SHARON OBERRITTER v. SCOTTSDALE TRAILS

Posted on December 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516003-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-12-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board's modification of the Rules and Regulations regarding patio storage was not a violation of the CC&Rs and did not require a vote by the owners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Unknown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Unknown	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board's modification of the Rules and Regulations regarding patio storage was not a violation of the CC&Rs and did not require a vote by the owners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof to establish that the rule change was invalid or required membership approval.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Rule Change

Petitioner alleged that the Board violated the CC&Rs by modifying a rule regarding patio storage without obtaining approval from two-thirds of the owners.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:57 (89.0 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:55:00 (59.5 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 472974.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:24 (89.0 KB)

15F-H1516003-BFS Decision – 486288.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-12T19:04:25 (59.5 KB)

Briefing Document: Sharon Oberritter vs. Scottsdale Trails Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative legal proceedings and final agency action in the matter of Sharon Oberritter vs. Scottsdale Trails Association (No. 15F-H1516003-BFS). The case originated from a petition filed by Sharon Oberritter, a member of the Scottsdale Trails homeowners’ association, alleging that the association’s Board of Directors violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona statutes.

The core of the dispute involved a June 2014 Board vote that modified rules regarding patio and balcony usage. The Petitioner contended that this change required a two-thirds vote of the community members, while the Board maintained it was a semantic adjustment to align internal rules with existing CC&Rs. Following a hearing on December 9, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas determined that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on March 17, 2016.

Case Background and Procedure

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Sharon Oberritter, a homeowner and member of Scottsdale Trails. She was a Board member for ten years.
Respondent: Scottsdale Trails Association, a homeowners' association located in Scottsdale, Arizona, represented by attorney Mark Sahl.

Procedural History

Petition Filing: Ms. Oberritter filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, which is authorized by statute to hear disputes between homeowners and associations.
Allegation: The Petitioner alleged the Board violated Article 16, Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs by voting to change Rule Section 4, #3 without a membership vote and against legal advice.
Motion in Limine: At the onset of the hearing, the Respondent moved to exclude testimony regarding privileged communications between the Board and its legal counsel. The ALJ granted this motion, citing that attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can only be waived by them.
Final Decision: The ALJ issued a recommended order of dismissal on December 23, 2015. With no further action from the Department by January 27, 2016, the decision was certified as final on March 17, 2016.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Board Authority vs. Membership Approval

The primary conflict centered on the limits of Board authority. The Petitioner and her husband, John Oberritter (also a Board member), argued that any changes to the CC&Rs or rules governing property appearance require approval from two-thirds of the owners. They expressed concern that unauthorized rule changes would lead to property deterioration and lower values.

Conversely, Board member Michael J. Vukson testified that the Board’s June 2014 action was merely a modification of the language in the "Rules and Regulations" to ensure compliance with the existing CC&Rs. The ALJ found no credible evidence that this specific linguistic change constituted a violation of the CC&Rs or required a general membership vote.

2. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the party asserting the claim, the Petitioner bore the burden of proof. Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01 and A.A.C. R2-19-119, the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence." This requires the Petitioner to prove that their claim is "more likely true than not." The ALJ concluded that Ms. Oberritter failed to meet this standard, as she did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Board's vote exceeded its legal or contractual authority.

3. Consistency Between CC&Rs and Rules

The hearing highlighted the hierarchy of association documents. The 2014 rule change was presented by the Respondent as an effort to align the "General Rules and Regulations" with the language of the CC&Rs.

Document Source	Language Regarding Patios/Exteriors
CC&Rs Article 16, Section 16.2	Prohibits items on patios/balconies except customary furniture/plants; requires prior written Board approval for exterior painting or decorating.
2012 Rules (Section 2)	Prohibits items on patios without prior written approval of the board.
2014 Amended Rules (Section 4)	Updated to explicitly reference Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs and list specific prohibited areas (parking spaces, roofs, common elements).

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding the Rule Change

"The majority of the Board voted to change Rule-Section 4, #3 against both the CC&Rs and the advice of the attorney who had reviewed their addition to the previous rule before the vote."

— Petitioner’s Allegation (Finding of Fact #4)

Context: This was the primary basis for the petition, suggesting the Board ignored both governing documents and legal counsel.

Regarding the Nature of the Modification

"Mr. Vukson opined that the change was essentially a semantic change that hardly changed the wording of Section 4, paragraph 2."

— Testimony of Michael J. Vukson (Finding of Fact #10)

Context: This testimony supported the Respondent's position that the Board was not creating new restrictions but clarifying existing ones to match the CC&Rs.

Regarding the Legal Ruling

"This Tribunal concludes that there was no credible evidence presented to establish that the change in language was in violation of Section 16.2 of Respondent’s CC&Rs or that the change in rules required a vote by the owners."

— Administrative Law Judge (Conclusion of Law #4)

Context: This is the pivotal legal conclusion that led to the dismissal of the case, indicating that the Petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of a two-thirds vote were not legally supported in this instance.

Actionable Insights

Clarification of Governance Hierarchy: Association boards may modify "Rules and Regulations" to align with "CC&Rs" without a membership vote, provided the changes are semantic or clarify existing restrictions rather than creating new ones that contradict the CC&Rs.
Documentation and Proof: In administrative disputes, petitioners must provide concrete evidence that a board's action specifically violates a statute or a provision of the association's documents. Opinion-based testimony regarding potential property value deterioration is insufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
Privileged Communications: Associations can successfully protect communications with legal counsel during administrative hearings. Unless the board waives attorney-client privilege, members cannot compel the disclosure of legal advice to prove a board acted "against advice."
Finality of ALJ Decisions: Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), if the relevant Department director does not act to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ decision within a specific timeframe (in this case, approximately 35 days), the decision automatically becomes the final administrative action.

