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over the administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on evidence and law. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S. § 33-1804
An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all meetings of a homeowners’ association and its board of directors be open to all members. A meeting may only be closed for specific reasons, such as receiving legal advice, and the board must state the statutory reason for closing the meeting.
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)
An Arizona Revised Statute that mandates the retention of election materials, including ballots and envelopes, in either electronic or paper format for at least one year after the completion of an election for member inspection.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
An Arizona statute that permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof.
Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4
A provision in the HOA’s bylaws stating, “Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting… forever waives that claim.”
Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition
The formal document filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate by a homeowner to initiate a legal proceeding against their HOA for alleged violations.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not,” representing the greater weight of the evidence.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to consider a decision that has already been made, typically granted if there are perceived errors of law, misconduct, or if the decision was not supported by the evidence.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch HOA.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
A Homeowner Sued His HOA Over a Botched Election—Here Are 3 Lessons Every Board Should Learn
Friction between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) board is a common feature of community living, and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in disputes over elections and rule enforcement. But what happens when a board, trying to correct an error, makes the situation exponentially worse?
This article is a deep dive into the real administrative law case of Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA, a seemingly straightforward dispute that reveals surprising and practical lessons for anyone living in or governing a planned community. It’s a story of a cascade of errors, where initial election confusion led to a panicked and procedurally flawed response, compounded by a pre-existing failure in record-keeping. As we’ll see, the outcome wasn’t what anyone expected, and the board’s biggest mistakes weren’t the ones they thought they were fighting.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Lose the Main Argument But Still Win the Case
The dispute began at the Desert Ranch HOA’s annual meeting, where election results were announced. The trouble started immediately after the meeting adjourned when a board Director, Patrick Rice, gathered the ballots and expressed concerns about irregularities. A day later, a losing candidate, Brian Schoeffler, echoed those concerns via email. Citing the Director’s objection, the board overturned the initial results, prompting homeowner Tom Barrs to file a petition arguing this was a violation of the HOA’s own rules.
Barrs’ case hinged on Bylaw 2.4, which stated that any “Member” must object to irregularities during the meeting itself, or else they waive their right to complain. Barrs argued that since no one objected before adjournment, the results should stand. However, the judge disagreed, pointing to two critical distinctions in the evidence. First, the investigation was triggered by the concerns of a “Director,” not the losing candidate’s later email. Second, a close reading of the bylaws showed that the terms “Member” and “Director” were used as distinct categories and were not interchangeable. Since the bylaw only restricted “Members,” it did not prevent a Director from raising concerns after the meeting. Barrs lost his primary argument.
Despite this, in a counter-intuitive twist, the judge declared Barrs the “prevailing party” in the overall case and ordered the HOA to repay his $1,000 filing fee. Why? Because while investigating the petitioner’s main claim, the judge found the board had committed other clear violations of state law while trying to “fix” the election. This outcome underscores a critical principle for all boards: procedural integrity is paramount. The HOA won the battle over its right to review the election but lost the war because of its flawed process.
——————————————————————————–
2. Your Records (or Lack Thereof) Will Be Your Downfall
One of the board’s most significant errors was a simple but critical failure of administrative duty: they destroyed election materials in direct violation of state law. The HOA was found to have violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7), which is unambiguous about an HOA’s responsibility.
According to A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7), “Ballots, envelopes and related materials…shall be retained…for at least one year after completion of the election.”
The legal decision states the evidence was “uncontroverted” that the HOA discarded the ballot envelopes around the time of the election. Because the HOA could not dispute this fact, it was an easy violation for the petitioner to prove.
This wasn’t just a minor administrative oversight; it was a catastrophic error. By destroying the envelopes, the board not only violated the law but also eliminated any possibility of independently verifying the vote count after their own director discovered irregularities. This single failure trapped them in a procedural corner of their own making. It made a definitive resolution of the election challenge impossible, leading to the messy and expensive situation of declaring a tie and holding a run-off, all of which could have been avoided if the primary evidence had been preserved as required by law.
——————————————————————————–
3. “Private” Board Business Can Be an Illegal Secret Meeting
In an attempt to resolve the election dispute correctly, the board took what it likely considered a responsible step: seeking legal advice. After the election was contested, certain board members met with an attorney at a board member’s house to figure out how to proceed. However, the way they did it constituted another clear violation of state law.
This private meeting violated Arizona’s open meeting law, A.R.S. § 33-1804. While the statute does allow a board to enter a closed session to receive legal advice, it has strict procedural requirements. The board must first provide notice of the meeting to all members and then, at that public meeting, officially vote to enter the closed session for that specific, legally permissible reason. The evidence was “uncontroverted” that the board failed to provide any notice of this meeting to the association members.
The board’s desire for confidential legal advice was understandable, but their method created an unforced legal error. The correct procedure—notifying members of a meeting and then voting to enter a closed session—protects the board by demonstrating procedural propriety. The shortcut they took exposed them to a clear-cut violation that was impossible to defend. For an HOA board, transparency is the default, and secrecy is a narrow, legally defined exception. The process of going private matters as much as the reason for doing so.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: It’s Not Just What You Do, It’s How You Do It
The Desert Ranch HOA board, in its attempt to correct a perceived election error, committed two clear statutory violations. In their haste, they held an illegal secret meeting and were hamstrung by their prior failure to properly retain election records—the very evidence needed for a clean resolution. These procedural missteps ultimately cost them the case.
