Ketchum, Scott R. -v- Sam Marcos Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on January 30, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067005-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-01-30
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Scott R. Ketchum	Counsel	—
Respondent	San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association	Counsel	Kristen L. Rosenbeck

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 3.1, Section 7.7; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the petition, finding that the HOA's refusal to exercise discretion to consider the play structure application (unless lowered to 6 feet) was arbitrary and capricious, as neither the CC&Rs nor Architectural Guidelines contained an absolute prohibition on structures exceeding wall height. The HOA was ordered to process the application properly.

Key Issues & Findings

Arbitrary denial of architectural approval for play structure

The Homeowner installed a 13.5' play structure. The HOA denied approval and refused to exercise discretion to consider the application, citing a 6' wall height limit not explicitly contained in the CC&Rs or Guidelines as an absolute prohibition.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to exercise its discretion under the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines to consider Petitioner's request for approval; Respondent must refund the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 1.14
CC&Rs Section 3.1
CC&Rs Section 7.7
Architectural Guidelines (Feb 2001 and April 2006)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067005-BFS Decision – 160975.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:19:14 (276.6 KB)

Briefing Doc – 07F-H067005-BFS

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Ketchum v. San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative law proceedings and final decision in the matter of Scott R. Ketchum v. San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association (No. 07F-H067005-BFS). The central conflict involved the HOA’s denial of a 13.5-foot-high backyard play structure and the subsequent imposition of escalating fines.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that while the petitioner was bound by the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and required to seek approval for the structure, the HOA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The HOA’s Architectural Committee and Board refused to exercise their discretion, effectively enforcing a categorical height prohibition that did not exist in the governing documents. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the HOA to reconsider the petitioner’s request using proper discretion and to reimburse the petitioner’s filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

1. Legal and Regulatory Framework

The dispute was governed by the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and subsequent Architectural Guidelines.

1.1 Key CC&R Provisions

• Section 1.14 (Improvements): Defines “Improvement” broadly to include buildings, fences, walls, and “all other structures.”

• Section 1.24 (Visibility): Defines “Visible from Neighboring Property” as an object visible to a person six feet tall standing on neighboring property at an elevation no greater than the base of the object.

• Section 3.1 & 3.2: Establishes the Architectural Committee’s authority to adopt rules and standards. It grants the Board the final decision on appeals.

• Section 7.7: Prohibits any improvement or alteration that changes the exterior appearance of a property without prior written approval from the Architectural Committee.

• Section 13.10: Stipulates that by accepting a deed, owners are bound by all provisions, restrictions, and rules of the Association.

1.2 Architectural Guidelines (2001 vs. 2006)

The guidelines evolved during the period of dispute, specifically regarding rear yard improvements:

Feature

February 2001 Guidelines

April 2006 Guidelines

Approval Requirement

Not required for items under 6 feet.

Required for items exceeding wall height.

Playground Equipment

Specifically listed as an example of an item under 6 feet not requiring approval.

Removed from the list of examples under wall height.

General Principle

Discretion of homeowner unless it impacts adjacent property.

Committee approval required for anything exceeding wall height.

——————————————————————————–

2. Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict began shortly after Scott R. Ketchum purchased his residence in April 2005.

• November 2005: The petitioner installed a “Rainbow Play System” in his backyard. The structure measured 17 feet long, 14.5 feet deep, and 13.5 feet high.

• December 2005: The HOA notified the petitioner that the playset was an unapproved architectural change.

• January – February 2006: The petitioner formally requested approval. The Architectural Committee denied the request, stating that “structures cannot be higher than wall height” (6 feet).

• April – May 2006: The petitioner appealed to the Board, citing that no absolute prohibition on height existed in the CC&Rs. The Board denied the appeal, maintaining the wall-height requirement.

• June 2006: The HOA began a formal fining process. The petitioner offered to add tree screening, but the HOA continued enforcement.

• August 2006: The HOA offered a compromise to allow the structure if it were lowered to within 18 inches of the wall height. The petitioner refused.

• October 2006: The petitioner filed a petition for a hearing with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety.

——————————————————————————–

3. HOA Fine Policy and Accrued Costs

The HOA enforced a “Fine Policy Resolution” adopted in April 2006. The escalating fine schedule for the play structure was as follows:

• Initial Notices: Courtesy and Second notices (warnings).

• Third Notice: $25.00 fine.

• Fourth Notice: $50.00 fine.

• Continuing Violations: $100.00 assessed every seven days.

By the time of the hearing on January 11, 2007, the total financial impact claimed by the HOA included:

• Accrued Fines: $2,161.04.

• Attorney’s Fees: $2,651.43.

——————————————————————————–

4. Evidence and Testimony

4.1 Petitioner’s Arguments

• Oral Assurances: The petitioner testified that the former Community Manager, Dodi Gorski, told him the HOA did not care what was in the backyard as long as neighbors approved.

• Neighbor Support: The petitioner provided letters from neighbors stating the playset did not obstruct their views and was acceptable to them.

• Expert Testimony: Larry Paprocki, an HOA expert, testified that the HOA cannot categorically prohibit improvements higher than 6 feet without amending the CC&Rs. He argued that the absence of written standards for height meant the HOA was creating unwritten rules “as the situation arises.”

4.2 Respondent’s Arguments

• Consistency: The HOA provided records showing they had consistently denied play structure requests exceeding 6 feet for other members since 2000.

• Aesthetics: Photos showed the 13.5-foot structure was more than twice the height of the perimeter fence and was visible from multiple vantage points, featuring redwood and colored canvas that contrasted with the stucco and beige tones of the community.

——————————————————————————–

5. Conclusions of Law and Final Order

5.1 Judicial Findings

The ALJ reached the following legal conclusions:

1. Contractual Obligation: The petitioner was legally bound by the CC&Rs and was required to seek approval for the structure as it constituted an “improvement.”

2. Unreasonable Reliance: The petitioner’s claim of oral approval from the former manager was deemed unreasonable as it contradicted the plain language of the CC&Rs requiring written approval.

3. Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct: While the HOA had the right to review the structure, its refusal to consider any structure over 6 feet was a failure to exercise discretion. The ALJ noted that neither the CC&Rs nor the Guidelines “absolutely prohibited improvements higher than 6’.”

