Knight, Edmund R. vs. Springfield Community Association

Posted on January 31, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-01-31
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Edmund R. Knight	Counsel	—
Respondent	Springfield Community Association	Counsel	Chad Miesen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 because the statute permits the redaction of individual employee compensation from association records.

Why this result: The requested record fell under a statutory exception (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5)) protecting employee compensation data.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide complete employment contract

Petitioner requested a copy of the manager's employment contract. Respondent provided a redacted copy with compensation details removed. Petitioner argued he was entitled to full financial records.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Decision Documents

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 323297.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (84.4 KB)

12F-H1213008-BFS Decision – 329618.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:18 (59.0 KB)

**Case Summary: *Edmund R. Knight v. Springfield Community Association***
**Case No.** 12F-H1213008-BFS

**Procedural History**
This matter was heard before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer on January 15, 2013, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The Petitioner, Edmund R. Knight, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent, Springfield Community Association, was represented by legal counsel.

**Facts and Main Issues**
The dispute arose from a records request made by the Petitioner on May 14, 2012, seeking a copy of the employment contract for the Respondent's property manager. The Respondent provided a copy of the contract but redacted the sections detailing the manager’s compensation,.

The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the complete, unredacted contract,. The Petitioner argued that as a homeowner, he was entitled to "all financial" records to understand the association's financial standing.

The central legal issue was whether the association was statutorily authorized to withhold specific compensation details regarding an employee under the exceptions provided in A.R.S. § 33-1805.

**Key Legal Arguments and Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) analyzed the relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1805. While subsection (A) generally mandates that financial and other records be made reasonably available to members, subsection (B) lists specific exceptions.

The ALJ highlighted A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(5), which explicitly states that records may be withheld if they relate to the "compensation of… an individual employee of the association". The Judge found that the property manager was an employee of the association. Consequently, the Respondent was legally entitled to redact the compensation information from the document provided to the Petitioner.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the statute,. The Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed, ruling that no action was required of the Respondent.

On March 13, 2013, 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 had taken no action to reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Edmund R. Knight (Petitioner)
Homeowner
Appeared on his own behalf
J. Roger Wood (attorney)
Sent a request on behalf of Petitioner on June 8, 2012

Respondent Side

Chad Miesen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Springfield Community Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director to whom the decision was transmitted
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision as final
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in mailing address for Gene Palma

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on January 23, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213003-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-01-23
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1806

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the case because the Petitioners were not the buyers or sellers in the transaction where the alleged disclosure failure occurred, and thus lacked standing to sue.

Why this result: Petitioners lacked standing as they were not parties to the transaction.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide disclosure documents

Petitioners alleged that the Respondent failed to properly disclose information required under A.R.S. § 33-1806 to a purchaser of a lot in the planned community.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Petitioners lacked standing.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Decision Documents

12F-H1213003-BFS Decision – 322099.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:48 (70.7 KB)

12F-H1213003-BFS Decision – 327761.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:48 (59.6 KB)

**Case Title:** *John and Debborah Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213003-BFS

**Summary of Proceedings**
On August 7, 2012, John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging that the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1806. The Petitioners claimed the Respondent failed to properly disclose required information to a purchaser of a lot within the planned community,.

The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings. Although a hearing was initially scheduled, the ALJ identified a preliminary issue regarding the Petitioners' standing to bring the case. Consequently, the ALJ ordered a pre-hearing conference and oral arguments, which took place on December 12, 2012.

**Key Facts and Legal Arguments**
The central legal issue was whether the Petitioners had standing to file a complaint regarding a real estate transaction to which they were not a party.
* **Petitioners' Admissions:** During the pre-hearing conference, the Petitioners acknowledged they were neither buyers nor sellers in the transaction in question. Furthermore, they admitted they suffered no harm from the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide documents to the actual purchaser.
* **Legal Standing:** The ALJ analyzed the case under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B), which regulates disputes between owners and associations. The ALJ determined that because the Petitioners were not parties to the transaction, they did not have a "dispute" with the Respondent within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, they lacked the necessary standing to proceed with a hearing on the merits regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1806.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
On January 23, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision dismissing the petition because the Petitioners failed to demonstrate standing upon which relief could be granted,. The Order stated that no action was required of the Respondent.