The ultimate lesson from Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA is that for any governing body, procedural correctness is just as important as substantive correctness. This case serves as a stark reminder that good intentions are no defense against procedural law. When a crisis hits, does your board have the discipline to follow procedure, or will the rush to find a solution lead you to commit unforced errors that are far worse than the original problem?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Stephen Barrs(witness) Testified for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Catherine Overby(board president, witness) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Brian Schoeffler(board vice president, witness) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Patrick Rice(board member) Desert Ranch HOA Board member who expressed concerns with election results
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Other Participants
Jerome Klinger(board member) Desert Ranch HOA Director elected in disputed election
Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES
Counsel
—
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines
Outcome Summary
The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval
Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.
The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.
The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL
• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018
• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018
Key Parties and Representatives
Name(s)
Representation / Contact
Petitioners
Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies
Appeared on behalf of themselves 9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260 [email protected]
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Kristopher L. Smith, Esq. O’Connor & Campbell, P.C. 7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284 [email protected]
Homeowners
Jeff and Karen Martin
Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).
Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof
The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.
The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.
Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:
1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?
2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?
3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?
During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:
• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.
• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.
• Procedural Violations:
◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.
◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.
Respondent’s Defense and Arguments
The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:
• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.
• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.
• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.
• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.
Referenced Governing Documents
The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.
• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.
• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”
• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.
• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”
• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.
• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”
Evidence Presented
• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”
• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.
• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.
• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.
2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.
3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.
4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.
The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL
Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?
2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?
3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?
4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?
5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?
6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?
8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?
9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?
10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.
2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.
3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.
4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.
5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.
6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.
7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.
8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.
9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.
10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.
3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in Context
ACC (Architectural Committee)
A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.
Architectural Guidelines
A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Petitioner
The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL
This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn
Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court
The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?
In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.
This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything
The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.
The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.
However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.
The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:
Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.
Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.
2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today
The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.
During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.
This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.
3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence
The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.
The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”
This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework
The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.
The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Davies-Brown(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of petitioners
Bart A. Brown, Jr.(petitioner)
Scott R. Davies(petitioner, board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board Voted against the roof approval
Respondent Side
Kristopher L. Smith(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C. Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Daniel Campbell(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
Pat Knight(board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L Dettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A Hansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Jones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Gardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
N Cano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
C Serrano(OAH Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted the order
Other Participants
Jeff Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Karen Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Patricia Davies-Brown, Individually and as Trustee of the Trust; BART A. BROWN, JR.; SCOTT R. DAVIES
Counsel
—
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Counsel
Daniel Campbell & Kristopher L. Smith
Alleged Violations
CC&Rs; Bylaws; Architectural Guidelines
Outcome Summary
The Petitioners' request alleging that the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association violated community documents by approving a copper-colored metal roof was denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, noting that the guidelines prohibiting reflective surfaces applied primarily to windows and doors, not roofs.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Exterior Appearance and Colors provisions regarding copper-colored metal roof approval
Petitioners alleged that the HOA improperly approved a copper-colored metal roof because it constituted a reflective surface and did not blend with the natural surroundings, violating the community documents. The ALJ denied the petition, finding Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its documents, noting the reflective surfaces ban applied to windows and doors, not roofs, and the roof's appearance was acceptable.
Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Briefing Document: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA
Executive Summary
This document summarizes the administrative hearing and decision in case No. 18F-H1818039-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowners Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies (the “Petitioners”) and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association (the “Respondent”). The core of the dispute was the HOA Board of Directors’ 2013 approval of a copper-colored metal roof for homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin.
The Petitioners alleged this approval violated the community’s CC&Rs, Bylaws, and Architectural Guidelines. Their primary arguments were that the roof was an impermissible “reflective surface,” that it did not “blend with the natural surrounding and landscape,” and that the Board lacked the authority to approve it without prior review by the Architectural Committee (ACC) and without viewing a physical sample.
The Respondent defended the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board possessed the authority to grant such approvals. They contended the prohibition on reflective surfaces in the community guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not roofing. Furthermore, they asserted that the roof was aesthetically compliant and that other reflective metal roofs exist within the community.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision, issued on September 14, 2018, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof. The ALJ found that the Board had the authority to approve the roof, the ban on reflective surfaces did not apply to roofing, and the Petitioners did not establish that the roof failed to blend with its natural surroundings.
——————————————————————————–
Case Overview
• Case Name: Patricia Davies-Brown, et al. vs. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
• Case Number: 18F-H1818039-REL
• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
• Presiding Judge: Velva Moses-Thompson, Administrative Law Judge
• Hearing Dates: July 10, 2018, and August 13, 2018
• Final Decision Date: September 14, 2018
Key Parties and Representatives
Name(s)
Representation / Contact
Petitioners
Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., Scott R. Davies
Appeared on behalf of themselves 9777 E Dreyfus Ave., Scottsdale, AZ 85260 [email protected]
Respondent
Starwood Estates Homeowners Association
Kristopher L. Smith, Esq. O’Connor & Campbell, P.C. 7955 S Priest Dr., Tempe, AZ 85284 [email protected]
Homeowners
Jeff and Karen Martin
Owners of the property with the disputed roof at 8500 Skywood Drive, Pinetop, Arizona (Lot 40 of Starwood Estates).
Core Dispute: The Martin Residence Roof
The central conflict originated in the summer of 2013 when the Starwood Estates Board of Directors approved a request from Jeff and Karen Martin to install a copper-colored metal roof on their home. The approval was passed by a 5-1 vote. Petitioner Scott R. Davies was the sole board member who voted against the approval at that time.
The Board reviewed a brochure containing the roof’s color before granting approval but did not observe a physical sample. However, one Board member, Pat Knight, was reportedly familiar with the appearance of such roofs from a previous home she owned nearby. The petition challenging this 2013 decision was filed on or about March 26, 2018.
Petitioners’ Allegations and Arguments
The Petitioners filed their petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the HOA violated community governing documents. Their case was built on three central questions:
1. Does the exterior appearance of the Martins’ aluminum copper-colored metal roof blend with the “natural surrounding and landscape” of Starwood Estates?
2. Does such roof constitute a “reflective surface”?
3. If the answer to (1) above is no and/or the answer to (2) above is yes, did the ACC and the Board of Starwood Estates erroneously violate the provisions of the CC&R’s and GUIDELINES in permitting the Martins to install such aluminum copper-colored metal roof…?
During the hearing, the Petitioners expanded on these points, arguing:
• Reflective Surface: The copper-colored roof was a prohibited reflective surface under the Architectural Guidelines.
• Aesthetic Incompatibility: The roof did not blend with the natural surroundings as required.
• Procedural Violations:
◦ The Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample of the material.
◦ The approval was invalid because it should have first been granted by the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) appointed by the Board.
Respondent’s Defense and Arguments
The Starwood Estates HOA maintained that its approval of the Martin roof was proper and compliant with all governing documents. Their key arguments were:
• Board Authority: The HOA asserted that either the Board of Directors or the Architectural Committee had the authority to approve the roof.
• Interpretation of “Reflective Surfaces”: The Respondent argued that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” within the Architectural Guidelines applies specifically to windows and doors, not to roofing, which is addressed in a separate section of the guidelines.
• Aesthetic Compliance: They contended the roof, while having a “shine,” was not a barred reflective surface and did blend in with the natural surroundings.
• Precedent: The HOA noted that several other metal roofs that are reflective had been previously approved in Starwood Estates. They submitted images of reflective green and red roofs in the Pinetop Country Club area as evidence.
Referenced Governing Documents
The decision cited specific sections from the HOA’s governing documents to adjudicate the dispute.
• Section 3.1.4: Requires prior written approval from the Architectural Committee for any work that alters the exterior appearance of a Lot.
• Section 5.2: States that approvals or actions to be taken by the Association “shall be valid if given or taken by the Board.”
• Article VII, Section A(2): Grants the Board authority to exercise all powers and duties vested in the Association unless reserved to the membership.
• Article VII, Section B: Empowers the Board to “Review and approve any architectural plan for the building of any improvements on any Lots.”
• Exterior Appearance and Colors: Mandates that exterior appearance “shall blend with the natural surroundings and landscape.” It also states, “Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.” A note requires the owner to submit samples of materials for ACC approval.
• Roofs, Materials, and Pitches: Stipulates that “Metal roofs are permitted only with ACC approval” and that all pitched roof materials “shall promote a continuity of texture and color.”
Evidence Presented
• Petitioner’s Exhibit 13: A photograph of the Martins’ copper-colored roof. The ALJ’s decision noted that while the image showed a reflection, the photograph itself was “blurred.”
• Respondent’s Exhibit 26: The brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof that the Board reviewed before its 2013 approval.
• Respondent’s Exhibit 7: Images of other reflective green and red metal roofs located in the Pinetop Country Club area, which were previously approved.
• Testimony: Board member Pat Knight’s familiarity with the appearance of copper-colored roofs was noted.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The petition was denied. The ALJ found that the Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Architectural Guidelines.
Conclusions of Law
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence that is more probably true than not. They failed to meet this standard.
2. Board Authority: The ALJ concluded that the governing documents allowed for the roof to be approved by either the Architectural Committee or the Board of Directors. The Board’s action was therefore valid.
3. Interpretation of Reflective Surfaces: The evidence established that the prohibition on “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines applies to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines. The existence of other approved shiny metal roofs further supported this interpretation.
4. Aesthetic Compliance: The Petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copper-colored roof failed to blend in with the natural surroundings.
Final Order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because Petitioners have not established that Respondent violated the Community Bylaws, Community CC&Rs, and the Community Architectural Guidelines when Respondent approved the Martins’ request to install the copper-colored roof.
The order was made binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days of service.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818039-REL
Study Guide: Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates HOA (Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing case between Patricia Davies-Brown, et al., and the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined within the context of the provided legal documents.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing exclusively from the information presented in the case documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in Case No. 18F-H1818039-REL?
2. What specific architectural feature was the central point of the dispute?
3. What were the three main questions the Petitioners raised in their petition filed on March 26, 2018?
4. How did the Respondent (Starwood Estates HOA) justify the approval of other reflective metal roofs in the community?
5. According to the Petitioners, which two procedural errors did the Board of Directors commit when approving the Martins’ roof?
6. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion regarding the prohibition of “reflective surfaces” in the Architectural Guidelines?
7. What is the legal standard of proof the Petitioners were required to meet, and did they succeed?
8. Which governing documents grant the Board of Directors the authority to approve architectural plans?
9. When was the disputed roof originally approved by the Board, and what was the vote count?
10. What evidence did the Board review before its initial approval, and what evidence was not reviewed at that time?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioners were Patricia Davies-Brown (Individually and as Trustee of the Trust), Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies. The Respondent was the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association.
2. The central dispute was an aluminum, “copper-colored metal roof” installed by homeowners Jeff and Karen Martin on their property at Lot 40 of Starwood Estates. The Petitioners challenged the HOA Board’s approval of this roof.
3. The Petitioners’ petition questioned whether the roof blended with the “natural surrounding and landscape,” whether it constituted a “reflective surface,” and if so, whether the Board and ACC violated the CC&Rs and Guidelines by permitting it.