4. Improper Compromise: The HOA’s later offer to allow a height within 18 inches of the wall was not supported by any specific provision in the CC&Rs or Guidelines.

5.2 The Order

The ALJ issued the following mandates:

• Granting of Petition: The HOA was ordered to exercise its discretion and properly consider the petitioner’s request for approval based on factors such as style, color, and compatibility, rather than an arbitrary height limit.

• Reimbursement: The HOA was ordered to pay the petitioner his filing fee.

• Denial of Fines and Fees: The HOA’s request for accrued fines and attorney’s fees was denied. The ALJ ruled that an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” that allows for the awarding of attorney’s fees under Arizona law.

Study Guide – 07F-H067005-BFS

Case Study Analysis: Ketchum v. San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case Scott R. Ketchum v. San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association (No. 07F-H067005-BFS). It examines the legal standards, contractual obligations, and procedural disputes involving architectural control within a master-planned community.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. How do the CC&Rs define an “Improvement” in the context of San Marcos Manor?

2. What is the specific legal definition of “Visible from Neighboring Property” according to Section 1.24 of the CC&Rs?

3. What were the specific dimensions of the “Rainbow Play System” that Scott Ketchum sought to have approved?

4. What was the basis for the Architectural Committee’s denial of Ketchum’s play structure in January 2006?

5. According to the April 2006 Fine Policy Resolution, what are the steps and monetary penalties for a continuing violation?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that Ketchum’s reliance on Dodi Gorski’s alleged oral assurances was not reasonable?

7. What evidence did the HOA provide to demonstrate it had consistently enforced a height restriction on play structures in the past?

8. On what grounds did the ALJ find the HOA Board’s refusal to exercise discretion “arbitrary and capricious”?

9. Why was the HOA’s request for attorney’s fees denied by the Administrative Law Judge?

10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the play structure?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. How do the CC&Rs define an “Improvement” in the context of San Marcos Manor? According to Section 1.14, an “Improvement” includes buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, fences, walls, rocks, hedges, plantings, and all other structures or landscaping of every type and kind. This broad definition encompasses the play structure at the center of the dispute.

2. What is the specific legal definition of “Visible from Neighboring Property” according to Section 1.24 of the CC&Rs? It means an object is or would be visible to a person six feet tall standing on any part of a neighboring property. This visibility is determined from an elevation no greater than the elevation of the base of the object being viewed.

3. What were the specific dimensions of the “Rainbow Play System” that Scott Ketchum sought to have approved? The schematic diagram provided by Ketchum showed the play system was 17 feet long and 14.5 feet deep. Most significantly, the structure reached a height of 13.5 feet, more than double the height of the six-foot perimeter wall.

4. What was the basis for the Architectural Committee’s denial of Ketchum’s play structure in January 2006? The Committee denied the request because the structure was visible over the perimeter wall. They stated that the Association consistently held to a standard where structures could not be higher than the wall height, and the play structure would need to be modified to meet this requirement.

5. According to the April 2006 Fine Policy Resolution, what are the steps and monetary penalties for a continuing violation? The policy begins with a Courtesy Notice, followed by a Second Notice with a warning, and a Third Notice with a $25 fine. If the violation continues, a Fourth Notice carries a $50 fine, followed by $100 fines assessed every seven days until the violation is resolved.

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that Ketchum’s reliance on Dodi Gorski’s alleged oral assurances was not reasonable? The ALJ ruled that any oral approval would have contradicted the plain language of the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines requiring written submission. Furthermore, such oral assurances were inconsistent with the established course of dealing between Ketchum and the HOA regarding previous architectural approvals.

7. What evidence did the HOA provide to demonstrate it had consistently enforced a height restriction on play structures in the past? The HOA admitted records of three previous requests (Smolkavski, Hack, and Burns) for play sets exceeding six feet, all of which were denied or required modifications. In the Burns case, the HOA even employed legal counsel to demand the removal of an unapproved structure.

8. On what grounds did the ALJ find the HOA Board’s refusal to exercise discretion “arbitrary and capricious”? The ALJ found that neither the CC&Rs nor the Guidelines absolutely prohibited structures higher than six feet; they merely required approval for them. Because the Board refused to even consider the application unless the structure was lowered to a height that required no approval at all, they failed to actually exercise the discretion granted to them.

9. Why was the HOA’s request for attorney’s fees denied by the Administrative Law Judge? The ALJ determined that the HOA was not the prevailing party and that an administrative proceeding does not constitute an “action” under Arizona law for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees. Additionally, the HOA had not filed a petition for affirmative relief or paid the necessary filing fees to pursue such a claim.

10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the play structure? The ALJ granted Ketchum’s petition and ordered the HOA to exercise its discretion to properly consider the request for approval based on factors like style and compatibility. The HOA was also ordered to reimburse Ketchum for his administrative filing fee, while all other requests for relief were denied.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Discretion vs. Prohibition: Analyze the distinction the Administrative Law Judge made between an HOA’s right to require approval for a structure and an HOA’s categorical prohibition of that structure. How did the Board’s “wall-height” standard conflict with the discretionary language of the CC&Rs?

2. Contractual Obligations in Master-Planned Communities: Discuss the legal weight of CC&Rs as a contract between a homeowner and an Association. Using the Ketchum case, explain how the acceptance of a deed binds an owner to these restrictions and what limits exist on the Association’s power to enforce them.

3. The Role of Procedural Fairness: Examine the HOA’s fine and notification process. To what extent did the HOA follow its own “Fine Policy Resolution,” and how did the timeline of these notices impact the legal standing of both parties during the hearing?

4. Architectural Guidelines Evolution: Compare and contrast the February 2001 Architectural Guidelines with the April 2006 revision. Discuss how the removal of “Playground equipment” as an example of an item not requiring approval (if under six feet) influenced the arguments regarding notice and standards.

5. Estoppel and Agency: Evaluate the argument of “estoppel” regarding the oral statements made by the Community Manager. Why is it difficult for a homeowner to claim they relied on oral advice when written CC&Rs and Guidelines are in place?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A professional presiding officer who hears evidence and makes decisions in disputes involving government agencies or specific statutory petitions.

• Arbitrary and Capricious: A legal standard used to describe a decision made without adequate consideration of the facts, or a failure to exercise honest judgment or discretion.

• Architectural Committee: A body established by the HOA Board to review and approve or deny changes to the exterior appearance of properties within the community.

• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A recorded legal document that sets out the rules and restrictions for a planned community, which are binding on all property owners.

• Declarant: The developer or entity that originally established the community and recorded the CC&Rs.

• Estoppel: A legal principle that prevents a party from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law.

• Improvement: Broadly defined in this case to include any building, structure, wall, or landscaping that alters the exterior appearance of a property.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a fact is “more probably true than not.”

• Remand: To send a case or a specific issue back to a lower tribunal or committee (in this case, the Architectural Committee) for further action.

Blog Post – 07F-H067005-BFS

Beyond the Backyard Battle: 5 Surprising Lessons from a $4,000 Swing Set Dispute

The HOA Nightmare You Never Expected

Imagine the excitement of a young family moving into a new home in a master-planned community. With three children ages five to nine, Scott Ketchum and his wife did what many parents do: they invested in a high-quality Rainbow Play System for their backyard. Built of natural redwood and designed for a lifetime of play, the 13.5-foot structure was meant to be a family sanctuary. Instead, it became the centerpiece of a multi-year “David vs. Goliath” legal war against the San Marcos Manor Homeowners Association.

As a legal journalist covering residential governance, I’ve seen many HOAs overreach, but Scott Ketchum vs. San Marcos Manor HOA is a masterclass in how an entrenched Board can turn a minor architectural detail into a high-stakes financial battle. What started as a “Friendly Reminder” ended in an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that exposed the limits of HOA power.

The Danger of “The Manager Said It Was Fine”

One of the most common traps for homeowners is relying on the verbal word of community management. Mr. Ketchum testified that he consulted the former manager, Dodi Gorski, in October 2005. According to Ketchum, she gave him a classic “green light,” stating the association didn’t care what was in the backyard as long as the neighbors approved.

The trouble started on December 28, 2005, when the HOA sent a violation notice for the “unapproved” structure. While Ketchum felt he had permission, he was fighting against the ironclad text of Section 7.7 of the CC&Rs, which requires written approval before any structure is “commenced, erected, or maintained.” The ALJ eventually ruled that relying on hearsay was “not reasonable,” as oral assurances cannot override the written law of the community.

The “Wall Height” Myth and the Goliath Mentality

The HOA’s primary weapon was the “Wall Height Myth.” The Board argued that because the play system was taller than the 6-foot perimeter wall, it was automatically prohibited under the “Visible from Neighboring Property” definition (Section 1.24).

However, a Legal Expert looking at the evolution of the rules sees a tightening of the noose. The 2001 Architectural Guidelines (Finding 4) specifically listed “playground equipment” as an example of items under 6 feet not requiring approval. By the April 2006 revision (Finding 5), the Board had scrubbed that example. This subtle shift highlighted a Board determined to enforce a blanket ban that wasn’t actually in the written rules.

“Requires Approval” vs. “Prohibited” The guidelines only stated that items over 6 feet require approval—not that they are banned. Ketchum wasn’t the first victim of this rigid interpretation; the record shows the Board had previously used this “wall height” logic to deny homeowners like the Smolkavskis, the Hacks, and the Burnses. This wasn’t just about one swing set; it was about a Board enforcing an unwritten rule to maintain a “clean” skyline at all costs.

When Enforcement Becomes “Arbitrary and Capricious”

The “smoking gun” in this case was the Board’s refusal to actually exercise the discretion they claimed to have. Internal emails revealed the “Goliath” mentality: Board member Elliott Shapero admitted that while backyards were generally out of their jurisdiction, they had to enforce the play-structure ban “as we have in the past,” despite it being “against our guidelines.”

The irony was peak bureaucracy: the Board repeatedly told Ketchum they would only consider his application if he lowered the structure to 6 feet. As the ALJ pointed out in Conclusion of Law #8, if the structure were 6 feet tall, Ketchum wouldn’t have needed the Board’s approval in the first place. By demanding he “undo” the height that triggered their review, the Board effectively refused to perform the very review the CC&Rs required.

The Math of a Play Structure: A Financial David vs. Goliath

HOA disputes can become a financial black hole with terrifying speed. By the time this case reached a hearing, the “fine clock” had turned a backyard toy into a $4,800 liability. Here is the breakdown of the potential costs Ketchum faced:

• Initial Fines (3rd and 4th Notices): $75.00

• Escalating Weekly Fines ($100/week): $2,086.04

• Total Accrued Fines: $2,161.04

• HOA Attorney’s Fees: $2,651.43

• Total Financial Liability: $4,812.47

In a massive win for the “little guy,” the ALJ denied the HOA’s claim to collect these fees and fines. Because the Board failed to follow proper procedures and acted arbitrarily, they lost their right to the $4,800 payday. This is a crucial lesson: the “Goliath” doesn’t always get to collect the bill for its own legal overreach.

The “Remand” Reality Check and the Power of Expertise

To win this battle, Ketchum brought in professional firepower: expert witness Larry Paprocki, a community management veteran. Paprocki testified that an HOA cannot categorically prohibit structures that the CC&Rs merely require them to “review.” His expertise helped prove that the Board was acting outside of industry standards.

Despite the victory, Ketchum faced the “Remand Reality Check.” In administrative law, winning doesn’t always mean a permanent “yes.” The ALJ issued a remand, which is essentially a “fair second chance.” The court ordered the HOA to go back and actually do its job: review the application based on design, color, and compatibility, rather than just pointing at a 6-foot wall and saying “no.”

Conclusion: Who Rules the Backyard?

The Ketchum case is a stark reminder that an HOA is not a kingdom; it is a governed entity bound by the specific text of its own rules. While the Board may want a perfectly uniform horizon, they cannot invent prohibitions that do not exist in the CC&Rs.

