Tag Archives: 2012

Windis, Katherine A. vs. Fairway Court West Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-12-21
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine A. Windis Counsel —
Respondent Fairway Court West Condominium Association Counsel R. Corey Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1217, A.R.S. § 33-1252, A.R.S. § 33-1218

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA). The ALJ determined that the Board's resolution allowing pavers did not violate statutes or CC&Rs because the areas in question (ingress/egress) were limited common elements allocated to the units, not general common elements requiring an 80% vote to convey.

Why this result: The ALJ determined the disputed areas were limited common elements allocated exclusively to the units for ingress/egress, rather than general common elements, meaning no conveyance occurred requiring an association-wide vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized conveyance of common elements

Petitioner alleged the Board resolution allowing first-floor owners to install pavers on common areas constituted a conveyance of common property requiring 80% owner approval and violated allocation rules.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1217
  • A.R.S. § 33-1252
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. § 33-1212

Decision Documents

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 318678.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:44 (134.8 KB)

12F-H1213002-BFS Decision – 323827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:44 (57.9 KB)

**Case Title:** *Katherine A. Windis v. Fairway Court West Condominium Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213002-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioner Katherine A. Windis, a unit owner, and the Respondent, Fairway Court West Condominium Association. The hearing took place on December 17, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas regarding alleged statutory and CC&R violations by the Association’s Board of Directors.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
On April 23, 2012, the Association’s Board passed a resolution allowing first-floor unit owners to install pavers outside their lower lanai areas as part of a landscape conversion project. The resolution specified that these installations were not permanent, were the financial responsibility of the unit owner, and were considered "Limited Common Areas" under Board control.

The Petitioner argued that this resolution allowed first-floor owners to encroach upon and convert "common areas" for private use without the required approval of at least 80% of the property owners, in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1217, § 33-1252, and § 33-1218. She further contended that the resolution discriminated against second-floor unit owners and violated the Association's CC&Rs regarding the use of common areas.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner:** Windis asserted that the Board effectively conveyed common property to private individuals without a vote. She claimed the pavers constituted an unauthorized structural change and encroachment on common property in violation of the Declaration.
* **Respondent:** The Association argued that no conveyance of property occurred and no owner vote was necessary. Board Vice-Chair Dave Harris testified that the pavers were installed on entryways serving specific units. The Association relied on A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), which defines stoops, porches, and entryways serving a single unit as "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to that unit, rather than general common elements.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petition. The decision was based on the following key points:

1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence but failed to do so.
2. **Limited Common Elements:** The ALJ accepted credible testimony and evidence establishing that the pavers were installed on areas designed for ingress and egress for specific units.
3. **Statutory Application:** Under A.R.S. § 33-1212, such entryways are classified as "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to the specific condominium unit. Therefore, the Board's resolution regarding the pavers did not constitute an illegal conveyance of general common elements or a violation of the CC&Rs.

**Final Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed and deemed Fairway Court West Condominium Association the prevailing party. This decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on February 5, 2013, after the Department took no action to reject or modify it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Katherine A. Windis (petitioner)
    Fairway Court West Condominium Association (Member)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • R. Corey Hill (respondent attorney)
    Hill & Hill, PLC
    Attorney for Fairway Court West Condominium Association
  • Dave Harris (witness)
    Fairway Court West Condominium Association Board
    Vice-chairperson for the Board

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of mailed copy

Jones, Michael J. vs. Westwind Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1213001-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-11-26
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $2,000.00
Civil Penalties $400.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Jones Counsel —
Respondent Westwind Homeowners Association Counsel Chandler Travis

Alleged Violations

Article 11.7
A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
Article 6.5

Outcome Summary

Respondent violated CC&Rs Article 11.7 and 6.5 by adopting Rental Rules and Crime Free Lease Addendum that restricted leasing rights (inconsistent with Article 8.13) without obtaining the required 75% member vote. The conflicting rules were declared unenforceable.