The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory review period,. Therefore, on February 28, 2013, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf

Respondent Side

Peter Giambanco (Board President)
Crossings at Willow Creek 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
Holly Textor (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmission
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of copy

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property

Posted on January 17, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212002-BFS, 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions (consolidated). The judge ruled that the Architectural Review Committee meetings were not regularly scheduled and thus not subject to open meeting notice requirements. Additionally, the judge ruled that the records requested by Petitioners were properly withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or governing documents; specific exceptions for non-regularly scheduled meetings and privileged records applied.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged that the ARC failed to notice and conduct meetings publicly. The HOA argued ARC meetings are not regularly scheduled and occur only as necessary, thus not requiring notice.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA denied the request based on attorney-client privilege.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212002-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:26:16 (58.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association**
**Case Nos:** 12F-H1212002-BFS and 12F-H1212009-BFS (Consolidated)
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona
**Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas

**Overview**
Petitioners John and Debborah Sellers filed two petitions against the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association ("Crossings"). The matters were consolidated for hearings held on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013,. The proceedings addressed allegations regarding the conduct of Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings and the withholding of association records.

**Main Issues and Arguments**

**1. Public Conduct of ARC Meetings (Case No. 12F-H1212002-BFS)**
* **Petitioner Allegation:** The Petitioners alleged that Crossings failed to notice and conduct ARC meetings publicly, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.
* **Respondent Defense:** Crossings argued that it complied with state law and bylaws. Witnesses testified that the ARC did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings. Instead, meetings occurred "on demand" or "as necessary" depending on when architectural applications were submitted,.
* **Key Legal Point:** A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to members.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that credible testimony established ARC meetings were not regularly scheduled. Consequently, the notice requirements for regularly scheduled meetings under the statute and Crossings’ CC&Rs did not apply to these irregular occurrences.

**2. Production of Records (Case No. 12F-H1212009-BFS)**
* **Petitioner Allegation:** The Petitioners claimed Crossings failed to provide requested records, specifically invoices from the HOA’s attorneys and communications between the attorneys and third parties.
* **Respondent Defense:** Crossings denied the allegations, asserting that the refusal to release documents was based on privilege. Testimony indicated the association was involved in civil litigation with the City of Prescott and that communications often related to potential insurance claims or legal advice,.
* **Key Legal Point:** A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) permits an association to withhold

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Homeowner
appeared through John Sellers
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Homeowner
Testified; interior designer

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Attorney for Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Brenda Doziar (board member)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
ARC member
Robert Balzano (witness)
Former statutory agent and manager of Crossings
Kenneth Burnett (board member)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
G. Eugene Neil (witness)
City of Prescott
Interim City Attorney
Larry Harding (witness)
Commercial insurance agent for Crossings
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Cliff J. Vanell (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Director who certified the decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy

Sellers, John & Debborah vs. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association

Posted on January 17, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1212002-BFS; 12F-H1212009-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2013-01-17
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John and Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association	Counsel	Joshua M. Bolen

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed both petitions. Regarding the ARC meetings, the judge ruled they were not regularly scheduled and thus notice was not required. Regarding the records request, the judge ruled the withheld documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated statutes or CC&Rs; applicable laws provide exceptions for irregular meetings and privileged records.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to notice and conduct publicly ARC Meetings

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to notice and conduct publicly Architectural Review Committee (ARC) meetings. The ALJ found that ARC meetings were held 'as necessary' and were not 'regularly scheduled,' and therefore did not require notice under the statute or Bylaws.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Failure to provide requested HOA records

Petitioners requested attorney invoices and communications. The HOA refused based on attorney-client privilege. The ALJ found the refusal was justified under statutory exceptions for privileged communication.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 12-2234

Decision Documents

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 321619.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (129.8 KB)

12F-H1212009-BFS Decision – 327760.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:27:15 (58.9 KB)

**Case Summary: Sellers v. Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association**
**Case No:** 12F-H1212009-BFS (Consolidated with 12F-H1212002-BFS)

**Overview**
This hearing concerned a dispute between homeowners John and Debborah Sellers (Petitioners) and the Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association (Respondent). The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on September 26, 2012, and January 4, 2013. The two cases were consolidated for the hearing.

**Key Issues**
1. **Refusal to Provide Records (Case 12F-H1212009-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Association failed to provide requested records, specifically invoices from the HOA’s attorneys and communications between the attorneys and third parties (including settlement correspondence). Petitioners argued these did not constitute attorney-client privileged communications.
2. **Failure to Conduct Public Meetings (Case 12F-H1212002-BFS):** The Petitioners alleged the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) failed to notice and conduct its meetings publicly, violating A.R.S. § 33-1804 and community documents.