Case Study Guide: Oberritter v. Scottsdale Trails Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings in the matter of Sharon Oberritter v. Scottsdale Trails Association (No. 15F-H1516003-BFS). It outlines the key facts, legal standards, and procedural outcomes of the case.

I. Key Concepts and Case Background

The Parties

Petitioner: Sharon Oberritter, a homeowner in Scottsdale Trails and a member of the Board of Directors for ten years.
Respondent: Scottsdale Trails Association, a homeowners’ association (HOA) located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Witnesses: John Oberritter (Petitioner’s husband and Board member) and Michael J. Vukson (Board member since 2012).

The Core Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors violated Association CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) and Arizona statutes. Specifically, the Petitioner contested a June 2014 Board vote (4 to 3) that modified the rules concerning patio and balcony usage.

The Petitioner argued that according to Article 16, Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs, any such change required an affirmative vote from two-thirds of the homeowners, rather than a simple majority vote by the Board.

Rule Evolution

The case centered on the linguistic and legal differences between the Association’s governing documents:

Document	Provision	Key Language
CC&Rs Section 16.2	Original Authority	Limits patio/balcony items to "customary patio furniture and reasonably sized potted plants" unless prior written approval is granted by the Board.
2012 Rules & Regulations	Section 2	Reiterated that nothing except furniture and plants could be stored on patios without prior Board approval.
2014 Rules & Regulations	Section 4, Para 2	Updated the language to align with Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs, explicitly listing balconies, parking spaces, and common elements as restricted areas unless approved by the Board.

II. Legal Framework and Standards

Administrative Jurisdiction

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety is authorized to receive petitions from homeowners regarding violations of planned community documents or statutes. These hearings are conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Burden of Proof

Standard: The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.
Definition: The party asserting the claim must persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is "more likely true than not."
Responsibility: The burden of proof in this matter rested with the Petitioner, Sharon Oberritter.

Attorney-Client Privilege

During the proceedings, the Respondent filed a Motion in Limine to exclude communications between the Board and its legal counsel. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted this motion, noting that:

Privilege protects communications intended to facilitate legal services.
The privilege belongs to the client (the Association).
The privilege can only be waived by the client.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What specific fraction of homeowner approval did the Petitioner claim was necessary to change the CC&Rs?

Answer: Two-thirds of the owners.

How many members were on the Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors at the time of the 2014 vote?

Answer: Seven members (increased from five in 2012).

What was the Respondent’s primary defense regarding the 2014 rule change?

Answer: The Board (via witness Mr. Vukson) argued the change was essentially "semantic" and was intended to bring the Rules and Regulations into compliance with the existing CC&Rs.

Why did the ALJ dismiss the petition?

Answer: The ALJ concluded there was no credible evidence that the language change violated the CC&Rs or required a vote by the homeowners. The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

What happens if the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety fails to act on an ALJ decision within the statutory timeframe?

Answer: If the Department does not accept, reject, or modify the decision by the deadline (in this case, January 27, 2016), the ALJ decision is certified as the final administrative decision.

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Board Authority vs. Homeowner Rights: Analyze the Petitioner’s argument that the Board exceeded its authority. In what circumstances does a Board’s power to "interpret" or "align" rules cross the line into "amending" governing documents? Use the definitions of Section 16.2 to support your argument.
The Role of Evidence in Administrative Hearings: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Discuss the types of evidence that might have been necessary for the Petitioner to prove that a semantic change to the Rules and Regulations constituted a functional amendment to the CC&Rs.
Procedural Finality in Arizona Law: Describe the timeline and steps required for an ALJ decision to become a final agency action. Include the roles of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, and the rights of the parties to seek judicial review in Superior Court.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01	The Arizona Revised Statute that permits homeowners to file petitions regarding violations of planned community regulations.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A presiding officer who hears evidence and makes recommended orders in disputes involving state agencies.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community or HOA.
Certification of Decision	The process by which an ALJ's recommended order becomes a final, binding administrative action.
Common Elements	Areas within a development (such as roofs or exteriors) controlled by the Association rather than individual owners.
Motion in Limine	A legal motion requested at the start of a hearing to exclude certain evidence or testimony (in this case, privileged legal advice).
Petitioner	The party who initiates the legal action or petition (Sharon Oberritter).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The legal standard requiring that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed (Scottsdale Trails Association).

Understanding HOA Governance: Lessons from the Scottsdale Trails Dispute

1. Introduction: The Power Struggle in Community Living

The dream of quiet community living often collides with the messy reality of governance. In many Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs), a "cold war" exists between the elected Board of Directors and the residents they represent. But what happens when the conflict isn't just between the "us" and the "them," but within the Board itself?

In the case of Sharon Oberritter vs. Scottsdale Trails (Case No. 15F-H1516003-BFS), heard at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, we see a fascinating example of internal political intrigue. The case centers on a 4-3 split within the Board, raising a fundamental question for every homeowner: When can a Board unilaterally update community standards, and when must they seek a two-thirds mandate from the entire community? This dispute serves as a masterclass in the distinction between clarifying existing rules and amending governing documents.

2. The Case Background: A Disputed Rule Change

The Petitioner, Sharon Oberritter, was no ordinary resident; she was a ten-year veteran of the Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors. Supported by her husband, John Oberritter—also a Board member—Sharon alleged that the Association had overstepped its legal boundaries.

The "smoking gun" in this dispute was a June 2014 decision where the Board, by a narrow one-vote margin (4 to 3), updated Section 4, Paragraph 2 of the Association’s Rules and Regulations. This section governed patio aesthetics—a common flashpoint in HOA living. The Oberritters argued that this change was not a simple administrative update, but a de facto amendment to Article 16, Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs. Because the change impacted community appearance and property values, the Petitioners insisted it required the approval of two-thirds of the membership, rather than a simple majority of the directors.

3. The Legal Battleground: Rules vs. CC&Rs

The crux of the legal battle rested on linguistic nuance. The Board’s strategy was tactical: they sought to "align" the Rules and Regulations with the CC&Rs, which hold higher legal authority.

Version	Language and Context
2012 Rules and Regulations (Section 2)	"Except for customary patio furniture and reasonably sized potted plants, nothing shall be stored, placed, erected or hung on any patio area without prior written approval of the board."
2014 Board Update (Section 4, Paragraph 2)	"Pursuant to Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs, Except for customary patio furniture and reasonably sized potted plants on patios or balconies, nothing shall be stored, placed, erected, hung or permitted on any patio, balcony, parking space, fenced yard area, roof, the Association controlled Common Elements or exteriors of any Unit, unless approved by the Board of Directors."

The Clash of Perspectives:

The Oberritters' Position: They argued that the 2014 language was an unauthorized expansion of power. They viewed the inclusion of balconies, parking spaces, and unit exteriors as a significant change to the fundamental rights established in Section 16.2 of the CC&Rs.
The Board’s Position: Michael J. Vukson, another Board member, testified that the update was "essentially a semantic change." The Board’s defense was that they were simply importing verbatim language from the existing CC&Rs into the Rules and Regulations to ensure consistency across documents.

The "Evidentiary Exclusion" Maneuver: In an investigative twist, the Petitioner attempted to introduce legal advice the Board had received prior to the vote, presumably to show the Board ignored their own counsel. However, the Association successfully filed a Motion in Limine. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the "Client"—the Association as a corporate entity—and cannot be waived or exposed by individual dissenting directors. This blocked a major part of the Petitioner's narrative.

4. The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings

In administrative law, the "Burden of Persuasion" lies with the person bringing the claim. The ALJ applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, requiring the Petitioner to prove it was "more likely true than not" that a violation occurred.

On December 23, 2015, the ALJ issued a decisive ruling. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to provide "credible evidence" that the language change violated the CC&Rs. Crucially, the ALJ noted that the Petitioner did not establish that this specific alignment of language legally mandated a community-wide vote. Because the 2014 language was already effectively a part of the higher-ranking CC&Rs, the Board was merely clarifying the rules, not creating new law. The petition was dismissed.

5. The Path to Finality: Certification and Agency Action

The conclusion of a hearing is not the end of the legal road. In Arizona, the ALJ’s decision must navigate the state’s administrative machinery to become final:

December 23, 2015: The ALJ Decision was issued and transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
January 27, 2016: This marked the statutory deadline under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D). Within this window, the Department has the power to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
March 17, 2016: Because the Department took no action by the January deadline, the ALJ decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision of the agency.

This process ensures that unless the Department finds a glaring error, the expertise of the ALJ remains the final word on the dispute.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Homeowners

The Scottsdale Trails dispute is a reminder that HOAs operate as small-scale governments where procedural knowledge is power.

Lessons Learned:

The Burden of Proof is High: If you challenge a Board’s decision, you must bring more than "opinion" or "concern" regarding property values. You need expert testimony or documentary evidence showing a direct contradiction between the Board’s action and the CC&Rs.
Alignment is Not Amendment: Boards have the authority to update Rules and Regulations to mirror the CC&Rs. If the Board is simply "copy-pasting" from a higher authority (the CC&Rs) into a lower one (the Rules), a community vote is rarely required.
Privilege Protects the Board, Not the Member: Even if you are a Board member, you do not "own" the legal advice given to the Association. You cannot use the Association's attorney's words to sue the Association itself.
Procedural Finality: Pay attention to dates. Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D), silence from a state agency equals approval. Once that clock runs out, the decision is binding.

Ultimately, this case reinforces that HOA governance must remain efficient. If every clarification of existing language required a community-wide vote, the Association would be paralyzed. For homeowners, the best defense is a deep, technical understanding of their CC&Rs before a dispute arises.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sharon Oberritter (Petitioner)
Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors
Appeared on her own behalf; Board member for ten years
John Oberritter (Witness)
Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors
Petitioner's husband; Board member for three years

Respondent Side

Mark Sahl (Attorney)
Attorney for Respondent; Mark K. Sahl, Esq.
Michael J. Vukson (Witness)
Scottsdale Trails Board of Directors
Elected to Board in 2012
Benjamin A. Riedel (Attorney)
Listed in mailing distribution with Mark Sahl

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency head receiving decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (Administrative Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Care of for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed copy of decision

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium ,Association of Phoenix

Posted on October 26, 2015 by

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1415008-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-05-22
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Attila Revesz	Counsel	—
Respondent	Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix	Counsel	Craig Boates

Alleged Violations

Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.

Why this result: The ALJ found credible testimony that a quorum was present (including a member via telephone) and Petitioner offered no substantial evidence to the contrary.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold valid annual meeting

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Bylaws Article 2.1 by failing to hold a valid annual meeting. Petitioner claimed a quorum was not present because a board member attended by telephone, which Petitioner disputed. The ALJ found credible testimony that the board member attended by phone and a quorum of homeowners was present.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article 2.1 of Bylaws

Decision Documents

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 463171.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:14 (62.4 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS-rhg Decision – 469839.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:15 (62.6 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document details the administrative proceedings and final decision regarding Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS. The petitioner, Attila Revesz, a member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix, alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold an annual meeting in 2014.

The Respondent, Shadow Mountain Villas, contended that a meeting held on May 22, 2014, constituted a valid annual meeting. The central conflict of the case rested on whether a proper quorum of Board members and homeowners was present during this meeting. Following a hearing held on May 7, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden determined that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on July 1, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Validity of the 2014 Annual Meeting

The core of the dispute was the Petitioner's claim that no annual meeting occurred in 2014. While a meeting did take place on May 22, 2014, the Petitioner argued it was invalid due to:

Lack of a Board Quorum: Three Board members are required for a quorum. Two were present in person, but the third (Angelo Peri) participated via telephone.
Lack of a Homeowner Quorum: The Petitioner challenged whether enough homeowners were present, either in person or by proxy, to conduct business.

The Respondent provided testimony from Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of RealManage, who affirmed that a quorum was met for both the Board and the homeowners.

2. Evidentiary Standards and Credibility

The decision hinged largely on the credibility of witness testimony regarding the telephonic presence of Board member Angelo Peri:

Testimony Conflict: A witness for the Petitioner, Rick Sanchez, testified he did not see a telephone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Conversely, Ms. Greenstein testified that Mr. Peri was present via cell phone, noting the room lacked a landline.
Documentary Errors: Draft minutes of the meeting initially listed Mr. Peri as absent. Ms. Greenstein clarified that these were errors typical of draft documents and that the final adopted minutes correctly showed Mr. Peri as present.

3. Petitioner Inconsistency

A significant factor in the ALJ’s decision was the behavior of the Petitioner following the contested meeting. Despite challenging the meeting's validity, the Petitioner and his witness, Mr. Sanchez, were elected to the Board at that very meeting via voice-vote. Evidence showed that during 2014, both individuals acted in their capacity as Board members based on those election results. The ALJ noted that by acting as a director, the Petitioner implicitly accepted the validity of the meeting where he was elected.

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

As the Petitioner, Mr. Revesz bore the legal burden to prove the Association’s violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner did not provide substantial evidence to rebut the Respondent's testimony regarding quorum or the finality of the approved minutes.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."	The legal definition of "Preponderance of the Evidence" used by the ALJ to evaluate the case (citing Black’s Law Dictionary).
"This finding is strongly supported by the fact that Mr. Revesz, by acting as a director or Board member during 2014, accepted that he had been elected as Board member at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting."	The ALJ's justification for crediting the Respondent's version of events, noting the Petitioner's contradictory actions.
"Ms. Greenstein provided credible testimony that Mr. Peri was present by telephone at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting and that there was a quorum."	The ALJ’s formal finding regarding the presence of the necessary Board members to validate the meeting.
"No action by the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety was received… the attached Administrative Law Judge Decision is certified as the final administrative decision."	The statement by Interim Director Greg Hanchett confirming that the decision became final because the Department did not modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Procedural Timeline and Certification

The administrative process followed a specific statutory timeline:

February 6, 2015: Notice of Hearing issued.
May 7, 2015: Hearing conducted.
May 22, 2015: ALJ Decision transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
June 26, 2015: Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
July 1, 2015: Decision certified as final after no action was taken by the Department.

Actionable Insights

Documentation and Minutes

The case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping. While draft minutes contained errors regarding attendance, the eventual adoption of corrected minutes in March 2015 served as critical evidence. Organizations should ensure that minutes are reviewed and formally approved to establish a definitive record of proceedings.

Telephonic Participation

The decision confirms that telephonic participation (in this case, via cell phone) can satisfy quorum requirements, provided it is documented and the individual is considered "present."

Consistency in Legal Challenges

Challenging the validity of a meeting while simultaneously benefiting from and acting upon the outcomes of that meeting (such as an election) significantly weakens a petitioner's standing and credibility in an administrative hearing.

Rights to Appeal

Parties dissatisfied with a certified final decision have the right to:

Request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
Seek judicial review in Superior Court, though they may be required to request a rehearing first. Filing a notice of action with the Office of Administrative Hearings is required within ten days of filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent certification in the matter of Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix (Case No. 15F-H1415008-BFS). It outlines the legal standards, factual disputes, and administrative procedures involved in this case.

I. Case Overview and Key Facts

The dispute centers on a petition filed by Attila Revesz, a homeowner and member of the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Revesz alleged that the Association violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a proper annual meeting in 2014.

The Central Dispute

The Association maintained that an annual meeting was held on May 22, 2014. Revesz contested the validity of this meeting based on two primary arguments:

Lack of Board Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough Board members present.
Lack of Homeowner Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough homeowners present to conduct business.

Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner’s Case: Rick Sanchez testified he did not see a phone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Draft minutes initially listed Board member Angelo Peri as absent.
The Respondent’s Case: Jo-Ann Greenstein (RealManage) testified that a quorum of homeowners was present (personally or by proxy). She clarified that while there was no landline in the room, Board member Angelo Peri attended via cell phone.
The Conflict of Action: Following the May 22, 2014 meeting, Revesz and Sanchez were elected to the Board by voice-vote and subsequently acted in their capacities as Board members throughout 2014. This behavior was cited by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as evidence that they accepted the validity of the meeting at the time.

II. Key Concepts and Legal Standards

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

Under Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-119, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof. The required standard is a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, making the fact sought to be proven "more probable than not."

2. Quorum Requirements

Board Quorum: For Shadow Mountain Villas, three Board members constitute a quorum.
Homeowner Quorum: Must be established through members present in person or via proxy.
Telephonic Presence: The case established that presence via cell phone constitutes being present for the purposes of a quorum, even if a physical landline is not available.

3. Administrative Procedure

Agency Action: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety has a specific window to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ's decision.
Final Certification: If the Department takes no action within the statutory timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing?
What was the specific Bylaw article allegedly violated by the Association?
On what date was the contested annual meeting held?
According to the Association's records, how many Board members are required for a quorum?
What was the Association's explanation for the draft minutes listing Angelo Peri as absent?
Why was the Board election on May 22, 2014, conducted by voice-vote rather than a written ballot?
By what date did the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have to act before the ALJ decision was automatically certified?
What error was noted regarding Attila Revesz's name in the Board meeting minutes?
Who provided the testimony regarding the presence of homeowners via proxy?
What is the first step a party must take if they wish to challenge the final administrative decision in Superior Court?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Preponderance of Evidence: Analyze the ALJ’s determination that Revesz failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Discuss how the Association’s testimony regarding telephonic attendance and the Petitioner’s own subsequent actions as a Board member weighed against the Petitioner's claims.
The Validity of Telephonic Participation: Evaluate the implications of the ALJ's finding that a Board member's presence via cell phone satisfies quorum requirements. How does this decision reflect the practicalities of modern administrative meetings versus traditional landline or in-person requirements?
Administrative Certification and Finality: Explain the process by which an ALJ decision becomes "final." Discuss the significance of the June 26, 2015, deadline in this case and what the Department’s inaction meant for the legal standing of the ALJ's original order.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
Bates Numbers	A numbering system used to identify and track individual pages of evidence or documents in a legal matter.
Certification	The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final agency action, often due to the passage of time without modification by a director.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that makes a claim more likely to be true than not.
Proxy	Authority given by one person to another to act or vote on their behalf, often used to establish a quorum in homeowner association meetings.
Quorum	The minimum number of members of an assembly or board that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association.
Voice-vote	A voting method in which those in favor say "aye" and those opposed say "no," used here because the number of candidates matched the number of open seats.

Quorum, Cell Phones, and Irony: Lessons from an HOA Legal Dispute

The Hook: When Governance Becomes Personal

In the world of Homeowners Association (HOA) governance, a single cell phone can be the difference between a valid election and a total administrative collapse. The legal showdown of Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix serves as a masterclass in how meeting formalities, witness credibility, and digital presence dictate the legitimacy of association leadership. What began as a homeowner's challenge to a 2014 annual meeting evolved into a high-stakes investigation into the very definition of "presence" in the digital age.

The Core Complaint: A Question of Legitimacy

The dispute was initiated on November 28, 2014, when Petitioner and homeowner Attila Revesz filed a "Single Issue Petition" against the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association. Mr. Revesz alleged that the Association had fundamentally violated Article 2.1 of its Bylaws by failing to hold a valid annual meeting in 2014.

At the heart of the Petitioner's argument was the claim that the meeting conducted on May 22, 2014, was a legal nullity. He contended that the Association failed to achieve a quorum for both the Board of Directors and the homeowners. Under the Association’s governing documents, three Board members are required to constitute a quorum. Mr. Revesz argued that since this threshold was not met, any business conducted—including the election of new directors—was invalid.

The Quorum Controversy: Presence via Cell Phone

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was tasked with reconciling two wildly different accounts of the May 22nd meeting. The Association asserted that a Board quorum was achieved through the attendance of Russell Hutchinson and Shelly Rothgeb in person, supplemented by Board member Angelo Peri via telephone.

Witness Volatility: The hearing featured a dramatic shift in testimony. Rick Sanchez, appearing for the Petitioner, initially admitted during cross-examination that the meeting minutes were approved without objection in March 2015. However, under follow-up questioning by Mr. Revesz, Mr. Sanchez reversed his position, claiming no vote had occurred. This inconsistency weakened the Petitioner’s case in real-time.
The "Draft" Minute Fallacy: Mr. Revesz relied on draft minutes which listed Mr. Peri as absent. The Association countered with the final minutes adopted in March 2015, which recorded Mr. Peri’s telephonic presence. Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of the management firm RealManage, testified that draft minutes are inherently prone to clerical errors. A prime example of this administrative fallibility was found in the Board meeting minutes, where Mr. Revesz himself was erroneously listed as "Attilla Balbo."

Key Evidence While the Petitioner’s witness noted the absence of a landline in the room, the ALJ found the manager’s testimony more credible. The Association successfully established that modern technology satisfies attendance requirements; Board Member Angelo Peri’s participation via cell phone was sufficient to constitute a quorum.

The Paradox of the Petitioner: An Unexpected Election

Perhaps the most striking element of this case is the "ironic twist" detailed in Finding of Fact #12. Attila Revesz, the man suing to declare the meeting invalid, was actually elected to the Board at that very meeting. Because there were only three candidates for three open positions, the election was finalized by a simple voice vote.

From a legal standpoint, Mr. Revesz’s subsequent behavior created an "estoppel-adjacent" scenario. After the meeting, he and Mr. Sanchez accepted their positions and actively served as Board members throughout the remainder of 2014. The ALJ noted that by acting in an official capacity and exercising the powers granted by that election, the Petitioner tacitly validated the legitimacy of the meeting he later sought to overturn.

Legal Standards: The "Preponderance of Evidence"

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather a lower threshold known as the Preponderance of the Evidence.

Element	Description
Standard of Proof	Preponderance of the Evidence (A.A.C. § R2-19-119).
Definition	Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition (more probable than not).
Burden of Proof	Rests entirely on the Petitioner (Mr. Revesz).
Result of Failure	If the evidence is "tied" or unconvincing, the Petitioner fails to meet the burden and loses the case.

The ALJ determined that Mr. Revesz failed to meet this burden. While the Petitioner questioned the homeowner quorum, he provided no substantial evidence to rebut Ms. Greenstein’s testimony that a quorum was reached through a combination of personal attendance and proxies.

The Final Verdict: Certification and Dismissal

On May 22, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision in favor of Shadow Mountain Villas. Per Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety was granted a window until June 26, 2015, to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s findings.

Because the Department took no action by the June 26 deadline, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative decision on July 1, 2015. The final order deemed the Association the prevailing party and dismissed Mr. Revesz’s petition in its entirety.

Key Takeaways for HOA Members

Prioritize Formal Adoption Over Draft Records: Draft minutes are legally unreliable. Boards must ensure that the formal approval process is used to correct clerical errors (like the "Attilla Balbo" misspelling) before records are finalized.
Digital Presence is Legal Presence: Unless specifically prohibited by an HOA’s bylaws, telephonic participation—including via cell phone—is a valid method for establishing a quorum.
Conduct Constitutes Acceptance: A homeowner cannot easily challenge the validity of an election if they have spent months acting as an elected official. Your behavior as a member or director can serve as a legal validation of the Association’s actions.
The Rebuttal Requirement: To challenge a manager’s testimony regarding homeowner quorums and proxies, a petitioner must provide "substantial evidence." Mere skepticism of the results is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Samuel G. Schechter vs Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

Posted on October 9, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515002-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-10-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA Board acted reasonably in investigating the Petitioner's complaint about junk vehicles. The Board found the initial complaint list contained inaccuracies and requested an update, which the Petitioner failed to provide. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Samuel G. Schechter	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One	Counsel	Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII(1); CC&Rs Section 11.g

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the HOA Board acted reasonably in investigating the Petitioner's complaint about junk vehicles. The Board found the initial complaint list contained inaccuracies and requested an update, which the Petitioner failed to provide. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner refused to provide an updated list of violations after the Board found the initial list inaccurate; the ALJ determined the Board's response was reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Enforce Junk Vehicle Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&R Section 11.g regarding junk vehicles and violated Bylaws Article VII(1) by not acting on a complaint list provided by Petitioner.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent; the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:59 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:10 (56.5 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 460938.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (95.0 KB)

15F-H1515002-BFS Decision – 469830.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:25 (56.5 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Samuel G. Schechter vs. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between Samuel G. Schechter (Petitioner) and Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (Respondent or "Pueblo"). The case, No. 15F-H1515002-BFS, centered on allegations that the Pueblo Board of Directors failed to enforce community covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the presence of junk motor vehicles on owner lots.

Following a hearing on September 22, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent" under the circumstances. The Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof required to show a violation of the Association’s Bylaws or Arizona statutes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent.

Case Overview and Entities

The hearing was conducted at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, under the authority of A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, which permits homeowners to file petitions regarding violations of planned community documents.

Entity	Role	Key Personnel/Representatives
Samuel G. Schechter	Petitioner	Represented himself
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One	Respondent	Steven D. Leach, Esq. (Attorney)
The Board of Directors	Governing Body	Theodore Pahle (President as of July 2015); Roxanna McGinnis (Former President)
Office of Administrative Hearings	Adjudicating Body	M. Douglas (Administrative Law Judge)
Peter Dodge	Witness	Former Board/ECC member; co-complainant
Ron Murray	ECC Chairman	Deceased; former investigator of complaints

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Allegations of Non-Enforcement

The Petitioner’s central argument was that the Board violated Bylaw Article VII(1), which mandates that the Board has the "exclusive right and responsibility to perform diligently all obligations & functions of the Association." Specifically, Schechter alleged the Board failed to enforce CC&R Section 11.g, which prohibits "stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicle" from being stored on any lot.

The Petitioner contended that despite submitting a list of violations on September 8, 2014, the Board failed to take enforcement action for more than four months, leading to the filing of the petition on January 16, 2015.

2. Organizational Continuity and Procedural Delays

The Respondent successfully argued that external factors and data inaccuracies contributed to the timeline of their investigation:

Staffing Disruptions: The initial list of violations was handed to the Environmental Control Committee (ECC) Chairman, Ron Murray. However, Mr. Murray passed away unexpectedly between the September and October meetings.
Need for Re-investigation: Because the Board did not know what progress Mr. Murray had made, they were forced to restart the investigation "from scratch."
Data Integrity: Former President Roxanna McGinnis conducted a drive-by inspection in October 2014 and found that the list provided by Schechter and Dodge contained incorrect addresses and outdated information.

3. Standards for Complaint Submission

A significant point of contention involved the protocol for filing complaints within the Association.

Board Position: President Theodore Pahle testified that Pueblo requires complaints to be submitted on a specific written form containing current factual information. He noted that Schechter’s complaint was not on the proper form and contained information that was nine months old.
Member Contradiction: Erescene Johnson-Stokes, a resident, testified that she had filed three oral complaints in the past and was never required to put them in writing, suggesting a potential inconsistency in how the Board applies its rules.

4. Burden of Proof and Legal Standards

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner). The standard is a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the Petitioner must prove that their claims are "more likely true than not."

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden because the Board demonstrated they had taken active, albeit delayed, steps to investigate the claims and had requested updated information that the Petitioner refused to provide.

Important Quotes and Context

Regarding Board Responsibility

"The Board shall have the exclusive right and responsibility to perform diligently all obligations & functions of the Association as set forth in these By-Laws, in the Declaration and in the Articles of Incorporation."

Context: This provision from Article VII, Section 1 of the Bylaws formed the legal basis for the Petitioner's claim that the Board was legally mandated to act on his complaint.

Regarding the Investigation of Junk Vehicles

"Ms. McGinnis found that the Petitioner’s list included incorrect addresses and information but she attempted to investigate the matter to the best of her ability."

Context: Testimony from the Respondent explaining why the Board did not immediately issue citations based on the Petitioner's September 2014 submission.

Regarding the Petitioner's Refusal to Update Data

"Mr. Dodge said that he and Mr. Schechter declined to conduct a second survey because they were no longer members of the Board. Mr. Dodge opined that it was a fool’s errand."

Context: After the Board found the initial complaint list inaccurate, they requested an updated survey. The Petitioners' refusal to cooperate was a key factor in the ALJ's determination that the Board's actions remained "reasonable."

Actionable Insights

For Homeowners' Associations (HOAs)

Maintain Clear Documentation Procedures: While the Board argued for a specific written form, the testimony of other residents regarding oral complaints suggests that inconsistent enforcement of complaint procedures can lead to legal challenges. HOAs should ensure a uniform complaint process is documented and followed.
Establish Contingency Plans: The delay caused by the death of the ECC Chairman highlights the need for shared access to investigation records. Moving toward digital records or centralized tracking can prevent the need to start investigations "from scratch" during personnel transitions.
Due Diligence is a Defense: The Board’s decision to personally verify complaints rather than blindly issuing citations was deemed "reasonable and prudent." Conducting independent investigations protects the Board from liability when homeowner-provided data is inaccurate.

For Petitioning Members

Ensure Data Timeliness: The Petitioner’s case was weakened because the photographs and list submitted were months old and contained errors. Successful petitions generally require current, verifiable evidence.
Cooperation in the Enforcement Process: The Petitioner’s refusal to provide an updated list when requested by the Board was viewed negatively by the Tribunal. Demonstrating a willingness to work within the Board's investigative process can be critical to proving a "failure to act."
Understand the Burden of Proof: Merely showing that a violation exists (e.g., a junk car) is not the same as proving the Board is failing its duty, especially if the Board is actively investigating or dealing with procedural hurdles.

Study Guide: Schechter v. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Samuel G. Schechter and Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (No. 15F-H1515002-BFS). It covers the core legal issues, evidence presented, and the final judicial determination regarding the responsibilities of a homeowners' association board.

I. Case Overview and Key Entities

Core Parties

Petitioner: Samuel G. Schechter, a homeowner and member of Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One.
Respondent: Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (referred to as "Pueblo"), a homeowners' association located in southern Arizona.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): M. Douglas, presiding over the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Central Dispute

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to enforce its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed the Board of Directors did not take action against "junk motor vehicles" parked on owners' lots, thereby violating their duty to perform Association functions diligently.

Key Governing Documents

Bylaws Article VII, Section 1: Grants the Board the exclusive right and responsibility to perform all obligations and functions of the Association.
CC&Rs Section 11.g: Prohibits stripped-down, wrecked, or junk motor vehicles from being kept, parked, stored, or maintained on any lot.

II. Key Legal Concepts and Standards

1. Statutory Authority

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, owners or planned community organizations in Arizona may file petitions with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for hearings concerning violations of community documents or statutes.

2. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in these administrative hearings falls upon the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner).

3. Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required is a "preponderance of the evidence." This means the Petitioner must persuade the finder of fact that their claim is more likely true than not.

4. Board Reasonableness

A central concept in the ruling was whether the Board’s actions were "reasonable and prudent." The court evaluated the Board's investigation process and their requests for updated information as a measure of whether they were fulfilling their "diligent" obligations.

III. Summary of Evidence and Testimony

Witness	Key Testimony Points
Samuel G. Schechter	Submitted a complaint in Sept 2014 regarding association-wide violations. Photographed "derelict" vehicles while a Board member. Claimed the Board's response was not serious.
Peter Dodge	Former Board/ECC member. Confirmed the presence of junk vehicles. Acknowledged the Board found only three vehicles during their own check. Refused to conduct a second survey, calling it a "fool's errand."
Theodore Pahle	Current Board President. Noted the Petitioner's complaint was not on the proper form and contained data that was nine months old. Stated photos were never shared with the Board.
Roxanna McGinnis	(As reported in findings) Investigated the list by driving the properties. Found incorrect addresses and requested the Petitioner resubmit an updated, accurate list.
Erescene Johnson-Stokes	Resident who testified that she had successfully filed oral complaints in the past and was not required to use written forms.

IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What specific violation did the Petitioner allege regarding the lots in Pueblo Del Sol?

Answer: The presence of stripped-down, wrecked, or junk motor vehicles in violation of CC&R Section 11.g.

Why did the Board delay its investigation between September and October 2014?

Answer: The then-Chairman of the Environmental Control Committee (ECC), Ron Murray, passed away suddenly, forcing the Board to restart the investigation.

What was the Board’s primary criticism of the list of violations submitted by the Petitioner?

Answer: The list was outdated (nine months old), contained incorrect addresses, and was not submitted on the Association’s official complaint form.

How did the ALJ define "preponderance of the evidence"?

Answer: As a standard that persuades the fact-finder that a proposition is "more likely true than not."

What was the final ruling of the Administrative Law Judge?

Answer: The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, and the Board's actions were deemed reasonable and prudent.