Key Issues & Findings

Unilateral Amendment of CC&Rs

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by amending rental rules to include minimum lease terms and Crime Free Lease Addendum without the required 75% affirmative vote of the membership.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce conflicting provisions of Rental Rules and CFLA; declared unenforceable.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 11.7
  • Article 8.13

Unreasonable Penalties and Due Process

Petitioner alleged the Crime Free Lease Addendum violated statute by deeming single violations irreparable and denying due process/opportunity to be heard.

Orders: ALJ did not address this statute as it relates to monetary penalties and no evidence of improper penalties was presented.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: no_decision

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Authority to Adopt Rules / Discrimination

Petitioner alleged rules discriminated between owners. ALJ found rules inconsistent with CC&Rs (Art 8.13 leasing rights), thus violating Board's rulemaking authority under Article 6.5.

Orders: Westwind shall not enforce inconsistent rules.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 6.5
  • Article 8.13

Decision Documents

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 314883.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:39 (110.2 KB)

12F-H1213001-BFS Decision – 319377.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:40 (58.6 KB)

**Case Summary: *Michael J. Jones v. Westwind Homeowners Association***
**Case No. 12F-H1213001-BFS**
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Action:** January 2, 2013

**Procedural Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a dispute between Petitioner Michael J. Jones, a homeowner, and Respondent Westwind Homeowners Association regarding the validity of rental rules adopted by the Association’s Board of Directors. The hearing was held on November 6, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella. The decision was certified as final on January 2, 2013, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify it.

**Key Facts**
Effective August 2011, the Westwind Board adopted "Rental Rules" and a "Crime Free Lease Addendum" (CFLA). These new rules required owners to utilize specific lease addenda and mandated that all leases have a minimum term of 12 months, subjecting shorter terms to case-by-case review. The CFLA also stipulated that a single violation of community documents by a tenant would be deemed "irreparable" and grounds for immediate termination of the lease.

Jones, who leased his home to tenants, filed a petition alleging these rules violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Jones argued the Board unilaterally amended the CC&Rs without obtaining the required affirmative vote of 75% of the membership, a violation of Article 11.7. He pointed to Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs, which permits leasing "from time to time," arguing the new rules restricted this right. Jones also contended the CFLA imposed unreasonable penalties and lacked due process by treating minor violations (e.g., landscaping) as grounds for eviction.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued the Board possessed the authority to interpret vague terms in the governing documents and that the rules were necessary to deter criminal activity and protect property values. They asserted the CFLA established the Association as a third-party beneficiary to address non-responsive owners.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that Westwind violated its governing documents.

1. **Violation of CC&Rs (Amendment Procedure):** The Judge determined the Rental Rules and CFLA effectively amended the CC&Rs by restricting the right to lease "from time to time". Because the Board did not obtain the required 75% member vote, the adoption of these restrictions violated Article 11.7 of the CC&Rs.
2. **Inconsistency with Declaration:** Citing Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs, the Judge noted that Association Rules "will not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this Declaration". The Judge held that the 12-month minimum term and the authority to disapprove or terminate leases were inconsistent with the broad leasing rights granted in the CC&Rs.
3. **Unenforceability:** The specific provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA found to conflict with the CC&Rs were declared to have no legal effect and to be unenforceable.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered Westwind to:
* Cease enforcing the conflicting provisions of the Rental Rules and CFLA against members;
* Reimburse the Petitioner $2,000.00 for the filing fee; and
* Pay a civil penalty of $400.00 to the Department ($200 per violation).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Jones (petitioner)
    Westwind Homeowners Association (Owner)
    Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a home in Westwind

Respondent Side

  • Chandler Travis (attorney)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    Represented the Respondent
  • Steven Wadding (witness)
    Westwind Homeowners Association
    President of the Board; testified regarding the CFLA

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who authored the decision
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director to whom the decision was transmitted
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision as final
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy c/o Gene Palma

Pecos Ranch Community Association vs. Randy and Sharon Hoyum

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212010-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-11-20
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Pecos Ranch Community Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier
Respondent Randy and Sharon Hoyum Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3(a)

Outcome Summary

The HOA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs and Design Standards by constructing an unapproved shed. The ALJ ordered the Respondents to reimburse the filing fee and to bring the property into compliance.

Why this result: The Homeowners constructed a structure without the required Architectural Committee approval. The Committee's refusal to grant retroactive approval was supported by the fact that the structure violated City building codes and HOA size/setback restrictions.

Key Issues & Findings

Unapproved construction of accessory structure (storage shed)

Respondents built a large storage shed without prior approval. The structure violated city setbacks and size restrictions, and the HOA denied retroactive approval.

Orders: Respondents ordered to reimburse $550.00 filing fee and either obtain approval or remove the structure within 90 days.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article IV, Section 3(a)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 314478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:20 (118.6 KB)

12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 319010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:20 (57.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Hoyum**
**Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS**

**Proceedings**
On November 5, 2012, an administrative hearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Pecos Ranch Community Association (Petitioner) and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (Respondents). The issue concerned an unauthorized structure erected on the Respondents' property.

**Key Facts**
* **Unauthorized Construction:** In November 2009, the Respondents began constructing a 10’ x 24’ free-standing accessory structure in their rear yard without obtaining prior approval from the Association’s Design Review Committee (DRC), as required by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
* **Denial of Approval:** The Respondents submitted a retroactive approval request in December 2009. The Association denied this request because the structure exceeded height and size limitations, lacked necessary City of Chandler building permits, and violated setback requirements.
* **City Violations:** The City of Chandler issued a Stop Work Order and subsequently fined Mr. Hoyum for building without permits. The Respondents were unable to obtain a city variance without Association approval, creating a regulatory deadlock.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Association argued that the structure violated the CC&Rs requiring prior approval and the Design Standards regarding visibility from neighboring properties. They maintained the denial was justified due to the structure's failure to meet city codes and community aesthetic standards.
* **Respondents’ Defenses:** The Respondents claimed they were unaware permission was required. They argued the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, citing photographs of other homes in the community with alleged violations (e.g., sheds, gazebos) that were permitted or ignored.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. **Violation of CC&Rs:** The evidence established that the Respondents constructed the shed without the mandated DRC approval. The CC&Rs grant the DRC "sole and absolute discretion" regarding retroactive approval.
2. **Valid Exercise of Discretion:** The Board’s refusal to grant retroactive approval was supported by objective factors, specifically the lack of municipal permits and non-compliance with city zoning regarding size and setbacks.
3. **Rejection of "Arbitrary" Defense:** The ALJ ruled that the existence of other alleged violations in the community did not constitute a valid legal defense for the Respondents' specific failure to comply with the CC&Rs.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended granting the Petition.
* **Remedies:** The Respondents were ordered to reimburse the Association $550.00 in filing fees.
* **Compliance Order:** The Respondents were given 90 days to either obtain DRC approval or alter, move, or remove the structure to comply with governing documents.

**Final Status**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative decision on December 27, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
    Brown/Olcott, PLLC
    Represented Petitioner Pecos Ranch Community Association
  • Louis Silvestro (board member)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
    Board President; testified at hearing
  • Larry Buehler (board member)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
    Board member and former Chairman of Architectural Review Committee; testified at hearing
  • Leisha Collins (property manager)
    Pecos Ranch Community Association
    Testified at hearing regarding governing documents and Lot File

Respondent Side

  • Randy Hoyum (respondent)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Sharon Hoyum (respondent)
    Homeowner
    Appeared on own behalf

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Director receiving transmitted decision
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Recipient of decision copy c/o for Gene Palma

Sellers, John and Debborah -v- Crossings At Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112003-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-11-02
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John and Debborah Sellers Counsel —
Respondent Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association Counsel Matthew G. Hayes

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(3)
Bylaws Article IV, Section 5

Outcome Summary

The Director accepted the ALJ's finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(3) by using absentee ballots from one meeting at a subsequent meeting. The Tribunal found no credible evidence regarding the alleged Bylaws violation concerning conflict of interest voting. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement of filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Validity of Absentee Ballots

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the statute by carrying over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting/extension instead of requiring new ballots for a new specific election.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with the applicable provision of A.R.S. § 33-1812 in the future; pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00; pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17
  • 20

Conflict of Interest Voting

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to respect Bylaws by allowing members with conflicts to vote.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • 4
  • 17

Decision Documents

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 311265.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:31 (99.8 KB)

11F-H1112003-BFS Decision – 313156.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:32 (200.4 KB)

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Questions

Question

Can an HOA carry over absentee ballots from one meeting to a subsequent meeting if they didn't get enough votes initially?

Short Answer

No, absentee ballots are valid for only the specific meeting they were issued for.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an absentee ballot is legally valid for only one specific election or meeting. It expires automatically once that meeting is completed. Therefore, an HOA cannot 'carry over' or reuse ballots cast for a previous date at a later meeting, even if the purpose is to reach a required quorum or vote threshold.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot is valid for only one specified election or meeting of the members and expires automatically after the completion of the election or meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(3)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • absentee ballots
  • meetings

Question

If I file a complaint against my HOA and win, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to reimburse your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner prevails in an administrative hearing against their HOA, the judge has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee paid to the Department to initiate the case.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00, to be paid to the Department in this matter within thirty (30) days of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fees
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the legal standard of proof required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Detailed Answer

To win a case in an administrative hearing, the petitioner must prove their claim by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' This means the evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

Alj Quote

Proof by “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is “more likely true than not.”

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process
  • evidence

Question

Can the HOA be fined for violating state voting laws?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can be ordered to pay a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

In addition to reimbursing homeowner fees, an Administrative Law Judge can order the HOA to pay a civil penalty to the Department for violating state statutes governing HOA conduct.

Alj Quote

It is further ORDERED that Crossings pay a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to the Department within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

Do absentee ballots count toward a quorum?

Short Answer

Yes, absentee ballots are valid for establishing a quorum.

Detailed Answer

State law explicitly provides that votes cast by absentee ballot (or other forms of delivery) must be counted when determining if a quorum is present for the meeting.

Alj Quote

Votes cast by absentee ballot or other form of delivery are valid for the purpose of establishing a quorum.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(B)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • quorum
  • meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The person bringing the claim (the petitioner) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the responsibility to prove that a violation occurred rests with the party who filed the petition asserting the claim or right.

Alj Quote

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement…

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearing process

Question

Can I petition for a hearing if my HOA violates its own bylaws or state statutes?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners are permitted by statute to file petitions for such violations.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition for a hearing regarding violations of the community's documents (like CC&Rs or Bylaws) or violations of statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Topic Tags

  • homeowner rights
  • dispute resolution
  • statutes

Question

What information must be included on an absentee ballot?

Short Answer

The ballot must list each proposed action and provide a way to vote for or against each one.

Detailed Answer

For an absentee ballot to be valid, it is required to explicitly set forth every proposed action being voted on and must provide the member an opportunity to vote either for or against each of those actions.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot shall set forth each proposed action… The absentee ballot shall provide an opportunity to vote for or against each proposed action.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • ballots
  • compliance

Question

Does the HOA have to specify a deadline for absentee ballots?

Short Answer

Yes, the ballot must specify a time and date for delivery.

Detailed Answer

Absentee ballots must specify exactly when they need to be delivered to the board to be counted. This deadline must be at least seven days after the board sends the ballot to the member.

Alj Quote

The absentee ballot specifies the time and date by which the ballot must be delivered to the board of directors in order to be counted, which shall be at least seven days after the date that the board delivers the unvoted absentee ballot to the member.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • deadlines
  • procedure

Case

Docket No
11F-H1112003-BFS
Case Title
John and Debborah Sellers vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2012-10-22
Alj Name
M. Douglas
Tribunal
Office of Administrative Hearings
Agency
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Sellers (petitioner)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Homeowner; appeared for Petitioners; witness
  • Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Homeowner; also referred to as Debra Sellers in testimony

Respondent Side

  • Matthew G. Hayes (HOA attorney)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC
  • Janice Dow (board member)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Secretary; witness; owns four lots
  • Robert Balzano (property manager)
    Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
    Former managing agent (2010); witness