**Legal Arguments and Testimony**
* **Records:** The Respondent denied the allegations, asserting the refusal was based on statutory privilege. Relevant statutes A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and A.R.S. § 12-2234 allow an association to withhold records related to privileged attorney-client communications and pending litigation.
* **Meetings:** Testimony established that the ARC did not hold "regularly scheduled" meetings; instead, meetings occurred "on demand" or "as necessary" based on architectural submissions. The Association's Bylaws mandate the ARC meet "from time to time as necessary" rather than on a fixed schedule. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) requires that "regularly scheduled committee meetings" be open to members.

**Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) placed the burden of proof on the Petitioners to show a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence".

1. **Regarding Records:** The ALJ found that the Association's refusal to release the requested documents was properly based on statutory exceptions for attorney-client privileged material. The Petitioners failed to prove that the withholding of these documents violated the statute or the CC&Rs.
2. **Regarding

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John Sellers (petitioner)
Appeared at hearing
Debborah Sellers (petitioner)
Testified regarding ARC service

Respondent Side

Joshua M. Bolen (respondent attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Brenda Doziar (witness)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Board member and ARC member
Robert Balzano (witness)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Former statutory agent and manager
Kenneth Burnett (witness)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Board member

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
G. Eugene Neil (witness)
City of Prescott
Interim City Attorney; provided public records
Larry Harding (witness)
Crossings at Willow Creek Property Owners Association
Commercial insurance agent for Respondent
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Named as Director for transmittal
Cliff J. Vanell (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Copy recipient

Ikeda, Steve vs. Riverview Park Condominiums

Posted on January 7, 2013 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	12F-H1213004-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2013-02-13
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Steve Ikeda	Counsel	—
Respondent	Riverview Park Condominiums	Counsel	Lindsey O’Connor

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he received written permission for the satellite dish as required by the CC&Rs.

Why this result: Petitioner could not produce the original written permission and the subsequent letter from a prior management company was insufficient to prove approval for the currently installed dish.

Key Issues & Findings

Satellite Dish in Common Area

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated the CC&Rs by imposing a fine for a satellite dish installed in the common area, claiming he had received prior permission from a previous management company.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B)
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553 (2006)

Decision Documents

12F-H1213004-BFS Decision – 319848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:02 (94.2 KB)

12F-H1213004-BFS Decision – 325288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:28:03 (57.7 KB)

**Case Title:** *Steve Ikeda v. Riverview Park Condominiums*
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213004-BFS

**Hearing Proceedings**
An administrative hearing was held on December 20, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona,. The Petitioner, unit owner Steve Ikeda, appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent, Riverview Park Condominiums, was represented by legal counsel. The dispute concerned the validity of fines imposed by the Respondent for an alleged violation of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The central issue involved the installation of a satellite dish on the condominium's common property. The relevant CC&Rs prohibit erecting devices for television reception on outdoor portions of the condominium without written approval from the Board of Directors,.

* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Ikeda installed a satellite dish in 2007 when he purchased the unit. Although he had lost the original written permission, he presented a letter from the prior management company dated June 7, 2012, confirming that the developer and Association had approved the 2007 installation,. He argued that he relied on this permission when leasing the unit in 2011 and that the current Association should not deny the permission previously granted,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that current management files contained no record of written permission for the dish. Furthermore, the Respondent noted that in 2011, the Petitioner's tenant removed the original dish and installed a new one,. The Respondent contended that even if the 2007 installation was permitted, the 2011 replacement required new written approval, which was neither sought nor granted.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs. Restrictive covenants are interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the CC&Rs explicitly required written Board approval for such installations on common areas.

The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence did not establish that the Petitioner received valid written permission for the dish currently in place. The argument that the 2011 installation constituted a new event requiring separate approval effectively countered the Petitioner's reliance on the alleged 2007 permission.

**Final Decision and Outcome**
* **Ruling:** The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the CC&Rs by fining the Petitioner. The Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.
* **Finality:** The decision was issued on January 7, 2013. As the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period, the decision was certified as the final administrative action on February 13, 2013,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Steve Ikeda (Petitioner)
Unit Owner
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Lindsey O’Connor (attorney)
Riverview Park Condominiums
Mark Dawson (Former President/Declarant)
Riverview Park Condominium Association; Willow Parc Developments, LLC
Mentioned in evidence as granting prior approval

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (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
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma