Yuille, John vs. Caida Court Homeowner Association

Posted on September 18, 2012 by [email protected]

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 ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to call, notice, and hold a special meeting regarding the removal of the Petitioner from the Board within the statutory 30-day period. The HOA was ordered to pay the Petitioner's filing fees and a civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold special meeting for board removal

Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to deliver the petition before the meeting to recall the board chairman and failed to comply with statutory requirements for a recall meeting. The ALJ found the Respondent failed to hold the meeting within the required 30-day timeframe.

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

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 307243.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (83.2 KB)

11F-H1112005-BFS-res Decision – 311519.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:10 (59.7 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing proceedings for Case No. 11F-H1112005-BFS-res.

**Case Title:** *John Yuille v. Caida Court Homeowner Association*
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Hearing Proceedings**
The hearing took place on September 13, 2012. The Petitioner, John Yuille, appeared on his own behalf regarding a dispute over his removal as Chairman of the Board of Management for Caida Court Homeowner Association,. The Respondent, Caida Court, failed to appear at the hearing.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner was recalled from his position as Board Chairman on August 24, 2011. He filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) by failing to provide him with a copy of the recall petition before the meeting where he was removed,.

* **Petitioner’s Testimony:** Mr. Yuille testified that he returned from an out-of-state trip to find a special meeting underway regarding his removal. 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 the Respondent did not attend the hearing, they submitted a written Answer admitting that they "possibly did not follow the statute" due to a lack of removal information, though they noted a 10-3 vote in favor of recall.

**Key Legal Issues**
The central legal issue was whether the Association complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), which governs the removal of board members. The statute requires specific procedures for handling recall petitions, including calling, noticing, and holding a special meeting within thirty days after the receipt of a petition.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner.

* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent failed to "call, notice, and hold the special meeting… within thirty days after receipt of the petition," thereby violating A.R.S. § 33-1243(H).
* **Orders:**
1. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the applicable provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) in the future.
2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee of $550.00.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200.00 to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Certification**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 24, 2012,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Yuille (petitioner)
Caida Court Homeowner Association
Member and former Chairman of the Board; appeared on his own behalf

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director of the agency
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
OAH
Director of Office of Administrative Hearings; signed Certification of Decision
Holly Textor (administrative staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed c/o for Gene Palma on mailing list

Debenedictis, Joseph vs. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA

Posted on September 10, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212005-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-09-06
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Joseph DeBenedictis	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunrise Desert Vistas POA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Paragraph 4(D); Bylaws Article IX, Section 8

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to identify a statute or provision of the governing documents that was violated by the Respondent's failure to repay the promissory note. The cited provisions did not mandate the repayment as alleged.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to state a cause of action as the cited CC&R and Bylaw provisions did not apply to the repayment of an unsecured promissory note.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Repay Promissory Notes

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repay a promissory note, arguing that the power to borrow in the CC&Rs implied a duty to repay and that the note constituted a 'charge' under the Bylaws.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Paragraph 4(D)
Bylaws Article IX, Section 8

Decision Documents

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306391.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:32 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306394.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (38.0 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 306585.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (73.7 KB)

12F-H1212005-BFS Decision – 310502.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:33 (56.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Joseph DeBenedictis v. Sunrise Desert Vistas POA**
**Case No. 12F-H1212005-BFS**

**Proceedings and Parties**
This administrative hearing involved Petitioner Joseph DeBenedictis and Respondent Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association. The dispute arose from the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent failed to act regarding the repayment of promissory notes. The hearing was conducted by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings under the authority of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

**Key Arguments and Legal Issues**
The central issue was whether the HOA's failure to repay a promissory note constituted a violation of the community's governing documents. To establish jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), the Petitioner was required to identify specific provisions of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or Bylaws that were violated.

The Petitioner advanced two main arguments:
1. **Power to Borrow:** The Petitioner cited a CC&R provision granting the Association the "power to borrow and encumber its assets," arguing that this power included an implicit obligation to repay,.
2. **Duty to Pay Liens/Charges:** The Petitioner cited Article IX, Section 8 of the Bylaws, which requires the Board to pay taxes, special assessments, and "charges which are or would become a lien on Association owned or maintained property",.