For homeowners, the lessons are clear: Get it in writing, know your guidelines better than the Board does, and don’t be afraid to call out “arbitrary” enforcement. In the ongoing battle between community aesthetics and the right of a family to enjoy their own property, the law requires more than just a 6-foot rule—it requires actual fairness. In the end, we must ask: where should the line be drawn between a clean skyline and a child’s right to play?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Scott R. Ketchum (petitioner)
Homeowner
Appeared on his own behalf
Krista Kay (homeowner)
Petitioner's wife
Eric Rel (witness)
Neighbor
Provided letter supporting Petitioner
Larry Paprocki (expert witness)
Purported expert on HOAs

Respondent Side

Kristen L. Rosenbeck (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Dodi Gorski (property manager)
San Marcos Manor HOA
Former Community Manager
John Wahman (property manager)
Planned Development Services
Replaced Ms. Gorski; Witness for HOA
Luci Crackau (committee member)
Architectural Committee
Elliott Shapero (committee member)
Architectural Committee
Bob J. McCullough (attorney)
Former attorney for HOA (2003)

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Robert Barger (director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Agency Director listed on distribution
Joyce Kesterman (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Listed on distribution

Other Participants

Kevin Smolkavski (homeowner)
Mentioned in evidence regarding past architectural requests
Jennifer Smolkavski (homeowner)
Mentioned in evidence regarding past architectural requests
Thomas Hack (homeowner)
Mentioned in evidence regarding past architectural requests
Michael Burns (homeowner)
Mentioned in evidence regarding past architectural requests
Caroline Burns (homeowner)
Mentioned in evidence regarding past architectural requests

Rose, George F. -v- Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.

Posted on January 23, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067003-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-01-23
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	George F. Rose and Carmen Gloria Rose	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	David A. McEvoy

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 4(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition. The claim regarding the 11th Declaration was ruled moot as it was superseded. Regarding the 12th Declaration, the ALJ concluded the HOA maintained landscaping reasonably to avoid undue obstruction of golf course views and that petitioners had unrealistic expectations. The documents were found not to protect mountain views.

Why this result: Claims on old CC&Rs were moot; HOA actions were found reasonable; documents did not support mountain view rights; petitioners' expectations were unrealistic.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Enforce View Restrictions

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to enforce the CC&Rs and Development Standards regarding golf course and mountain views by not requiring neighbors to remove vegetation and not sufficiently clearing common areas.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article IV, Section 4(a) of the Eleventh Amended and Restated Declaration
Article IV, Section 4(a) of the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067003-BFS Decision – 160370.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:19:05 (143.0 KB)

Briefing Doc – 07F-H067003-BFS

Briefing Document: Rose vs. Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in Case No. 07F-H067003-BFS, involving George F. and Carmen Gloria Rose (Petitioners) and the Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc. (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Petitioners’ claims that the Association failed to enforce its governing documents regarding the protection of golf course and mountain views.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding that:

• Board Authority: The Association’s Board of Directors has the exclusive right to interpret and construe the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• View Obstruction: The Association adequately maintained common areas to prevent “undue obstruction” of the golf course. The Petitioners’ expectations regarding views of specific golf tees were deemed “unrealistic and unreasonable.”

• Mountain Views: Neither the Eleventh nor Twelfth Amended Declarations, nor the Association’s Development Standards, grant homeowners a protected right to mountain views.

• Common Area Control: The Association acted within its rights to rescind previous policies that allowed individual homeowners to maintain common areas, asserting centralized control over these spaces.

Case Background

The Petitioners, acting as Trustees of the Rose Revocable Family Trust, own a residence located at 14460 N. Choctaw Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona (Lot 6a). This property borders a golf course maintained by the Respondent, specifically situated between the 13th and 14th holes. The rear of the property faces east toward a natural desert portion of the golf course and the Catalina Mountains.

Upon acquiring the property in June 2004, the title was subject to the Sun City Vistoso Eleventh Amended and Restated Declaration. This document was later superseded by the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration, effective March 22, 2005.

Regulatory Framework and Governing Documents

The dispute primarily involved the interpretation of Article IV, Section 4(a) regarding landscaping and view preservation.

Comparison of Declaration Language

Provision

Eleventh Amended Declaration (2004)

Twelfth Amended Declaration (2005)

Primary Requirement

Landscaping must be planned to avoid “undue obstruction” of the golf course from the Lot and neighboring Lots.

Landscaping of Common Areas and Lots bordering the Golf Course shall be maintained to avoid “undue obstruction.”

Height Restrictions

Prohibited hedges/plantings higher than 3′ above finished floor grade within 15′ of the golf course boundary.

Walls/fences within 15′ of the rear property line limited to 5′ total (portions above 3′ must be open wrought iron).

Authority

Subject to Board interpretation via Article XVII.

Explicitly states: “The Board of Directors shall be the final authority as to whether a view is unduly obstructed.”

Development Standards

Petitioners argued that the Development Standards were intended to “respect the vistas and views of the mountain setting.” However, the Respondent and the ALJ determined that:

• The Standards apply only to individual Lots and Parcels, not to Association-owned Common Areas or the golf course.

• The language regarding vistas is a general introductory statement and does not create a specific, enforceable right to mountain views.

Chronology of the Dispute

The Golf Course View (2004)

In August 2004, the Petitioners requested that the Association require their neighbors (the Millers) to remove backyard vegetation to improve the Petitioners’ view of the 14th tees.

• Board Action: The Board sought legal counsel and attempted conflict resolution.

• Resolution: On October 26, 2004, the Board denied the request. They concluded that Association trimming in the common area provided an adequate view for Lot 6a and that requiring a neighbor to remove established shrubs was unnecessary.

Maintenance Policy Shift (2004–2005)

Historically, a 1997 policy allowed members to maintain portions of Common Areas at their own expense. In July 2004, the Board voted to eliminate this policy, asserting full Association control over Common Area vegetation. Members were formally reminded in 2005 and 2006 to refrain from unauthorized trimming.

The Mountain View Requests (2005–2006)

Petitioners submitted multiple “Common Area Vegetation Maintenance Request Forms”:

• October 2005: Requested removal of 6′ cholla to open the view looking south toward the #14 tees. This work was completed by the Association in January 2006.

• February 2006: Requested to personally “trim and top off” mesquite trees and brush in the common area to open views of the Catalina Mountains.

• Denial: The Association denied the February request, stating that mountain views are not protected by the governing documents and that residents are prohibited from performing their own maintenance in common areas.

Legal Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key legal conclusions based on the evidence presented at the January 3, 2007, hearing:

1. Board Interpretive Authority

Under Article XVII of the Declaration, the Board holds the “exclusive right to construe and interpret” the provisions of the document. These interpretations are “final, conclusive and binding” in the absence of a court adjudication to the contrary.

2. Mootness of Prior Claims

The ALJ determined that Petitioners’ complaints regarding the Eleventh Amended Declaration were untimely and moot. Because the membership approved the Twelfth Amended Declaration in March 2005, the previous document was superseded.

3. “Undue Obstruction” and Reasonableness

The ALJ found that the Association successfully fulfilled its duty to avoid undue obstruction.

4. Absence of Mountain View Protection

The ALJ explicitly ruled that the CC&Rs and Development Standards do not grant rights to mountain views. While the Association had been “reasonable” in maintaining common areas to the east, it was not legally obligated to guarantee a mountain vista.

Final Order

The Petition for Hearing filed by George F. and Carmen Gloria Rose was denied. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02(B), the decision issued on January 23, 2007, by Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully, serves as the final administrative decision.

Study Guide – 07F-H067003-BFS

Study Guide: Rose v. Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law case between George F. and Carmen Gloria Rose and the Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc. The materials focus on the interpretation of property covenants, the authority of community associations, and the legal standards applied in administrative hearings regarding homeowners’ associations.

——————————————————————————–

Part 1: Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Who are the Petitioners in this case, and what is their legal relationship to the property at 14460 N. Choctaw Drive?

2. What specific limitations did Article IV, Section 4 (a) of the Eleventh Amended and Restated Declaration place on fences for lots bordering the golf course?

3. What was the initial dispute between the Petitioners and their neighbors, the Millers, regarding landscaping?

4. Based on the Board of Directors’ October 19, 2004, analysis, how should golf course views be determined and interpreted?

5. Why did the Association’s membership vote to amend the Eleventh Declaration in March 2005?

6. According to the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration, who holds the final authority regarding whether a view is “unduly obstructed”?

7. What was the Association’s reason for denying the Petitioners’ February 3, 2006, request to trim vegetation for mountain views?

8. How did the Board’s policy regarding member maintenance of common areas change between 1997 and 2004?

9. What legal burden did the Petitioners carry during the administrative hearing, and what was the required standard of proof?

10. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioners’ claims for mountain views?

——————————————————————————–

Part 2: Answer Key

1. Who are the Petitioners in this case, and what is their legal relationship to the property at 14460 N. Choctaw Drive?
The Petitioners are George F. Rose and Carmen Gloria Rose. They serve as the Trustees and beneficiaries of The Rose Revocable Family Trust, which is the record title owner of the residence.

2. What specific limitations did Article IV, Section 4 (a) of the Eleventh Amended and Restated Declaration place on fences for lots bordering the golf course?
Fences within fifteen feet of the rear property line were limited to a maximum height of five feet. Any portion of the fence exceeding three feet in height was required to be of open wrought iron construction.

3. What was the initial dispute between the Petitioners and their neighbors, the Millers, regarding landscaping?
The Petitioners requested that the Millers remove vegetation in their backyard because it obstructed the Petitioners’ view of the 14th tees. The Board ultimately denied this request, believing the Association’s trimming of common areas provided an adequate view.

4. Based on the Board of Directors’ October 19, 2004, analysis, how should golf course views be determined and interpreted?
The Board determined that it is their responsibility to make reasonable interpretations of governing documents on a case-by-case basis. They concluded that views are site-specific and should be evaluated based on what provides a “reasonable” view from the owner’s property.

5. Why did the Association’s membership vote to amend the Eleventh Declaration in March 2005?
The Board proposed the amendment because the existing language regarding golf views was considered “confusing, hard to understand and difficult to interpret and enforce.” The goal was to simplify the section and explicitly grant the Board authority to determine if a view is obstructed.

6. According to the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration, who holds the final authority regarding whether a view is “unduly obstructed”?
The Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration explicitly states that the Board of Directors shall be the final authority on this matter. This interpretation is binding on all persons and property bound by the Declaration unless overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction.

7. What was the Association’s reason for denying the Petitioners’ February 3, 2006, request to trim vegetation for mountain views?
The Association denied the request because mountain views were not protected by the developer or the governing documents. General statements in the Development Standards regarding the “mountain setting” were deemed general intent rather than enforceable protections for specific views.

8. How did the Board’s policy regarding member maintenance of common areas change between 1997 and 2004?
A 1997 policy allowed members to maintain portions of the common areas at their own expense through agreements with the Board. In July 2004, the Board rescinded this policy and revoked all prior agreements to assert total control over the maintenance of the Association’s common areas.

9. What legal burden did the Petitioners carry during the administrative hearing, and what was the required standard of proof?
Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), the Petitioners held the burden of proof in the matter. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence.”

10. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioners’ claims for mountain views?
The Judge concluded that the governing documents and Development Standards do not grant Petitioners any rights to mountain views. Furthermore, he found that the Association had been reasonable in its maintenance of the common area to avoid undue obstruction.

——————————————————————————–

Part 3: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the case details to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Evolution of Governance: Analyze how the transition from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration shifted the balance of power between individual homeowners and the Association’s Board.

2. Interpretation of Intent: Discuss the legal significance of the Board’s “exclusive right to construe and interpret” the Declaration. How does this authority impact a homeowner’s ability to challenge Board decisions in an administrative setting?

3. The Scope of Protected Views: Compare and contrast the Association’s obligations regarding “golf course views” versus “mountain views” as established by the governing documents and the ALJ’s findings.

4. Reasonableness in Property Disputes: Examine the ALJ’s determination that the Petitioners held “unrealistic and unreasonable expectations” regarding their views. What evidence from the case supports or refutes this characterization?

5. Common Area Control: Evaluate the implications of the Board rescinding the 1997 “Common Area Policies, Procedures and Request Form.” How did this change affect the Petitioners’ ability to manage the vegetation impacting their property?

——————————————————————————–

Part 4: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who trier of fact who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies or specific statutory petitions.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Common Area

Land within a development (such as the golf course or natural desert buffer) that is owned and maintained by the Association rather than an individual homeowner.

Declarant

The entity (often the developer, such as Del Webb) that originally established the community and its governing documents.

Development Standards

Guidelines intended to preserve the desert environment and architectural character of the community, which apply to lots and parcels.

Eleventh Amended and Restated Declaration

The version of the community’s governing documents effective at the time the Petitioners acquired their property in June 2004.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in a civil or administrative case, requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.

Trustee

An individual or entity holding legal title to property on behalf of a trust and its beneficiaries.

Warranty Deed

A legal document that transfers ownership of real property and guarantees that the seller holds clear title.