4. The Respondent submitted evidence of other reflective green and red metal roofs within the Pinetop Country Club area that had been previously approved by the Board. This was used to argue that roofs with a shine were not explicitly barred.
5. The Petitioners contended the Board violated the CC&Rs by approving the roof without first viewing a physical sample. They also argued that the roof required approval from the two-person Architectural Committee (ACC) and could not be approved by the Board alone.
6. The Judge concluded that the bar on reflective surfaces, as written in the Architectural Guidelines, applies specifically to windows and doors. Roofs are addressed in a separate section of the guidelines that does not contain the same prohibition.
7. The Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means showing their contention is more probably true than not. The Judge ruled that they failed to meet this standard.
8. Section 5.2 of the CC&Rs states that actions taken by the Board are valid, and Article VII of the Starwood Bylaws grants the Board the power to exercise Association authority and to review and approve architectural plans. The Judge found this authority allowed the Board to approve the roof.
9. The roof was approved by the Board of Directors in the summer of 2013. The approval passed with a 5-1 vote, with Petitioner Scott R. Davies being the sole board member who voted against it.
10. Before approving the roof, the Board reviewed a brochure containing the color of the copper-colored roof. However, the Board did not observe a physical sample of the actual roofing material.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions for Further Study
The following questions are designed for deeper, analytical consideration of the case. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the conflict between CC&Rs Section 3.1.4 (requiring ACC approval) and other governing documents (like CC&Rs Section 5.2 and Bylaws Article VII) that grant broad authority to the Board. How did the Administrative Law Judge resolve this apparent contradiction in the final decision?
2. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means and detail why the Petitioners failed to meet this standard with respect to their claims about the roof’s reflective nature and its harmony with the natural surroundings.
3. Examine the interpretation of the Architectural Guidelines regarding “reflective surfaces.” How did the Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge construe this rule, and what evidence and reasoning supported their interpretation over the Petitioners’ broader application?
4. Evaluate the evidence presented by both the Petitioners and the Respondent. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s evidence (e.g., the blurred photograph vs. the brochure and photos of other roofs) and explain how this likely influenced the outcome of the case.
5. Based on the issues raised in this case, what specific changes or clarifications could be made to the community’s CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to prevent similar disputes in the future?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition in Context
ACC (Architectural Committee)
A committee, as referenced in the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines, responsible for approving exterior alterations and ensuring all building materials and colors conform to community standards.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The presiding official (Velva Moses-Thompson) at the Office of Administrative Hearings who conducts hearings, evaluates evidence, and issues a binding decision on the matter.
Architectural Guidelines
A set of community documents establishing goals and specific rules for exterior appearance, colors, materials, and site development to retain the character of Starwood Estates.
Board of Directors (Board)
The governing body of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which is empowered by the CC&Rs and Bylaws to conduct the affairs of the Association and approve architectural plans.
Bylaws
The rules and regulations that govern the internal operations of the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, including the powers and duties of the Board of Directors.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Legally binding rules recorded with the property deeds in the Starwood Estates community that govern what homeowners may or may not do with their property.
Conclusions of Law
The section of the ALJ’s decision that applies legal principles, statutes, and case law to the established facts of the case to reach a final judgment.
Findings of Fact
The section of the ALJ’s decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.
Petitioner
The party that initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, Patricia Davies-Brown, Bart A. Brown, Jr., and Scott R. Davies, who brought the complaint against the HOA.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has a greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition, persuading the fact-finder that a contention is more likely true than not.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, which had to defend its decision to approve the roof.
Restrictive Covenant
A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. In Arizona, if unambiguous, these are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818039-REL
This Copper Roof Caused a Legal Battle: 3 Surprising Lessons Every Homeowner Should Learn
Introduction: The Neighborhood Dispute That Went to Court
The relationship between homeowners and their Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a delicate balance. Architectural rules, designed to maintain a community’s aesthetic, often become a source of friction. But what happens when a disagreement over design choices escalates?
In the case of Davies-Brown v. Starwood Estates Homeowners Association, a dispute over Jeff and Karen Martin’s new copper-colored metal roof didn’t just cause whispers over the fence—it went all the way to a formal administrative hearing. When the HOA board approved the roof in a 5-1 vote, the lone dissenting board member, Scott R. Davies, joined two other homeowners to formally challenge the decision.
This seemingly simple disagreement over a roofing material reveals several powerful, and often counter-intuitive, lessons for anyone living in a planned community. From the structural placement of a single sentence to the evidentiary power of a blurry photograph, this case offers a masterclass in HOA law. Here are three surprising lessons every homeowner should learn.
——————————————————————————–
1. The Devil in the Document: How a Single Sentence Can Decide Everything
The first major lesson from this case is that the hyper-specific wording and structure of your community guidelines are paramount. The location and context of a rule can be just as important as the rule itself.
The petitioners’ core argument was that the copper-colored roof violated the Architectural Guidelines because it was a “reflective surface,” which they believed was forbidden. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward complaint.
However, the HOA mounted a successful counter-argument based on document structure. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the HOA’s interpretation. The rules for roofs were addressed in a distinct section titled “Roofs, Materials, and Pitches.” The ban on “reflective surfaces,” meanwhile, was located in an entirely separate section, “Exterior Appearance and Colors,” which also contained rules for windows and doors. This seemingly minor structural detail was the deciding factor on this point.
The exact rule the petitioners cited, found in the “Exterior Appearance and Colors” section, illustrates the point perfectly:
Clear aluminum window and doorframes are not permitted, nor are reflective surfaces.
Because this prohibition was not located in the roofing section, the judge concluded it applied only to windows, doors, and general exterior surfaces—not roofs. This case highlights that homeowners must read their community documents with extreme care. A prohibition you think is universal might, in fact, be limited to a very specific context by its placement in the text.
2. The Power of Precedent: What Your Neighbors Did Years Ago Matters Today
The second key takeaway is that an HOA board’s decisions can be heavily influenced by the character of the surrounding area, not just by what has been approved inside the development’s gates.
During the hearing, the HOA presented evidence of other reflective metal roofs, including green and red ones, that existed in the broader Pinetop Country Club area. Starwood Estates is part of this larger community, and the judge’s official findings noted this evidence, which significantly supported the HOA’s position to approve the Martins’ copper-colored roof.
This reveals a nuanced lesson: an HOA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Once a certain style or material becomes common in the surrounding region, it can establish a de facto community standard. This makes it significantly more difficult for other homeowners to argue against a similar request, as the board can point to the broader neighborhood aesthetic to justify its decision. Before you challenge a project, it’s crucial to look not only at what has been approved within your HOA, but also at the character of the community at large.
3. The Burden of Proof: Your Complaint Is Only as Good as Your Evidence
The third critical lesson is that in any formal dispute, the quality of your evidence is non-negotiable. A subjective feeling or personal opinion holds little weight without objective proof.
The petitioners attempted to prove the roof was overly reflective by submitting a photograph as evidence. However, the judge’s official findings delivered a devastating blow, noting with precise and revealing language: “Although the image showed a reflective the image, the photograph was blurred.”
This detail underscores a vital point: in a legal or formal setting, a complaint must be backed by clear, objective proof. Weak or poor-quality evidence, like a blurred photo, can completely undermine an otherwise valid concern. Even though the image hinted at the issue, its poor quality rendered it useless. If you are going to make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with convincing, high-quality evidence. Without it, your case is likely to be dismissed.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Before You Build or Battle, Do Your Homework
The Starwood Estates case serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA rules requires diligence. From this single dispute over a copper roof, we learn to read the fine print—and the structure—of governing documents, understand the power of aesthetic standards in the broader community, and ensure any complaint is backed by strong, clear evidence.
The next time you plan a home project or question a neighbor’s, ask yourself: have you really done your homework on the rules, the history, and the facts?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Patricia Davies-Brown(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of petitioners
Bart A. Brown, Jr.(petitioner)
Scott R. Davies(petitioner, board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board Voted against the roof approval
Respondent Side
Kristopher L. Smith(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C. Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Daniel Campbell(HOA attorney) O'Connor & Campbell, P.C.
Pat Knight(board member) Starwood Estates HOA Board
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
L Dettorre(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
A Hansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Jones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
D Gardner(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
N Cano(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate
C Serrano(OAH Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted the order
Other Participants
Jeff Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
Karen Martin(Starwood Estates resident) Starwood Estates Property owner whose roof was subject of the dispute
In the initial decision, Petitioner established violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) (election materials disposal) and A.R.S. § 33-1804 (closed/improperly noticed meetings), but failed to establish a violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Issue 1). The rehearing only addressed Issue 1, which was ultimately dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner lost Issue 1 (Bylaw 2.4 violation) because the ALJ found that while the Bylaw applied to Members, Petitioner failed to show it prohibited a Director from raising concerns about election validity after the meeting adjourned, and the investigation was initiated by a Board member immediately following the meeting.
Key Issues & Findings
Violation of Bylaw 2.4 (Election Objection Waiver)
Whether Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4 when it acted on an objection to the election results raised the day after the Annual Meeting, given that the Bylaw requires members to object to irregularities 'at the meeting' to avoid waiver.
Orders: The Petition was dismissed as to Issue 1.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Challenge, Bylaw Violation, Meeting Notice, Record Retention, Rehearing
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1813
A.R.S. § 33-1811
A.R.S. § 33-1812
A.R.S. § 33-1804
Bylaw 3.3
Bylaw 2.4
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 655766.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:04:26 (113.2 KB)
18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678304.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:44 (117.5 KB)
18F-H1818035-REL Decision – 678305.pdf
Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:32:44 (38.8 KB)
Briefing Doc – 18F-H1818035-REL
Barrs v. Desert Ranch HOA: Case Briefing
Executive Summary
This briefing document outlines the legal dispute between Petitioner Tom Barrs and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA) concerning the HOA’s March 18, 2017, Board of Directors election. The petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly overturned the initial election results, mishandled election materials, and held meetings in violation of state law and its own bylaws.
An initial ruling by an Administrative Law Judge found the HOA in violation of state statutes regarding the retention of election materials (A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7)) and open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804). However, the judge ruled against the petitioner on the central claim that the HOA violated Bylaw 2.4 by investigating the election after the annual meeting had concluded.
The petitioner requested and was granted a rehearing, which focused exclusively on the alleged violation of Bylaw 2.4. The final decision on rehearing, issued December 26, 2018, reaffirmed the initial ruling. The judge concluded that the investigation was properly initiated by a board member, not a general member, and that the bylaw restricting post-meeting objections did not apply to the Board of Directors itself. Consequently, the petition regarding the overturning of the election was dismissed.
Case Overview
This document details the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the administrative case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, heard in the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.
Case Detail
Information
Case Number
18F-H1818035-REL-RHG
Petitioner
Tom Barrs
Respondent
Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Presiding Judge
Tammy L. Eigenheer, Administrative Law Judge
Initial Hearing
Not specified in document
Rehearing Date
December 6, 2018
Decision Date
December 26, 2018
Key Individuals:
• Tom Barrs: Petitioner.
• Catherine Overby: HOA President, appeared for Respondent.
• Brian Schoeffler: HOA Vice President, appeared for Respondent; candidate in the disputed election.
• Jerome Klinger: Candidate initially announced as a winner of the election.
• Patrick Rice: Board member at the time of the election.
Chronology of the 2017 Election Dispute
1. Pre-March 18, 2017: Absentee ballots are sent to HOA members listing Catherine Overby and Brian Schoeffler as candidates, with a space for a write-in.
2. March 18, 2017: At the Annual Meeting, ballots are submitted and counted. Catherine Overby and write-in candidate Jerome Klinger are announced as the winners. No members object before the meeting is adjourned. Immediately following, board member Patrick Rice gathers the ballots and expresses concerns about the results.
3. March 19, 2017: Brian Schoeffler sends an email to board members asking for a review and a decision on whether a “revote” is necessary.
4. March 20, 2017: Catherine Overby emails the HOA membership, stating the election has been “contested” and that the board must investigate. She also asserts that bylaws do not allow write-in candidates, meaning she and Schoeffler were the new directors based on the vote count.
5. March 29, 2017: Certain board members, including Overby and Rice, meet with an attorney at Overby’s house. They discover that duplicate and proxy ballots were improperly counted.
6. Post-March 29, 2017: The board determines the valid votes resulted in a tie between Schoeffler and Klinger. A run-off election is scheduled.
7. April 29, 2017: The run-off election is held. Brian Schoeffler is announced as the winner.
8. May 10, 2017: The Board of Directors holds an organizational meeting.
Procedural History and Allegations
Initial Petition and Hearing
• March 19, 2018: Tom Barrs files a single-issue HOA Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee but including a four-page narrative alleging multiple violations.
• April 13, 2018: Barrs files an amended petition, adding an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
• July 30, 2018: Barrs pays to convert the petition to a multiple-issue dispute and submits a “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.”
The three core issues alleged by the petitioner were:
1. Improper Overturning of Election: The Board of Directors improperly removed Jerome Klinger by overturning the March 18, 2017 election results. The petitioner argued the challenge by the third candidate was barred by Bylaw 2.4, and the methods used violated recall protocols under A.R.S. § 33-1813 and Bylaw 3.3.
2. Improper Handling of Election Materials: The board violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by disposing of election materials (ballot envelopes) required to be kept for one year and by selectively invalidating votes cast on invalid ballots.
3. Improperly Held Meetings: Meetings related to the 2017 election were held as closed sessions or without proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Initial Decision
Following the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision with the following conclusions:
• Violation Found: The Respondent (HOA) violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) by discarding the ballot envelopes around the time of the election.
• Violation Found: The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding meetings that were closed and/or without proper notice.
• No Violation Found: The Petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent violated Bylaw 2.4.
Rehearing and Final Order
• October 1, 2018: Barrs files a request for rehearing, citing misconduct, insufficient penalties, errors of law, and a decision not supported by evidence.
• November 2, 2018: The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.
• December 6, 2018: At the rehearing, the petitioner states he is only seeking reconsideration of Issue 1 (the improper overturning of the election) and not the lack of penalties for Issues 2 and 3.
Judicial Analysis and Final Rulings
The final decision focused solely on whether the HOA’s actions violated its own bylaws regarding election challenges.
Key Bylaw and Legal Standard
• Desert Ranch Bylaw 2.4: The central bylaw in dispute states:
• Burden of Proof: The petitioner bore the burden of proving the violations by a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Analysis of Issue 1: Violation of Bylaw 2.4
• Petitioner’s Argument: Mr. Barrs argued that because candidate Brian Schoeffler did not object to the election results before the March 18, 2017 meeting adjourned, Bylaw 2.4 barred the board from investigating his concerns raised the following day via email. The petitioner contended that board members are also “Members” and thus are bound by this rule.
• Evidence Presented: Testimony established that Patrick Rice, acting as a Board member, expressed concerns with the vote count immediately after the meeting adjourned. This, not Mr. Schoeffler’s subsequent email, initiated the board’s investigation. At the rehearing, the petitioner presented selected audio clips he had recorded to support his arguments but did not provide the entire recording.
• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ made a critical distinction between the terms used in the HOA’s bylaws.
◦ The terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were found to have specific, non-interchangeable meanings throughout the bylaws.
◦ Bylaw 2.4 applies specifically to a “Member.”
◦ The petitioner made no showing that a “Director” or the “Board of Directors” could not raise questions about the validity of election results after a meeting had adjourned.
◦ Since the investigation was initiated by a board member (Rice) and not exclusively by a member’s untimely objection (Schoeffler), the board’s actions did not violate Bylaw 2.4.
Final Order
Based on the analysis from the rehearing, the judge issued the following order:
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed as to Issue 1.
This order, resulting from a rehearing, is legally binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days of the order’s service date.
Study Guide – 18F-H1818035-REL
Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG)
This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner Tom Barrs and Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, arguments, and legal conclusions.
——————————————————————————–
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided source documents.
1. Who were the primary parties involved in case No. 18F-H1818035-REL-RHG, and what were their roles?
2. What specific event on March 18, 2017, served as the catalyst for the entire legal dispute?
3. What were the initial, announced results of the election held at the March 18, 2017, Annual Meeting?
4. According to the Petitioner, how did the HOA Board violate Bylaw 2.4 following the election?
5. In the initial hearing, which two of the Petitioner’s allegations were found to be valid violations committed by the Respondent?
6. Why did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate grant the Petitioner’s request for a rehearing?
7. During the rehearing on December 6, 2018, what was the single issue that the Petitioner chose to focus on for reconsideration?
8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what action initiated the Board’s investigation into the election results, separate from Brian Schoeffler’s email?
9. How did the Judge’s interpretation of the terms “Member” and “Director” in the bylaws defeat the Petitioner’s primary argument on rehearing?
10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding Issue 1 after the conclusion of the rehearing?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties were Tom Barrs, who served as the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association, which was the Respondent. The Petitioner, Mr. Barrs, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by its President, Catherine Overby, and Vice President, Brian Schoeffler.
2. The dispute was triggered by the election for two vacant seats on the HOA Board of Directors held during the Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017. The subsequent actions by the Board to investigate and ultimately overturn the initial results of this election led the Petitioner to file a dispute.
3. The initially announced results of the March 18, 2017, election declared that Ms. Catherine Overby and Mr. Jerome Klinger were the winning candidates. No members present at the meeting raised an objection to these announced results before the meeting was adjourned.
4. The Petitioner argued that the Board violated Bylaw 2.4 by acting on an objection to the election results raised by Brian Schoeffler the day after the meeting. The bylaw states that any member who fails to object to an irregularity during a meeting “forever waives that claim,” and the Petitioner argued Mr. Schoeffler, as a member, had waived his right to object.
5. In the initial hearing, the Judge found that the Petitioner successfully established two violations by the Respondent. These were a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) for discarding ballot envelopes and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 for holding closed meetings without proper notice.
6. The Commissioner granted the rehearing “for the reasons outlined in the Petitioner’s Rehearing Request.” The Petitioner’s request cited multiple grounds, including misconduct by the prevailing party, errors of law, and that the initial findings of fact were not supported by the evidence or were contrary to law.
7. At the rehearing, the Petitioner stated he was only seeking reconsideration of the initial decision as it related to Issue 1. This issue was the allegation that the Board improperly overturned the election results in violation of Bylaw 2.4.
8. The Judge found that the Board’s investigation was initiated by Mr. Patrick Rice, a Board member at the time, who expressed his concerns with the vote “immediately after the Annual Meeting adjourned.” This occurred prior to and independent of the email sent by Brian Schoeffler the following day.
9. The Judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific and non-interchangeable meanings. Because the Petitioner made no showing that a “Director” (like Mr. Rice) could not raise questions after a meeting, the restriction on “Members” in Bylaw 2.4 did not apply to the Board’s actions.
10. The final order stated that the Petition was to be dismissed as to Issue 1. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent had violated Bylaw 2.4.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
1. Analyze the timeline of events from the Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017, to the run-off election on April 29, 2017. Discuss the key actions taken by the HOA Board—including the meeting with an attorney and the discovery of invalid ballots—and explain how these actions led to the legal dispute.
2. Detail the three distinct issues the Petitioner alleged in his “Clarification of Three Issues alleged in Petition.” Based on the outcome of the initial hearing, evaluate the success of these claims and explain why the Petitioner prevailed on some issues but not others.
3. The Petitioner’s case on rehearing hinged on the interpretation of Bylaw 2.4. Construct the Petitioner’s argument regarding this bylaw and then fully explain the Administrative Law Judge’s legal reasoning for ultimately rejecting it, focusing on the distinction between “Members” and “Directors.”
4. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard and analyze how the Petitioner’s failure to meet this standard led to the dismissal of Issue 1 on rehearing.
5. Examine the procedural history of the case, from the initial single-issue petition to the final binding order after rehearing. What were the key procedural steps, such as amending the petition and filing for a rehearing, and how did these steps shape the final scope and outcome of the case?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Tammy L. Eigenheer.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the State of Arizona. The Petitioner alleged violations of several statutes, including A.R.S. § 33-1813, § 33-1811, § 33-1812, and § 33-1804.
Bylaw 2.4
The specific bylaw of the Desert Ranch HOA that was the central focus of the rehearing. It states, “Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting… forever waives that claim.”
Burden of Proof
The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish the alleged violations.
Department
The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition was filed.
Director
An elected member of the HOA’s Board of Directors. The ALJ’s decision distinguished this role from that of a general “Member.”
Homeowners Association (HOA)
The governing organization for the planned community of Desert Ranch, responsible for enforcing community documents and statutes.
Member
A homeowner within the planned community. The ALJ’s decision emphasized that in the bylaws, this term has a specific meaning that is not interchangeable with “Director.”
Petitioner
The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Barrs.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is “more probably true than not.”
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, to reconsider the initial decision based on alleged errors.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
Blog Post – 18F-H1818035-REL
5 Shocking Lessons from an HOA Election Gone Wrong
Introduction: When “The Rules” Aren’t What You Think
Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) run on rules. From lawn maintenance to paint colors, the governing documents are the ultimate authority. But what happens when the rules themselves become the center of a dispute? Imagine this scenario: your HOA holds its annual board election. The results are announced, the winners are declared, and everyone goes home. Then, the next day, the board decides to overturn the result.
This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s the core of a real-life legal case that reveals surprising truths about community governance, the power of a single word, and what can happen when an election goes off the rails.
——————————————————————————–
1. An Election Isn’t Over Until the Board Says It’s Over
The dispute began at the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association Annual Meeting on March 18, 2017. The ballots for two open board seats were counted, and Catherine Overby and Jerome Klinger were announced as the winning candidates. Crucially, no members present raised an objection before the meeting adjourned. By all appearances, the election was over.
But it wasn’t. Immediately after the meeting, a board member, Mr. Rice, gathered the ballots and expressed his concerns with the election results. The next day, the losing candidate, Brian Schoeffler, sent an email asking the board to “review the situation” and consider a “revote.” The board then formally announced that the election had been contested and that it was obligated to investigate.