**Tribunal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer rejected both arguments, providing the following legal analysis:

* **Interpretation of "Power to Borrow":** The ALJ determined that the plain language of the CC&Rs granted the power to borrow but did not contain language regarding the repayment of money. Therefore, the provision did not support the alleged violation.
* **Interpretation of "Charges" and "Liens":** The ALJ ruled that a promissory note does not fall within the specific definition of the Bylaws provision cited. The note was not a tax, special assessment, or "charge." Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the Bylaw contemplates items that result in a lien on property; a promissory note is distinguishable as it is not necessarily secured by property. Consequently, the failure to pay the note was not a violation of the duty to pay lienable charges,.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to identify a statute or provision of the CC&Rs or Bylaws that was violated by the Respondent. As a result, the Petitioner failed to state a cause of action adjudicable by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

* **Ruling:** The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.
* **Final Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to modify the decision. Consequently, the ALJ’s decision was certified as the final administrative decision on October 16, 2012,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joseph DeBenedictis (Petitioner)
Homeowner

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list for Gene Palma
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Holly Textor (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed on mailing list (c/o) for Gene Palma

Johnson, Martin W. vs. Ciento Homeowners Association

Posted on August 14, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-08-14
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Martin W. Johnson	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association	Counsel	Lydia Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its governing documents. The ALJ determined the water damage dispute was effectively between the Petitioner and the upstairs unit owner, and the HOA was not obligated to intervene or reimburse under the circumstances.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the tribunal found the issue to be a dispute between owners rather than an HOA violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce repair reimbursement for water damage

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce CC&Rs requiring it to repair damages caused by an owner's negligence (upstairs unit) and charge that owner, following multiple water leaks.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article XII, Section 5 of CC&Rs
Rules and Regulations Article II, Section 8

Decision Documents

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 304220.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (116.0 KB)

12F-H1212007-BFS Decision – 308686.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:43 (56.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Martin W. Johnson v. The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212007-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** August 14, 2012 (Certified Final October 1, 2012)

**Overview and Key Facts**
Petitioner Martin W. Johnson, owner of condominium unit 117E, filed a petition alleging that The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association ("HOA") failed to enforce its governing documents regarding water damage caused by a neighboring unit.

The dispute arose from five separate water intrusion incidents between September 2009 and January 2012. The leaks originated from unit 217E, located directly above the Petitioner’s unit. Unit 217E was owned by Kenneth Hamby (the Board Treasurer) and occupied by a tenant. The causes of damage included clogged toilets, defective drains, and overflowing bathtubs attributed to the upstairs tenant’s negligence.

Following the initial and most severe incident in 2009, the Petitioner’s insurance company paid $22,762.74 for restoration. The Petitioner sought reimbursement and intervention from the HOA, arguing the Board had an obligation to oversee tenants and enforce bylaws regarding damage caused by other units.

**Main Legal Issues**
1. **Enforcement of CC&Rs:** Whether the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by refusing to repair the damages and charge the owner of unit 217E.
2. **Jurisdiction and Liability:** Whether the dispute was a matter of HOA enforcement or a private "owner-to-owner" dispute.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Dr. Johnson argued that Article XII, Section 5 of the CC&Rs authorized the HOA to repair damage caused by negligence and charge the responsible owner. He claimed the Board refused to exercise this authority or provide oversight of the upstairs tenant.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The HOA contended that this was fundamentally an owner-to-owner dispute. They argued the HOA is not a police agency, cannot vet landlords' tenants, and cannot compel one owner to reimburse another for expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled in favor of the HOA, dismissing the petition based on the following legal points:

* **Bur

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Martin W. Johnson (Petitioner)
Former Owner (Unit 117E)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (Attorney)
Brown/Olcott, PLLC
Representing The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Kenneth Hamby, Jr. (Board Member)
The Ciento Condominiums Homeowners’ Association
Treasurer of the Board; Owner of unit 217E
Debra Katzenberger (Property Manager)
Associated Property Management (APM)

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (Administrative Law Judge)
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

Butler, Clifford and Jean vs. Happy Trails Community Association

Posted on July 2, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212004-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-07-05
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford and Jean Butler	Counsel	—
Respondent	Happy Trails Community Association	Counsel	Maria Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 1.31; Section 11.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioners failed to prove the HOA violated the CC&Rs. The governing documents require a Residence Vehicle to be present for occupancy, and the Arizona Room cannot serve as the main residence.

Why this result: The Petitioners failed to prove a violation because the plain language of the CC&Rs supports the HOA's requirement that a Residence Vehicle be present on the lot for residency.

Key Issues & Findings

Enforcement of Residence Vehicle Policy

Petitioners alleged that the HOA enforced a policy preventing residents from living in an Arizona Room without a Residence Vehicle on the lot, arguing this policy was unreasonable and contrary to the CC&Rs.

Orders: The Petition is dismissed. No action is required of Happy Trails.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 1.31
CC&Rs Section 11.1

Decision Documents

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 300400.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (93.4 KB)

12F-H1212004-BFS Decision – 304741.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:25 (61.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Clifford and Jean Butler v. Happy Trails Community Association**
**Case No.** 12F-H1212004-BFS

**Overview and Proceedings**
On June 18, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella presided over a hearing regarding a dispute between Petitioners Clifford and Jean Butler and Respondent Happy Trails Community Association. The Butlers sought to challenge the Association's enforcement of residency requirements within the Happy Trails planned community.

**Key Facts**
The Butlers, full-time residents of Happy Trails for approximately 12 years, resided on a lot containing a "Residence Vehicle" (RV) and a separate structure known as an "Arizona Room". After selling their RV, the Butlers attempted to reside solely in their Arizona Room. The Association issued a "Courtesy Notice" stating that living in an Arizona Room without an RV on the property violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Guidelines.

**Main Issues and Arguments**
The central issue was whether the Association’s policy requiring the presence of an RV to reside on a lot violated the CC&Rs.

* **Petitioners’ Argument:** The Butlers argued the policy was unreasonable, costly, and unsupported by the CC&Rs. They testified that maintaining an unused RV was financially burdensome due to depreciation, insurance, and licensing costs. They further argued that the Association had historically condoned residents living in Arizona Rooms full-time without RVs.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Association contended that the CC&Rs explicitly require owners to occupy a Residence Vehicle as their main residence. They asserted that while owners may occupy an Arizona Room, they must do so contemporaneously with the required RV. The Association’s Board noted they do not grant variances to this rule to avoid setting a precedent.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association, concluding that the Butlers failed to prove a violation of the governing documents.

The decision relied heavily on the specific language of the CC&Rs:
1. **Definition of Arizona Room:** The CC&Rs define an Arizona Room as a structure used for residential purposes "but that does not serve as the main residence on the Lot".
2. **Residency Requirement:** The documents state that individuals "may only reside in a Residence Vehicle" and that no other portion of the lot may be occupied as a residence.
3. **Contemporaneous Use:** The Judge determined that while an Arizona Room may be occupied, it cannot replace the RV as the main residence; therefore, an RV must be present on the lot.

**Outcome**
The ALJ recommended that the Petition be dismissed, finding that Happy Trails’ enforcement actions comported with the provisions of the governing CC&Rs.

**Final Status**
On August 20, 2012, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ’s decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department took no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Jean Butler (petitioner)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Appeared on own behalf
Sal Ognibene (witness)
Happy Trails Community Association (resident)
Called by Mr. Butler

Respondent Side

Maria Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Happy Trails Community Association
Beth McWilliams (community manager)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding amendments and violations
Jim Weihman (board president)
Happy Trails Community Association
Testified regarding variances and waivers

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
Cliff J. Vanell (OAH director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision
Beth Soliere (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision

Vise, Robert L. vs. East 12 Condo HOA

Posted on June 18, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2012-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert L. Vise	Counsel	—
Respondent	East 12 Condo HOA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253(H); CC&Rs Section 5(H)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his roof was damaged. Therefore, the issue of whether insurance proceeds should be used for repair or placed in a contingency fund was moot regarding his specific claim.

Why this result: Insufficient evidence presented to prove the existence of roof damage requiring repair.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Repair Common Elements/Misuse of Insurance Proceeds

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute and CC&Rs by placing insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than repairing his roof, which he claimed was damaged.

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

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 295469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:20 (84.9 KB)

12F-H1212003-BFS Decision – 302544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:20 (57.2 KB)

**Case Title:** *Robert L. Vise v. East 12 Condo HOA*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1212003-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Final Certification:** July 26, 2012

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a dispute between a condominium unit owner (Petitioner) and the Homeowners Association (Respondent) regarding the allocation of insurance proceeds and the responsibility for roof repairs.

**Key Facts and Proceedings**
* **The Incident:** Following a storm in late 2010, the Association submitted a claim under a blanket insurance policy. The insurer paid approximately $3,374.39 for wind damage.
* **Allocation of Funds:** Because damage varied across units, the Board was unsure how to equitably distribute the proceeds. A vote of the membership was held in April 2011, resulting in an 8-to-4 decision to place the insurance proceeds into a contingency fund rather than funding specific repairs immediately.
* **Petitioner’s Claim:** The Petitioner alleged that his roof sustained damage that the Association failed to repair, violating A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) and Section 5(H) of the CC&Rs. He argued the insurance proceeds should be used for his roof repairs and sought reimbursement for filing and attorney fees.
* **Respondent’s Defense:** The Association presented testimony from Board members and a neighbor sharing the Petitioner's roof structure. They testified that the damage identified in estimates belonged to the neighbor's unit, not the Petitioner’s.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
* **Burden of Proof:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association violated state statute or the CC&Rs.
* **Evidence of Damage:** The hearing featured conflicting evidence. While the Petitioner provided photographs and contractor estimates, the Respondent provided witness testimony disputing the location of the damage.
* **Self-Repair Complication:** The Petitioner admitted to performing some repairs himself following the storm. The ALJ noted that this action may have obscured evidence, making it difficult to verify what damage, if any, existed prior to his intervention.
* **Statutory Obligations:** A.R.S. § 33-1253(H) requires associations to repair damaged common elements for which insurance is required. However, the applicability of this statute relied on the proven existence of damage.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Findings:** The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that his roof was actually damaged or required repair. Because the existence of damage was not established, the ALJ did not need to rule on whether the placement of insurance proceeds into a contingency fund was improper.
* **Ruling:** The ALJ determined the Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs or A.R.S. § 33-1253(H).
* **Order:** The Petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner’s request for fees and relief was denied.
* **Certification:** The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not modify or reject the decision within the statutory timeframe; thus, the ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision on July 26, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert L. Vise (Petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Diane Gorinac (Board Chairman)
East 12 Condo HOA
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Donna Armstrong (Witness)
Shares duplex unit with Petitioner
Lorraine Matts (Board member)
East 12 Condo HOA
Testified regarding damage estimates

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
Signed Certification of Decision
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in transmission attention line

Tobin, Allen R. vs. Sunland Village Community Association (ROOT)

Posted on May 9, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,650.00
Civil Penalties	$600.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Allen R. Tobin	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunland Village Community Association	Counsel	Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Lindsey O’Conner, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article V, Section 7
Article XII, Section 2
Article VI (D)(7)

Outcome Summary

The homeowner prevailed on claims regarding the lack of quorum for a Board meeting and unauthorized legal expenditures. The HOA prevailed on the claim that the homeowner violated notice requirements for bylaw amendments.

Why this result: The homeowner lost one issue because he failed to provide the required advance written notice for bylaw amendments presented at the annual meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Lack of Quorum at Board Meeting

Petitioner alleged a minority of the Board met without a quorum to invalidate actions taken at the annual meeting. The ALJ found that three members did not constitute a quorum.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Article V, Section 7 of Bylaws; pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Failure to Provide Notice of Bylaw Amendments

Sunland (as Petitioner in consolidated Docket 11F-H1112010-BFS) alleged Tobin violated bylaws by proposing amendments at the annual meeting without required notice. ALJ found Tobin violated the notice requirement.

Orders: Tobin ordered to pay Sunland's $550 filing fee and a $200 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $200.00

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Unauthorized Legal Expenditures

Petitioner alleged Association funds were used for legal fees without Board approval. ALJ found manager and three directors met with attorney without Board direction or reporting costs to the full Board.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Policy Manual Article VI (D)(7); pay $550 filing fee to Tobin; pay $200 civil penalty.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 292297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (135.4 KB)

11F-H1112006-BFS Decision – 295402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:16 (62.4 KB)

**Case Summary: Tobin v. Sunland Village Community Association**
**Docket Nos:** 11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings / Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety
**Date of Final Certification:** June 15, 2012

**Overview**
This proceeding consolidated three administrative disputes between homeowner Allen R. Tobin and the Sunland Village Community Association regarding governance violations, specifically concerning Bylaw amendments, Board quorum requirements, and unauthorized legal expenditures.

**Proceedings and Legal Arguments**

**1. Improper Board Meeting (Docket No. 11F-H1112006-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that a minority of the Board of Directors met on February 11, 2011, to conduct business without a quorum. The meeting was held to address complaints regarding the annual meeting, and the attendees declared actions taken at that annual meeting null and void.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article V, Section 7 of the Bylaws requires a majority of directors (four of the six serving members) to constitute a quorum to take lawful action. Only three directors were present.
* **Decision:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Association violated the Bylaws by conducting business and declaring amendments void without a quorum.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with quorum bylaws, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**2. Improper Bylaw Amendments (Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Sunland Village Community Association.
* **Issue:** Sunland alleged that Tobin violated the Bylaws during the January 12, 2011, annual meeting by making motions to amend the Bylaws from the floor without prior notice.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article XII, Section 2 of the Bylaws requires that notice of proposed amendments be given to members in the same manner as notice of the annual meeting (at least 10 days in advance). Tobin admitted he provided no written notice.
* **Decision:** The ALJ rejected Tobin's argument that the floor vote waived the notice requirement. The ALJ ruled that Tobin violated Article XII, Section 2 by presenting motions without required notice.
* **Outcome:** **Sunland prevailed.** Tobin was ordered to reimburse Sunland’s $550 filing fee and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**3. Unauthorized Legal Expenditures (Docket No. 12F-H121001-BFS)**
* **Petitioner:** Allen R. Tobin.
* **Issue:** Tobin alleged that the Association manager and three Board members incurred legal fees without Board direction or knowledge.
* **Key Legal Point:** Article VI (D)(7) of the Policy Manual requires that all contact with the law firm be at the Board's direction and that detailed billings be provided to all Board members. The manager and a minority of directors met with counsel without informing the full Board.
* **Decision:** The ALJ found Sunland violated the Policy Manual because the legal expenses were incurred without the direction or consent of a quorum of the Board.
* **Outcome:** **Tobin prevailed.** Sunland was ordered to comply with the Policy Manual, reimburse Tobin’s $550 filing fee, and pay a $200 civil penalty.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ’s decisions were certified as final on June 15, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify them within the statutory period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Allen R. Tobin (petitioner)
Sunland Village Community Association
Homeowner and Board Member; appeared on his own behalf
Linda Wagner (witness)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board member; testified she was not informed of legal meetings
Verworst (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board member not present at Feb 11 meeting

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney for Sunland
Lindsey O’Conner (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney for Sunland
Gordon Clark (property manager)
Sunland Village Community Association
Full time employee-manager; witness
Richard Gaffney (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
Kathrine J. Lovitt (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Vice President; referred to as Kitty Lovitt
Jack Cummins (board member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board Member present at Feb 11 meeting
Erwin Paulson (homeowner)
Sunland Village Community Association
Member who filed written objection to Tobin's motions
Scott Carpenter (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Attorney paid from Association funds
Penny Gaffney (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Marriane Clark (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Robert Lovitt (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin
Karin Cummins (party (civil suit))
Named in civil action filed by Tobin

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director
Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director who certified the decision
Beth Soliere (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Posted on May 8, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William M. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Terravita Country Club, Inc.	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, although it provided the policy, it did not do so within the mandatory ten business days. The late delivery was attributed to an unintentional computer error. Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $550.00 filing fee, but no civil penalties were assessed against the Respondent.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Petitioner requested a copy of the Respondent's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy. Respondent failed to provide the policy within the statutory ten business day period, allegedly due to a computer error where the email became stuck in an outbox.

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Brown, William M. vs. Terravita Country Club Inc.