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (agency director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Signed Final Order
  • Joni Cage (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Complaint Program Manager
  • Debra Blake (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Signed on behalf of Joni Cage

Santomarco, Cynthia & Bruce vs. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212012-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Cynthia & Bruce Santomarco Counsel —
Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association Counsel Joseph Tadano

Alleged Violations

Article VI; Article VII, Section 4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to establish a violation. The damage to the roofs did not constitute 'substantial destruction' requiring homeowner insurance claims; therefore, the HOA acted correctly in performing maintenance.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the roofs were 'substantially destroyed' as required by Article VII to shift responsibility to homeowners.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to require insurance claims for roof damage

Petitioners alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by using HOA funds to repair roofs ($500/unit) instead of requiring individual owners to file insurance claims for 'substantial destruction'.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed; no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 309332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (106.3 KB)

12F-H1212012-BFS Decision – 313668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:24 (59.2 KB)

**Case Summary: Santomarco v. Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association**
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212012-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Overview**
This case involved a dispute between Petitioners Cynthia and Bruce Santomarco and Respondent Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association (MLE). The Petitioners alleged that MLE violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the handling of roof repairs following a severe weather event.

**Key Facts**
* **The Incident:** On October 5, 2010, a severe hailstorm damaged roofs within the MLE community, which consists of 68 units.
* **Maintenance Responsibility:** Under the CC&Rs, MLE is generally responsible for the maintenance and repair of unit roofs.
* **Repair Proposal:** Following the storm, USA Roofing offered to repair the hail damage for approximately $500 per unit.
* **Legal Advice:** MLE obtained a legal opinion stating that owners were only obligated to use their personal insurance proceeds for repairs if the roofs were "substantially destroyed". Because the damage was minor ($500 to repair), MLE determined it was appropriate for the Association to perform the repairs.
* **HOA Action:** MLE informed homeowners they could voluntarily file insurance claims or have the Association complete the repairs. Fourteen owners filed claims; the remainder had their roofs repaired by USA Roofing.

**The Dispute**
The Petitioners filed a complaint alleging that MLE violated the CC&Rs by failing to *require* all homeowners to file claims against their insurance policies for the storm damage.

**Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The hearing focused on the interpretation of Articles VI and VII of the CC&Rs:

1. **"Act of God" Defense:** The Petitioners argued that the hailstorm constituted an "Act of God" under Article VI. They contended this relieved MLE of its maintenance duties and shifted the burden to the homeowners.
2. **"Substantially Destroyed" Threshold:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that while Article VI excludes "Acts of God" from standard maintenance, it specifically refers such cases to Article VII, Section 4 for governance. Article VII, Section 4 mandates that owners repair their lots using insurance proceeds only if the structure is "**substantially destroyed**".
3. **Evidence of Damage:** The ALJ found that repairs costing $500 per unit did not constitute substantial destruction. Although one witness recommended roof replacement, other evidence showed the repairs were compliant with Registrar of Contractors standards, and no homeowners reported leaks following the work.

**Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (MLE), concluding the following:
* Because the roofs were not "substantially destroyed," the provision requiring owners to use insurance proceeds was not triggered.
* Therefore, it remained MLE's responsibility to repair and maintain the roofs under the CC&Rs.
* The Petitioners failed to prove a violation of the CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Final Order:** The Petition was dismissed on October 4, 2012. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 13, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Cynthia Santomarco (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf
  • Bruce Santomarco (petitioner)
    Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Joseph Tadano (attorney)
    Represented Mountainview Lake Estates Homeowner Association
  • Adrianne A. Speas (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Provided legal opinion letter to Respondent regarding roof repairs

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (Agency Contact)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety

Brown, William vs. Terravita Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212014-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William M. Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Community Association, Inc. Counsel Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.; Jason F. Wood, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness. The ALJ concluded the Petitioner was not entitled to view the requested records because they were either non-existent, privileged attorney-client communications, or confidential executive session minutes.

Why this result: The requested records were legally protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege and statutes governing executive session confidentiality.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide requested records (engagement letter and executive session minutes)

Petitioner requested an engagement letter between the Association and its counsel, and minutes from two executive session meetings. Respondent argued the engagement letter did not exist or was privileged, and executive session minutes are protected from disclosure.

Orders: Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness granted.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 309140.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:34 (89.1 KB)

12F-H1212014-BFS Decision – 313671.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:34 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc.*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212014-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (for the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety)

**Summary of Proceedings**
Petitioner William M. Brown filed a petition alleging that the Respondent, Terravita Community Association, Inc., violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to specific association records requested on May 25, 2012. The Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness, arguing that the requested documents either did not exist or were legally protected from disclosure.

**Key Facts and Legal Issues**
The Petitioner sought two categories of records:
1. **Legal Engagement Documents:** An engagement letter, retainer agreement, or fee schedule between the Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C..
2. **Meeting Minutes:** Minutes from Board of Directors executive sessions held on March 27, 2012, and April 24, 2012.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed the legal standing of these requests under Arizona Revised Statutes:

* **Attorney-Client Privilege:** Regarding the legal engagement documents, the Respondent stated that no such letter existed. The ALJ ruled that even if such a letter existed, it would be protected by attorney-client privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and could not be disclosed to a third party without a waiver from the Respondent.
* **Executive Session Confidentiality:** Regarding the meeting minutes, the ALJ noted that A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) dictates that Board executive sessions are not open to the public or non-Board members. Consequently, the minutes for the March 27, 2012, session were not public records available to the Petitioner pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).
* **Non-Existent Meetings:** Regarding the alleged April 24, 2012, meeting, the Respondent contended no such meeting occurred. The ALJ ruled that even if minutes existed, they would be similarly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3).

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to view or receive the requested records, regardless of whether they existed. The ALJ determined there were no issues requiring an evidentiary hearing and granted the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Mootness on October 4, 2012.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on November 13, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Curtis S. Ekmark (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark L.L.C.
  • Jason F. Wood (attorney)
    Ekmark & Ekmark L.L.C.

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed Certification of Decision
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed as c/o for Gene Palma

Sallus, Suzanne vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212008-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Suzanne Sallus Counsel M. Philip Escolar
Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide legally required resale disclosure documents directly to the purchaser within the statutory timeframe. The HOA's reliance on its website was deemed insufficient as the website did not contain all required information (specifically regarding financials and pending litigation).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide resale disclosure documents

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required documents upon pending sale of the property. Respondent argued directing the title agent to the website was sufficient. The ALJ found the website did not contain all required documents and that Respondent failed to disclose pending litigation.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1806 and provide copies of all required documents within 10 days; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1806
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)

Decision Documents

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 308830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:57 (122.1 KB)

12F-H1212008-BFS Decision – 313396.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:58 (59.0 KB)

**Case Title:** *Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212008-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Proceedings and Key Facts**
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner) against the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The dispute arose from Petitioner's purchase of a property within the community in early 2011.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806 by failing to provide required disclosure documents within ten days of receiving notice of the pending sale,. On March 12, 2011, Petitioner's title agency contacted Respondent requesting information on fees and assessments. Respondent replied by email providing assessment figures and directing the agent to the association's website for the CC&Rs and Bylaws. Escrow closed on April 2, 2011, without Petitioner receiving the full statutory disclosures,.

### **Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal question was whether Respondent’s actions satisfied the disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

* **Adequacy of Electronic Delivery:** Respondent argued that directing Petitioner’s agent to the association's website satisfied the requirement to provide documents in "paper or electronic format". The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected this argument because the website did not contain all required documents. Specifically, the website's "Financials" page merely stated that reports were available "on request," which did not meet the statutory obligation to deliver the current operating budget and most recent annual financial report.

* **Missing Statements:** Respondent admitted it failed to provide a dated statement containing mandatory disclosures, including insurance coverage details, reserve amounts, and a statement regarding alteration violations.

* **Pending Litigation Disclosure:** A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires associations to summarize pending lawsuits. Respondent argued that two lawsuits (*Violette* and *Given*) did not need to be disclosed because settlement agreements were signed in February 2011. However, the ALJ determined that because the official dismissals for these cases were not entered by the Superior Court until March 16 and March 21, 2011—after Respondent received notice of the sale—the lawsuits were legally "pending" and should have been disclosed.

### **Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner, concluding that she established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1806,.

**The Order required Respondent to:**
1. Comply with the statute and provide Petitioner with copies of all required documents within ten days.
2. Reimburse Petitioner the $550.00 filing fee within 30 days.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on November 8, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Suzanne Sallus (Petitioner)
    Sallus Family Trust
    Served as member of SDV Board of Directors from May 2011 through April 2012
  • M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
    Escolar Law Office
    Represented Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Grace Violette (board member)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
    President of Respondent; represented Respondent at hearing; also named in separate lawsuit dismissed March 2011

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (agency staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution

Portonova, Carol vs. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212013-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carol Portonova Counsel —
Respondent Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Michael Orcutt

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The judge found that Petitioner failed to prove she made a request to examine or purchase copies of Association records in June 2011 or November 2011,. Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Why this result: Failure to prove a records request was made

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records regarding monies received to satisfy a judgment

Petitioner alleged that the Association violated the statute by not providing records pertaining to monies the Association received to satisfy a judgment it obtained against Petitioner.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed and no action is required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_lose

Decision Documents

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 308933.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:29 (69.6 KB)

12F-H1212013-BFS Decision – 313665.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:29 (59.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Portonova v. Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.**
**Case No. 12F-H1212013-BFS**

**Hearing Overview**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal on September 19, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. The case involved an allegation by Petitioner Carol Portonova that Respondent Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc. violated Arizona law regarding access to association records.

**Key Facts and Background**
The Petitioner resided in a unit within the Tenth Avenue Missions planned community. The dispute arose after the Respondent successfully sued the Petitioner and her husband, obtaining a judgment and subsequent satisfaction of judgment. Portonova sought an accounting of the monies the Association received to satisfy this judgment, including attorney's fees, expressing a belief that the Association lacked proper records for these funds.

On June 4, 2012, Portonova filed a petition alleging the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide the requested records.

**Main Legal Issues and Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the Respondent failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires associations to make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Portonova argued she had requested the records but they were not produced. She entered into evidence a letter dated May 3, 2012, addressed to Association officers, and implied during cross-examination that she had also requested records at a November 2011 homeowners meeting.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association, represented by counsel, disputed that a request was ever made. Mario Capriotti, Jr. testified that he did not receive the May 3, 2012 letter and that the Petitioner did not request to examine or purchase records at the November 2011 meeting.

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the burden of proof lay with the Petitioner to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden. Specifically, the Judge concluded that Portonova failed to prove that she or a designated representative actually made a request to the Respondent to examine or provide the records in question. Because the Petitioner could not establish that a request was made, she could not prove that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to examine the records.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
1. **ALJ Decision:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.
2. **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, on November 13, 2012, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carol Portonova (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Michael Orcutt (attorney)
    Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Esq.
  • Mario Capriotti, Jr. (officer/witness)
    Tenth Avenue Missions Homeowners Association, Inc.
    Officer of the Association; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Agency Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Holly Textor (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 12F-H1212006-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-10-02
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Joseph DeBenedictis Counsel M. Philip Escolar
Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

Paragraph 4.G

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove an existing violation of the CC&Rs. The Petitioner did not establish that a property transfer had occurred triggering the disputed assessment.

Why this result: Failure to prove an existing violation; the tribunal declined to rule on hypothetical future actions.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to impose initial regular assessment

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to collect a $400 assessment when parcels were transferred. Respondent argued the fee only applied to initial developer transfers.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Paragraph 4.G

Decision Documents

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 308828.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (83.7 KB)

12F-H1212006-BFS Decision – 313213.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:38 (54.7 KB)

**Case Title:** *Joseph DeBenedictis v. Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212006-BFS

**Overview and Parties**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between homeowner Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner) and the Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (Respondent),. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The core legal issue was the interpretation and enforcement of "Paragraph 4.G" of the CC&Rs regarding a $400 initial regular assessment.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** The Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs required the Respondent to assess and collect a $400 fee every time a parcel within the community was transferred to a new party. The Petitioner claimed the Association violated the governing documents by failing to impose this fee,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Respondent argued that the $400 assessment was only applicable when a parcel was first transferred from the developer or divided from a larger parcel. Additionally, the Respondent presented evidence of a March 2011 settlement agreement from the Superior Court of Maricopa County. In that settlement, the Respondent had explicitly agreed *not* to assess this specific $400 fee against any past, present, or future Association members,.

**Hearing Proceedings**
An administrative hearing was held on September 12, 2012, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving that a violation of the CC&Rs occurred by a "preponderance of the evidence".

**Findings and Legal Analysis**
The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision focused on the lack of evidence regarding an actual violation rather than a definitive interpretation of the CC&R text itself.

* **Lack of Evidence:** The ALJ noted that even assuming, *arguendo*, that the Petitioner’s interpretation of the CC&Rs was correct, he failed to present evidence that a specific parcel transfer had occurred since the 2011 settlement agreement where the Respondent failed to collect the fee.
* **Existing vs. Future Violations:** The ALJ determined that while the settlement agreement indicated the Respondent's future intent regarding the fee, the Petitioner did not establish that an actual violation existed at the time of the hearing. The ALJ stated it would be inappropriate to address "possible future violations".

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **ALJ Order:** On October 2, 2012, the ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, finding that no action was required of the Respondent.
* **Final Certification:** On November 7, 2012, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety certified the ALJ’s ruling as the final administrative decision, as no action was taken to reject or modify it within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Joseph DeBenedictis (petitioner)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas (Resident)
    Represented by M. Philip Escolar
  • M. Philip Escolar (attorney)
    Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association (respondent)
    Organization/Association
  • Grace Violette (president)
    Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association
    Represented Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the decision
  • Holly Textor (recipient)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    c/o for Gene Palma

Yuille, John vs. Harmon, Connie, et. al.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 11F-H1112005-BFS-res
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2012-09-18
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Yuille Counsel —
Respondent Caida Court Homeowner Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors within the statutory thirty-day timeframe upon receipt of a petition. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the statute, refund the filing fee, and pay a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to propertly call and notice special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to deliver the recall petition and follow statutory procedures for removing a board member. The Respondent admitted to a lack of removal information and possible failure to follow statute.

Orders: Respondent shall comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00; Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:46 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:47 (59.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association**
**Case No.:** 11F-H1112005-BFS-res
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date:** September 13, 2012 (Hearing); October 24, 2012 (Final Certification)

**Proceedings**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by John Yuille (Petitioner) against the Caida Court Homeowner Association (Respondent). The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing,. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The dispute arose after the Petitioner, who served as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court, was recalled from his position on August 24, 2011.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Mr. Yuille alleged that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) regarding the procedure for removing a board member. He testified that he returned from a trip to find a special meeting for his removal already in progress. He requested a copy of the recall petition but was never provided one, leading him to believe a written petition did not actually exist,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** Although absent from the hearing, the Respondent submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute 33-1248" due to a lack of removal information and apologized for the error.

**Legal Issues and Findings**
The primary legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which mandates specific timelines and notice requirements for calling a special meeting upon receipt of a removal petition,.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H). The decision was based on undisputed credible testimony establishing that the Respondent failed to call, notice, and hold the special meeting to remove the Petitioner within thirty days after receiving the petition, as required by law.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Future Compliance:** The Respondent was ordered to comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 to cover his filing fee.
3. **Civil Penalty:** The Respondent was assessed a civil penalty of $200.00, payable to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012, as the Department took no action to modify or reject the Judge's decision within the statutory review period,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Yuille (petitioner)
    Caida Court Homeowner Association
    Appeared on own behalf; former Chairman of the Board

Neutral Parties

  • M. Douglas (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Gene Palma (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
  • Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Certified the ALJ decision
  • Holly Textor (staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution c/o Gene Palma