Wrought Iron Construction

A type of open fencing material required for the portions of fences exceeding three feet in height to ensure visibility.

Blog Post – 07F-H067003-BFS

The Premium You Paid for That View? It Might Be Worthless: Lessons from Rose v. Sun City Vistoso

The allure of “living on the green” is a powerful force in Southwest real estate. For many, the premium paid for a lot bordering a golf course—like Lot 6a in the Sun City Vistoso community—is an investment in a specific lifestyle: the right to watch the morning light hit the fairways or the sunset glow on distant peaks. Homeowners often assume that because they paid for the vista, they have a permanent legal right to maintain it.

However, as the Trustees of the Rose Revocable Family Trust discovered, a “view” is often a legally fragile asset. When George and Carmen Rose found their sightlines disappearing behind growing mesquite trees and a neighbor’s vegetation, they didn’t just find a gardening problem; they found a jurisdictional trap. The case of George and Carmen Rose vs. Sun City Vistoso Community Association stands as a definitive cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes their property lines extend to the horizon.

Your “Mountain View” Might Not Legally Exist

The Jurisdictional Trap Between Lots and Common Areas

One of the most jarring revelations in the Rose case was the discovery that not all vistas are created equal. The Roses argued that the Association’s Development Standards were intended to “respect the vistas and views of the mountain setting.” However, General Manager Scott Devereaux delivered a cold legal reality: while “Golf Course Views” were mentioned in the CC&Rs, “Mountain Views” lacked explicit protection.

More importantly, Devereaux highlighted a critical distinction regarding where those rules apply. He noted that the Development Standards were designed for “Lots and Parcels”—the land owned by residents—and did not legally bind the Association’s management of its own land (the common areas). This means an HOA can allow a desert forest to grow in a common area even if it completely erases the “mountain setting” described in the community’s marketing materials.

The Board as the “Supreme Court” of the Neighborhood

The Interpretive Monopoly and the Power of Article XVII

Even when CC&Rs contain language about views, the power to define those terms rests entirely with the HOA Board. Article XVII of the Declaration granted the Sun City Vistoso Board the “exclusive right to construe and interpret” the provisions of the document. Under this authority, the Board’s interpretation is “final, conclusive and binding,” leaving the homeowner with almost no recourse short of a high-stakes judicial challenge.

The Board essentially acts as the “Supreme Court” of the street. In an October 19, 2004, memorandum, the Board outlined the limits of their interpretive responsibilities, effectively narrowing the scope of what a homeowner can expect:

• Case-by-Case Basis: View disputes are site-specific and do not create a community-wide precedent.

• Reasonable Locations: The Association is only required to provide a view from “several reasonable locations” in a backyard, not a panoramic vista from every window.

• Natural Reversal: While the Association initially trimmed vegetation to assist the Roses, they later exercised their authority to let the area behind the neighboring lot “grow back naturally,” effectively rescinding previous maintenance.

You Can’t Always Force a Neighbor to Trim

The “Diagonal View” and Unreasonable Expectations

The conflict between the Roses and their neighbors, the Millers, highlights the limits of the “diagonal” view. As members of the “nine-hole club,” the Roses specifically wanted to watch people tee-off from the 14th tees, which required looking diagonally across the Millers’ property.

The Board—and later the Administrative Law Judge—found this expectation to be a bridge too far. The ruling established that a homeowner’s right to a view does not grant them a veto over a neighbor’s landscaping, especially when the desired sightline isn’t a direct view. The court’s finding was a blunt assessment of homeowner entitlement.

The Vanishing Right to “DIY” Common Area Maintenance

The 2004 Policy Shift and the Bureaucratic Nightmare

Before 2004, a “self-help” policy allowed Sun City Vistoso members to maintain common areas at their own expense. When mesquite trees and “Desert Broom” began to block their mountain views, the Roses offered to do the work themselves for free. They even promised to “not disturb any of the cactus” and to dispose of all cuttings.

However, the HOA asserted total control in a 2004 policy reversal, revoking all prior “DIY” agreements. The Association argued this was necessary to prevent members from “disturbing” the desert environment. This shift stripped the Roses of their ability to solve their own problem, forcing them out of their backyard and into a grueling administrative process with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. The lesson is clear: your right to “improve” the common area ends the moment the Board decides to assert its legislative monopoly.

CC&Rs Can Change Mid-Dispute

The “Mootness Trap” of Legislative Maneuvering

Perhaps the most impactful takeaway is that an HOA can change the rules while you are in the middle of a fight. While the Roses were disputing the Eleventh Amended Declaration, the Board proposed and passed the Twelfth Amended and Restated Declaration in March 2005. This new version simplified the language and explicitly codified the Board as the “final authority” on view obstructions.

When the case reached the judge in 2007, this maneuver proved fatal to the Roses’ petition. Because the Roses failed to prosecute a civil claim while the Eleventh Declaration was still effective, the judge ruled their complaints “moot.”

This “Mootness Trap” demonstrates that delay is the homeowner’s greatest enemy. By the time you get your day in court, the Association may have already legislated away the very rule you are trying to enforce.

The Final Verdict on Living with an HOA

The Roses’ petition was ultimately denied, a result that underscores the immense power of community associations. When you buy into an HOA, you aren’t just purchasing a home; you are consenting to a system of governance where your individual “rights” are secondary to the Board’s interpretive authority.

The Rose case proves that “undue obstruction” is whatever the Board says it is, and a “mountain view” is only a right if it’s written in stone in the CC&Rs. Before you pay that “view premium,” you must ask yourself: Do you truly know who owns the sightlines outside your window? In a managed community, the answer is almost certainly the Association.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

George F. Rose (Petitioner)
The Rose Revocable Family Trust
Trustee/Owner of Lot 6a
Carmen Gloria Rose (Petitioner)
The Rose Revocable Family Trust
Trustee/Owner of Lot 6a

Respondent Side

David A. McEvoy (attorney)
McEvoy, Daniels & Darcy, P.C.
Attorney for Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.
Scott G. Devereaux (General Manager)
Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.
Sikkink (board member)
Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.
Moved to deny petitioners' request
Natt (board member)
Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.
Seconded motion to deny request
Frasca (board member)
Sun City Vistoso Community Association, Inc.
Called vote

Neutral Parties

Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence Miller (neighbor)
Owner of neighboring lot; spoke at board meeting
Anita Miller (neighbor)
Owner of neighboring lot
Robert Barger (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted order
Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted order

Deboer, Richard A. -v- Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Posted on January 22, 2007 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	07F-H067007-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2007-01-23
Administrative Law Judge	Daniel G. Martin
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard A. DeBoer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Declaration, Article X, Section 3
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ determined the Association properly adopted the amended Declaration with the requisite 75% vote, denying the Petitioner's challenge to the amendments. However, the ALJ ruled the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by withholding ballots and surveys, ordering their production. The Petitioner was not deemed the prevailing party for fee reimbursement purposes because he lost the more significant issue regarding the Declaration.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the Declaration or acted in bad faith regarding the amendments; the fee refund was denied because Petitioner did not prevail on the significant issue.