Posted on May 8, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-05-08
Administrative Law Judge	Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William M. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Terravita Country Club, Inc.	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy) within ten business days

Orders: Respondent shall pay Petitioner his filing fee of $550.00. No civil penalty imposed as Respondent attempted to comply.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 292130.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (81.4 KB)

11F-H125885-BFS Decision – 295358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:36 (60.5 KB)

Based on the provided sources, here is a summary of the administrative hearing for *William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.* (Case No. 11F-H1112007-BFS). Please note that the case number in the provided documents differs from the one listed in your query.

### Case Overview
**Petitioner:** William M. Brown
**Respondent:** Terravita Country Club, Inc.
**Case Number:** 11F-H1112007-BFS
**Tribunal:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
**Date of Decision:** May 8, 2012 (Certified Final on June 14, 2012),

### Key Facts and Proceedings
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner, a resident of the Respondent's planned community. On October 21, 2011, the Petitioner emailed the Respondent requesting a copy of the "Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy".

The Respondent’s Custodian of Records initially provided a "Certificate of Insurance Liability" rather than the full policy. The Petitioner clarified his request later that day. On November 4, 2011, the Custodian attempted to email the correct policy to the Petitioner. However, she testified that the email became "stuck" in her outbox due to a computer error and was not successfully delivered until November 7, 2011,,.

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent failed to provide the records within the ten-business-day timeframe mandated by Arizona law. During the proceedings, the Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent's witness committed perjury regarding her involvement in other civil litigation and the spelling of her name,.

### Main Legal Issues
1. **Statutory Compliance:** Whether the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), which requires community associations to make records available within ten business days of a request.
2. **Defense of Error:** Whether the Respondent's unintentional "computer error" excused the failure to meet the statutory deadline,.
3. **Witness Credibility:** Whether the Respondent’s witness provided false testimony regarding her personal details,.

### Final Decision and Outcome
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued the following ruling:

* **Violation Found:** The ALJ concluded that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Although the Respondent eventually provided the policy, it failed to do so within the required ten business days,.
* **Sanctions and Penalties:** The ALJ determined that civil penalties were not warranted. The judge accepted the testimony that the Respondent attempted to comply in good faith on November 4, 2011, and that the delay was caused by technical difficulties.
* **Perjury Allegations Dismissed:** The ALJ found the witness's explanations regarding her name and litigation history to be reasonable and truthful, determining that these issues did not impact her credibility,.

### Order
Because the Petitioner prevailed in proving the statutory violation, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee of **$550.00** within 30 days. No further action was required regarding the records, as the policy had already been provided. The decision was certified as the final administrative decision by the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 14, 2012.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William M. Brown (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (Attorney)
Carpenter Hazelwood, Delgado, & Bolen, PLC
Representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Cici Rausch (Custodian of Records)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Also identified as Celia Anne Rausch; testified at hearing
Tom Forbes (General Manager)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Raquel Shull (Controller)
Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Lewis D. Kowal (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 decision
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted copy

Leach, Gregory E. vs. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA

Posted on April 30, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gregory E. Leach	Counsel	—
Respondent	Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petition entirely. The claims were found to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations because the request for records/audits occurred in 2009 and the petition was filed in 2011. Alternatively, on the merits, the Petitioner failed to prove violations of A.R.S. § 33-1810 or A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Why this result: The Petition was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the requirements of the CC&Rs for audits and the availability of records.

Key Issues & Findings

Financial Audit Requirement

Petitioner alleged the Board refused to provide CPA audited statements. The ALJ ruled the claim was time-barred. On the merits, Petitioner failed to prove the CC&Rs required a CPA audit, which is a prerequisite for a violation of the statute when the documents do not require it.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1810
A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

Association Records

Petitioner alleged records were inadequate or unavailable. Evidence showed Petitioner and another homeowner reviewed records at the HOA attorney's office in 2010.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 291388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:27 (80.1 KB)

11F-H1112009-BFS Decision – 294580.pdf

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

Briefing Doc – 11F-H1112009-BFS

Case Summary: Leach v. Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA Case No. 11F-H1112009-BFS Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Date of Decision: April 30, 2012 (Certified Final June 6, 2012)

Overview and Proceedings The Petitioner, Gregory E. Leach, a homeowner in the Coronado Pointe Townhomes planned community, filed a petition against the Respondent, Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA12. The hearing was conducted on April 11, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella2. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent was represented by Board members Dimitrios and Vikki Boukalis2.

Key Facts and Arguments The Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board had refused to provide “CPA Audited Annual Financial Statements” from June 2000 to the present, asserting that the Board was defrauding homeowners and violating governing statutes34. He argued that existing documents were inadequate and requested an accountant review the records5.

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner’s claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations6. Additionally, the Respondent provided evidence that the Petitioner had been granted access to review the Association’s financial records at the HOA attorney’s office on May 21, 201045.

Main Legal Issues and Analysis The ALJ addressed three primary legal issues:

1. Statute of Limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541(5)): The ALJ concluded the petition was time-barred. The statute creates a one-year limitation for liabilities created by statute. The Petitioner requested the financial statements in December 2009 but did not file the petition until November 25, 2011, nearly two years later78.

2. Audit Requirement (A.R.S. § 33-1810): The ALJ found that while the Petitioner demanded a CPA audit, the statute only requires a general “financial audit” unless the community’s specific documents (CC&Rs) mandate a CPA. The Petitioner failed to prove that the Coronado CC&Rs required a certified public accountant to perform the audit89.

3. Access to Records (A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)): The statute requires associations to make records “reasonably available” for examination. The ALJ found that because the Petitioner had reviewed the financial records on May 21, 2010, the Respondent had complied with the statute910.

Outcome and Final Decision The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent10. The decision was based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the Petitioner’s failure to establish violations of the relevant statutes by a preponderance of the evidence7….

The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on June 6, 2012, after the Department took no action to reject or modify the ALJ’s ruling within the statutory timeframe12.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Gregory E. Leach (Petitioner)
Coronado Pointe Townhomes
Appeared on own behalf; Homeowner

Respondent Side

Dimitrios Boukalis (Board President)
Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Developer
Vikki Boukalis (Board Treasurer)
Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Daughter of Dimitrios Boukalis
Fueronia Boukalis (Board Secretary)
Coronado Pointe Townhomes HOA
Wife of Dimitrios Boukalis

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Michael Kollias (Homeowner)
Coronado Pointe Townhomes
Accompanied Petitioner to review financial records
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision transmission
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision transmission

Sunland Village Community Association -v- Allen R. Tobin

Posted on April 30, 2012 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	11F-H1112006-BFS, 11F-H1112010-BFS, 12F-H121001-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2012-04-30
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,650.00
Civil Penalties	$600.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Allen R. Tobin	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sunland Village Community Association	Counsel	Jason E. Smith, Esq.; Lindsey O’Conner, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article V, Section 7
Article XII, Section 2
Article VI (D)(7)

Outcome Summary

Tobin prevailed on claims that the HOA violated quorum requirements and unauthorized legal spending rules. The HOA prevailed on the claim that Tobin violated bylaw amendment notice requirements. Both parties ordered to pay penalties and filing fees for their respective violations.

Why this result: See individual issues for details on specific losses.

Key Issues & Findings

Board Quorum Violation

Three board members met on Feb 11, 2011, without a quorum (requires 4) and declared annual meeting amendments void.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Article V, Section 7; pay filing fee of $550 to Tobin; pay civil penalty of $200.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article V, Section 7

Improper Bylaw Amendment

Tobin proposed bylaw amendments from the floor at the annual meeting without the required notice to members.

Orders: Tobin ordered to pay Sunland its filing fee of $550; pay civil penalty of $200 to Department.

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

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article XII, Section 2
Article IX, Section 5

Unauthorized Legal Expenditures

Manager and three board members met with attorney and authorized legal action without full Board knowledge or approval.

Orders: Sunland ordered to comply with Article VI (D)(7); pay filing fee of $550 to Tobin; pay civil penalty of $200.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article VI (D)(7)

Decision Documents

11F-H1112010-BFS Decision – 292297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:31 (135.4 KB)

11F-H1112010-BFS Decision – 295402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:25:31 (62.4 KB)

Based on the provided documents, here is a concise summary of the legal hearing for Case No. 11F-H1112010-BFS, which was consolidated with two related matters.