After consulting an attorney, the board discovered several ballot irregularities, including duplicate ballots and an improperly counted proxy ballot. This new tally resulted in a tie between Mr. Schoeffler and Mr. Klinger. The board then forced a run-off election, which Mr. Schoeffler ultimately won. While the losing candidate’s email drew attention, the true turning point had already occurred moments after the meeting ended, when a board member himself questioned the results—an act that would prove legally decisive.
2. A Single Word in the Bylaws Can Change Everything
The homeowner who filed the legal petition, Tom Barrs, built his case on a seemingly straightforward rule in the HOA’s bylaws. He argued that any challenge to the election was invalid because it wasn’t raised before the Annual Meeting adjourned. The bylaw in question, Section 2.4, reads:
Any Member who fails to object to any perceived or actual irregularity at the meeting (whether procedural, parliamentary, substantive or technical) forever waives that claim.
The petitioner’s argument was simple: the challenge was raised after the meeting by a “Member,” so the claim was waived. The case seemed open-and-shut.
However, the Administrative Law Judge made a critical distinction that decided the case. The judge noted that throughout the bylaws, the terms “Member,” “Directors,” and “Board of Directors” were used with specific meanings and were not interchangeable. While a Member had to object during the meeting, the judge found no rule preventing a Director from raising questions later.
Because a board member, Mr. Rice, had expressed concerns immediately following the meeting, the board’s subsequent investigation was deemed permissible. This razor-thin interpretation of a single word highlights the immense power that definitions and precise language hold in governing documents.
3. The Board Broke the Law, But Still Won on the Main Issue
In a surprising twist, the judge determined that the HOA had, in fact, violated Arizona state law on two separate counts during the election controversy. The petitioner successfully proved that the board failed to follow established statutes.
The two violations established in the initial hearing were:
• Improper Destruction of Ballots: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(7) when it destroyed all of the ballot envelopes around the time of the election. This act made a true, verifiable recount impossible, directly undermining the integrity of the very election the board was claiming to investigate.
• Improper Meetings: The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by holding closed meetings without providing proper notice to the members, particularly a meeting at the home of a board member, Ms. Overby, where the decision to hold a run-off was made. By making these critical decisions behind closed doors, the board created an appearance of secrecy that fueled the dispute and eroded member trust.
Despite proving these clear legal violations, the petitioner still lost on his primary complaint—overturning the run-off and reinstating the original election results. This outcome serves as a stark example of a pyrrhic victory. You can successfully prove that an organization broke the rules without achieving your ultimate goal in the dispute.
4. An Investigation Can Uncover a Cascade of Deeper Problems
The board’s decision to contest its own election results was controversial, but the subsequent investigation brought a cascade of other procedural failures to light. The initial challenge acted like a pulled thread that unraveled a series of previously unknown mistakes.
During the board’s meeting with its attorney, it was discovered that “duplicate ballots and a proxy ballot that were improperly counted” had skewed the original vote. This alone was enough to call the first result into question.
Furthermore, the board itself asserted that its own bylaws “did not allow for a write-in candidate.” This was a significant admission, as one of the original winners, Jerome Klinger, had been a write-in. If true, his victory would have been invalid from the start, regardless of any other challenges. The board’s investigation, initiated to resolve one perceived error, ended up exposing its own systemic incompetence—from improperly counting ballots to being unaware of its own rules regarding write-in candidates. The effort to fix the election proved the election was fundamentally broken from the start.
5. An HOA Board Can Investigate Itself
The petitioner’s case rested on the idea that board members are also “Members” of the association and are therefore bound by the same rules. If a regular member had to object during the meeting, a director should have to as well.
The judge rejected this argument, implicitly affirming the board’s higher-level fiduciary duty to ensure a fair and legal election. The final decision made it clear that the bylaws used “Member” and “Director” with distinct meanings and responsibilities. The bylaw requiring members to object during the meeting was the mechanism for an individual’s challenge; it did not override the board’s inherent duty to govern properly.
The key takeaway from the judge’s decision was unambiguous: The petitioner “made no showing that a Director could not raise questions as to the validity of the election results after the meeting adjourned.” This legally affirms a board’s power to investigate its own processes, a responsibility separate from the rules that govern challenges from the general membership.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: Have You Read Your Bylaws Lately?
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the dense, legalistic language of HOA governing documents is not just boilerplate. These documents have immense real-world power, dictating the outcomes of contentious disputes and shaping the governance of a community. The intricate details and specific wording can mean the difference between a final result and one that is just the beginning of a long and costly fight.
This entire, year-long legal battle hinged on the definition of a single word. When was the last time you read the fine print governing your own community?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf,.
Stephen Barrs(witness) Testified for Petitioner,.
Respondent Side
Catherine Overby(board member/president) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent,; Board President,; testified at hearing,.
Brian Schoeffler(board member/vice president) Desert Ranch HOA Appeared on behalf of Respondent,; Board Vice President,; testified at hearing,.
Patrick Rice(board member) Desert Ranch HOA Board member who expressed concerns immediately after the meeting,,,; involved in meeting with attorney,.
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe(Commissioner (ADRE)) Arizona Department of Real Estate Issued Order Granting Rehearing; recipient of decision copy,.
LDettorre(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision copy.
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision copy.
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision copy.
DGardner(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision copy.
ncano(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of decision copy.
Other Participants
Jerome Klinger(board director) Desert Ranch HOA Initially announced as a winning candidate for director,; later removed after contest; involved in run-off,.
Paula Barrs(listed resident) Listed with Tom Barrs on mailing address.