Key Issues & Findings

validity of amended Declaration

Petitioner alleged the Board improperly adopted amendments to the Declaration that fundamentally changed governance and operating structure.

Orders: Petition denied regarding the validity of the Declaration amendments.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

records request (ballots and surveys)

Association refused to produce ballots and surveys claiming confidentiality under A.R.S. § 16-624(A).

Orders: Association ordered to make ballots and surveys available for inspection and copying within thirty days.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067007-BFS Decision – 160289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:19:21 (140.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 07F-H067007-BFS

Administrative Law Judge Decision: DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law decision in the matter of Richard A. DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (Case No. 07F-H067007-BFS). The case centers on a dispute regarding the amendment of a residential development’s governing documents and a member’s right to access association records.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed two primary allegations:

1. That the Association’s Board of Directors exceeded its authority and acted in bad faith during the adoption of a new Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (the “Declaration”).

2. That the Association violated Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-1805) by refusing to provide the petitioner with copies of ballots and survey forms related to the amendment process.

The ALJ concluded that the Association did not violate the Declaration or exceed its authority in the amendment process, as it followed the prescribed voting thresholds. However, the Association did violate state law by withholding records based on a misapplication of state election statutes. Consequently, the Association was ordered to produce the requested ballots and surveys, though the Petitioner was not deemed the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering filing fees.

——————————————————————————–

Background and Context

The Turtle Rock III subdivision, located in Phoenix, Arizona, consists of 76 lots and associated common areas. Responsibility for its maintenance is vested in the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (the “Association”).

In 2005, the Association’s Board formed an ad hoc committee to revise the Declaration, which was considered outdated. A primary driver for these revisions was a provision that required road repair assessments to be spent in the same year they were levied—a requirement that created financial hardship for the Association.

Timeline of Document Revision and Approval

• July–September 2005: Ad hoc committee reviews the Declaration and Association Bylaws.

• October 2005: Draft revisions are distributed to lot owners for comment via a one-page survey.

• November 2005: The Board receives 54 responses, which it characterizes as “disappointing” but sufficient to proceed with legal review.

• February–April 2006: The law firm Ekmark & Ekmark reviews and substantively modifies the drafts.

• June 9, 2006: Final documents and ballots are distributed to lot owners.

• July 2006: Voting concludes.

• August 31, 2006: The Association records the amended Declaration.

——————————————————————————–

Detailed Analysis of Core Themes

1. Validity of the Amendment Process

The Petitioner, Richard DeBoer, argued that the Board acted in bad faith and fundamentally changed the governance of the Association in its own favor. The ALJ rejected this argument, focusing on procedural compliance rather than the Petitioner’s substantive disagreements with the document’s content.

Legal Threshold for Amendment According to Article X, Section 3 of the original Declaration, amendments after the initial twenty-year period require an instrument signed by “not less than 75 percent of the lot owners.”

Voting Results The Association received 62 ballots out of a possible 76. The results were as follows:

Vote Type

Favoring Adoption

58 (one filed under protest)

Opposed

Total Ballots Received

Total Possible Lots

The ALJ determined that even after discounting the protest ballot, the 57 favoring votes met the 75% threshold required for passage. The Board was found to have kept owners apprised of activities and provided a full and fair opportunity for document review.

2. Access to Association Records

A significant portion of the dispute involved the Association’s refusal to provide the Petitioner with the actual ballots and surveys from the vote.

The Association’s Defense The Association withheld the documents on the grounds of confidentiality, specifically citing A.R.S. § 16-624(A). This statute requires that ballots from state and federal elections be kept unopened in a secure facility and eventually destroyed.

The ALJ’s Finding The ALJ ruled that the Association’s reliance on A.R.S. § 16-624(A) was misplaced. That statute applies only to elections conducted by the state or its political subdivisions, not to private balloting by a homeowners association. Instead, the Association was bound by A.R.S. § 33-1805, which states:

The ALJ found no legal authority supporting the Association’s decision to withhold the ballots and surveys.

3. Petitioner’s Substantive Concerns

While the ALJ ultimately ruled that the Petitioner’s concerns with the substance of the amendments were irrelevant to the legality of their adoption, the document records specific areas of disagreement. Mr. DeBoer “vehemently” disagreed with provisions including, but not limited to:

• The definitions of “common area,” “front landscape,” and “multiuse easement.”

• The Board’s authority to adopt rules, right of entry, and enforcement powers.

• Third-party rights to ingress and egress.

• Assessments for road repairs and architectural control.

• Restrictions on motorized vehicles, noise, and ownership.

The ALJ noted that while enforcement of these provisions might present future challenges, those challenges do not render the adoption process invalid.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions of Law and Order

Legal Conclusions

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. No Violation of Declaration: The Board followed Article X, Section 3 by obtaining the necessary 75% approval. The ALJ found no evidence of bad faith or exceeded authority.

3. Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805: The Association unlawfully withheld records. Private HOA ballots are not exempt from member inspection under state election laws.

4. Prevailing Party Status: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.02, a prevailing petitioner is entitled to a refund of the filing fee ($550.00). However, the ALJ determined that because the Petitioner lost on the “more significant” issue (the validity of the Declaration itself), he was not the prevailing party.

Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

• The Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the amended Declaration was denied.

• The Petitioner’s challenge regarding the production of records was granted.

• Mandate: The Association was ordered to make the ballots and surveys from the vote available to the Petitioner for inspection and copying within thirty days of the order’s effective date (January 23, 2007).

Study Guide – 07F-H067007-BFS

Study Guide: DeBoer v. Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Richard A. DeBoer and the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association. It explores the legal disputes surrounding the amendment of community governing documents and the transparency requirements for association records.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences, based strictly on the provided case text.