### **Case Summary: Sunland Village Community Association v. Tobin**
**Docket No:** 11F-H1112010-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety; Office of Administrative Hearings
**Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):** M. Douglas
**Hearing Dates:** February 28 and April 23, 2012

#### **Proceedings and Context**
This hearing consolidated three matters involving the same parties: Allen R. Tobin (homeowner and Board member) and the Sunland Village Community Association ("Sunland"). While the hearing addressed cross-petitions, Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS specifically concerned Sunland’s petition against Mr. Tobin regarding his conduct at the 2011 Annual Meeting,.

#### **Key Facts and Arguments (Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS)**
* **The Incident:** During Sunland's annual meeting on January 12, 2011, Mr. Tobin presented three motions from the floor to amend the Association’s Bylaws,. These motions concerned director term limits, voting restrictions for the Board President, and residency requirements.
* **Sunland’s Argument:** Sunland alleged that Tobin violated Article XII, Section 2 of the Bylaws, which requires that notice of any proposed amendment be provided to members in the same manner as the notice of the annual meeting (at least 10 days in advance by mail),. Because Tobin made the motions from the floor without prior notice, members not present were denied the opportunity to debate or vote.
* **Tobin’s Defense:** Mr. Tobin admitted he provided no formal written notice prior to the meeting. However, he argued that because the meeting moderator accepted the motions and the members present voted on them, the Association waived any irregularities regarding the lack of notice.

#### **Legal Analysis and Findings**
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden was on Sunland to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
* **Bylaw Violation:** The ALJ found that Article XII, Section 2 explicitly requires advance written notice for Bylaw amendments.
* **Knowledge of Violation:** The ALJ noted that Mr. Tobin was a serving Board member at the time and was aware of the notice requirements. The evidence showed he knowingly presented the motions without the required notice.
* **Conclusion:** The ALJ concluded that Mr. Tobin violated the provisions of Article XII, Section 2 of Sunland’s Bylaws.

#### **Final Decision and Order**
On April 30, 2012, the ALJ issued the following decision regarding this specific docket:
* **Outcome:** Sunland was deemed the prevailing party in Docket No. 11F-H1112010-BFS.
* **Penalties:**
1. Mr. Tobin was ordered to reimburse Sunland’s filing fee of **$550.00**.
2. Mr. Tobin was ordered to pay a civil penalty of **$200.00** to the Department.

The decision became final on June 15, 2012, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision,.

***

#### **Note on Consolidated Matters**
While Sunland prevailed in the docket requested above, the hearing also addressed two petitions filed by Tobin against Sunland (Nos. 11F-H1112006-BFS and 12F-H121001-BFS). In those matters, **Tobin prevailed**. The ALJ found that:
1. **Quorum Violation:** Sunland’s Board violated Bylaws by conducting business and declaring the annual meeting acts void at a February 2011 meeting without a quorum,.
2. **Unauthorized Fees:** Sunland violated its Policy Manual when the manager and specific Board members incurred legal fees without the knowledge or direction of the

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Allen R. Tobin (Petitioner)
Sunland Village Community Association
Board member; appeared on his own behalf
Linda Wagner (Board Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Testified; filed civil action with Tobin

Respondent Side

Jason E. Smith (HOA Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Represented Sunland Village Community Association
Lindsey O’Conner (HOA Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Represented Sunland Village Community Association
Gordon Clark (Property Manager)
Sunland Village Community Association
Full time employee-manager; named in civil action
Richard Gaffney (Board Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Named in civil action
Kathrine J. (Kitty) Lovitt (Board Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Vice President; named in civil action
Jack Cummins (Board Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Named in civil action
Erwin Paulson (Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Filed written objection regarding Tobin's motions
Scott Carpenter (Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC
Paid from Association funds for meetings with board minority
Penny Gaffney (Civil Defendant)
Named in civil action filed by Tobin and Wagner
Marriane Clark (Civil Defendant)
Named in civil action filed by Tobin and Wagner
Robert Lovitt (Civil Defendant)
Named in civil action filed by Tobin and Wagner
Karin Cummins (Civil Defendant)
Named in civil action filed by Tobin and Wagner

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Transmitted decision to
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Beth Soliere (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Attention line for transmittal

Other Participants

Verworst (Board Member)
Sunland Village Community Association
Absent from February 11, 2011 meeting