1. What primary issue led the Association’s Board of Directors to form an ad hoc committee to revise the Declaration in 2005? The Board formed the committee because the existing Declaration was outdated, specifically regarding road repair assessments. Under the original terms, assessments for road repairs had to be spent in the same year they were levied, which created a financial hardship due to the high cost of such repairs.

2. According to Article X, Section 3 of the Declaration, what is the specific requirement for amending the document after the first twenty-year period? After the initial twenty-year period, the Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by no less than 75 percent of the lot owners. Additionally, any such amendment must be recorded with the county to be effective.

3. What were the three specific types of documents Mr. DeBoer requested from the Association in his October 19, 2006, letter? Mr. DeBoer requested copies of all ballots and retractions submitted for the approval of the Amended and Restated Declaration. He also requested all survey sheets submitted by members in response to the October 2005 Board letter and a copy of the current, approved Association Bylaws.

4. On what legal grounds did the Association initially refuse to produce the ballots and surveys to Mr. DeBoer? The Association argued that the ballots and surveys were confidential, relying on A.R.S. § 16-624(A), a state election statute. This statute requires election officers to keep ballot packages secure and unopened for a set period before destroying them.

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that A.R.S. § 16-624(A) was not applicable to this case? The ALJ found that the statute applies only to elections conducted by the state or its political subdivisions. It has no legal application to private balloting processes conducted by a homeowners association.

6. How did the ALJ address Mr. DeBoer’s concerns regarding the substance of the new amendments to the Declaration? The ALJ ruled that Mr. DeBoer’s disagreements with the content of the amendments were irrelevant to the legal determination of the case. The hearing’s purpose was to evaluate the validity of the adoption process, not the merits of the specific rules or definitions established by the amendments.

7. What was the role of the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark in the amendment process? The firm was hired to review the draft revisions to the Declaration, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation between February and April 2006. They recommended substantive modifications based on changes in law and phrasing, and later provided a legal opinion that the Association had acted lawfully during the voting process.

8. How did the Association inadvertently waive its attorney-client privilege regarding the August 17, 2006, letter from its legal counsel? Although the letter was marked “Attorney-Client Privileged,” the Association offered the document into evidence during the hearing. By voluntarily introducing the letter as evidence, the Association was deemed to have waived the privilege.

9. Why was Mr. DeBoer denied the reimbursement of his $550.00 filing fee despite winning one of the issues in his petition? The ALJ concluded that Mr. DeBoer was not the “prevailing party” because he did not succeed on the most significant issue: the challenge to the validity of the Declaration’s adoption. Because the Board’s authority and the amendment process were upheld, the Petitioner did not meet the statutory requirement for fee recovery.

10. What was the final order regarding the production of documents? The ALJ ordered the Association to make the ballots and surveys from the Declaration vote available to Mr. DeBoer for inspection and copying. The Association was given thirty days from the effective date of the Order to comply.

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Committee Formation: The Board addressed outdated provisions, specifically a hardship caused by the requirement that road repair assessments be spent in the same year they were collected.

2. Amendment Requirement: Amendments require signatures from at least 75 percent of the lot owners after the first 20 years and must be recorded.

3. Requested Documents: 1) Ballots/retractions for the 2006 Declaration; 2) Survey sheets from October 2005; 3) Current Association Bylaws.

4. Refusal Grounds: The Board claimed confidentiality under A.R.S. § 16-624(A), which governs the handling of state and local election ballots.

5. Statute Inapplicability: The ALJ found that the cited election statute is restricted to public political subdivisions and does not apply to private entities like an HOA.

6. Substance vs. Process: The ALJ determined that personal disagreement with the rules is irrelevant as long as the process of adoption followed the Declaration’s legal requirements.

7. Ekmark & Ekmark’s Role: They provided legal review, recommended changes based on current law, and later issued an opinion affirming the legality of the Board’s actions.

8. Waiver of Privilege: The Association waived the privilege by choosing to offer the confidential legal letter as evidence during the hearing.

9. Filing Fee: Fee reimbursement is reserved for the prevailing party; the ALJ ruled that losing the challenge to the Declaration’s adoption meant DeBoer did not prevail on the primary issue.

10. Final Order: The Association must allow Mr. DeBoer to inspect and copy the requested ballots and surveys within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

1. The Ethics of Transparency: Analyze the conflict between the Board’s claim of confidentiality and the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805. Discuss why the law prioritizes member access to records like ballots and surveys in the context of a self-governing community.

2. The Amendment Process: Detail the steps taken by the Turtle Rock III Board from 2005 to 2006 to amend the Declaration. Evaluate whether the Board’s efforts to solicit feedback and provide drafts met the standards of “good faith” as discussed in the ALJ’s findings.

3. Legal Interpretation of Statutes: Compare the Association’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 16-624(A) with the ALJ’s interpretation. Explain the importance of statutory context and how misapplying a public election law to a private association can impact member rights.

4. The Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings, the petitioner bears the burden of proof by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Using the DeBoer case as an example, explain what this standard means and why the Petitioner failed to meet it regarding the validity of the Declaration.

5. Authority and Governance: Discuss the ALJ’s assertion that “disagreement… does not render invalid the manner in which [amendments] were adopted.” How does this distinguish between the legislative power of an HOA Board and the judicial review of their procedures?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The Arizona statute requiring homeowners associations to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination by members.

Ad Hoc Committee

A temporary committee formed for a specific purpose; in this case, to study and suggest revisions to the subdivision’s Declaration.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over hearings and renders decisions for independent state agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Articles of Incorporation

The legal document that establishes the existence of a corporation—in this case, the Homeowners Association.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the administration and management of the Homeowners Association.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; the primary governing document that outlines the rights and obligations of property owners within a subdivision.

Gravamen

The essence or most serious part of a legal complaint or accusation.

Instrument

A formal legal document, such as a signed ballot or a recorded amendment.

Preponderance of the Evidence

A legal standard of proof meaning that a contention is “more probably true than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party in a lawsuit that wins on the main issues, often entitling them to certain legal remedies or fee reimbursements.

Subdivision

A tract of land divided into individual lots; here referring to the seventy-six lots of Turtle Rock III.

Blog Post – 07F-H067007-BFS