V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Duty of Diligence vs. Reasonable Investigation: Analyze the Board's response to Schechter's complaint. While the Bylaws require the Board to perform obligations "diligently," the ALJ ruled that the Board's request for a new list was "reasonable and prudent." Discuss where the line should be drawn between a Board's duty to investigate and a member's duty to provide actionable information.
Procedural Requirements in HOA Governance: The Respondent argued that complaints must be submitted on a specific form, yet a resident testified that oral complaints were accepted. Evaluate the importance of standardized procedures in HOA enforcement and how inconsistent application of these procedures might affect a legal ruling.
Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Explain why the Petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof in this case. Consider the age of the evidence (photographs and list), the Board’s attempt to verify the claims, and the Petitioner’s refusal to provide an updated survey when requested.

VI. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The Arizona Revised Statute that allows homeowners to petition for a hearing regarding HOA violations.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing documents that dictate what homeowners can and cannot do with their property within a planned community.
ECC (Environmental Control Committee): A subcommittee within the HOA responsible for monitoring property conditions and rule compliance.
Final Agency Action: The point at which an ALJ's decision is certified as final, often occurring if no party seeks a rehearing or if the decision is certified by the Director.
Petitioner: The person who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Samuel G. Schechter).
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One).
Setback Areas: Minimum required distances between a building or vehicle and the property lines (front or rear).

Junk Cars and Judicial Rulings: Lessons from a Southern Arizona HOA Dispute

1. Introduction: The Frustration of Unenforced Rules

In common-interest developments, the friction between a homeowner’s expectations and a Board’s enforcement actions often leads to administrative conflict. Residents frequently feel that their Homeowners Association (HOA) is failing its community mandate when reported violations are not resolved with immediate, visible results. However, from a legal and administrative perspective, the "duty to enforce" is balanced against the Board’s right to follow due process and verify evidence.

This tension was central to the case of Samuel G. Schechter vs. Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One (Case No. 15F-H1515002-BFS). The matter brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings provides a definitive look at whether an HOA Board fails its fiduciary and statutory duties when it delays enforcement action due to evidentiary inaccuracies and administrative hurdles.

2. The Conflict: Section 11.g and the "Association-Wide" Complaint

On September 8, 2014, Petitioner Samuel G. Schechter and fellow resident Peter Dodge—both former members of the Board and the Environmental Control Committee (ECC)—submitted a comprehensive complaint to the Pueblo Del Sol Board. The complaint alleged "association-wide" violations of Section 11.g of the CC&Rs, which stipulates that "no stripped down, wrecked or junk motor vehicle shall be kept, parked, stored or maintained on any lot."

The Petitioner alleged that the Board failed to take any enforcement action for over four months following the submission. Mr. Schechter contended that this period of inaction constituted a breach of Article VII, Section 1 of the Association’s Bylaws, which states:

"The Board shall have the exclusive right and responsibility to perform diligently all the obligations and functions of the Association as set forth in these By-Laws, in the Declaration and in the Articles of Incorporation."

3. Evidentiary Challenges and Administrative Context

The Respondent’s Answer and subsequent testimony revealed that the delay was not a product of negligence, but rather a response to significant administrative obstacles and the poor quality of the Petitioner's data. Several factors complicated the Board's ability to act:

Loss of ECC Leadership: The list of violations was initially submitted to the Chairman of the ECC, Ron Murray. However, Mr. Murray passed away suddenly and unexpectedly between the September and October 2014 meetings, requiring the Board to restart the investigation of the "association-wide" list from scratch.
Verification Difficulties: In October 2014, then-Board President Roxanna McGinnis personally conducted a drive-through investigation. She discovered that the Petitioner's list contained numerous incorrect addresses and inaccurate descriptions of the alleged violations.
Stale Evidence: Testimony during the hearing established that the photographs provided by the Petitioner were already nine months old at the time they were submitted to the Board.

Despite these hurdles, Ms. McGinnis attempted to investigate the claims to the best of her ability and presented her findings to the Board in November 2014.

4. The Turning Point: Cooperation and Proper Procedure

Seeking to move forward with accurate data, the Board requested that Mr. Schechter and Mr. Dodge resubmit an updated list on the Association’s official complaint forms. Theodore Pahle, who assumed the role of Board President in July 2015, testified that the Association mandates these forms to ensure that enforcement is based on current, factual information.

The Petitioners refused to provide the updated survey. Mr. Dodge testified that they declined because they were no longer on the Board, famously characterizing the Board's request for updated information as a "fool's errand."

While witness Erescene Johnson-Stokes testified that she had previously made oral complaints without being forced to use a written form, the Board maintained a procedural distinction: the unprecedented "association-wide" scale of the Petitioner’s claims necessitated a formal, written filing to ensure administrative accuracy and legal defensibility. The Petitioner's refusal to comply with this reasonable request effectively stalled the enforcement process.

5. The Legal Verdict: Burden of Proof and "Reasonable Actions"

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the case under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01. In such hearings, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning they must prove their claims are more likely true than not.

The ALJ determined that the Board did not violate its duties. The ruling emphasized that the Board’s response—investigating the claims despite the inaccuracies and then requesting updated information on proper forms—was "reasonable and prudent under the circumstances." Because the Petitioner failed to cooperate with the Board’s request for current data, the judge concluded that the Petitioner had not satisfied the burden of proof. The petition was dismissed.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

The Schechter ruling offers vital lessons for those navigating the complexities of community governance:

Documentation is King: For a complaint to result in enforcement, evidence must be contemporaneous and accurate. Relying on nine-month-old data or incorrect addresses significantly weakens a Petitioner's legal standing.
Follow the Process: HOA Boards are entitled to require specific forms and procedures. When a resident bypasses these protocols, particularly for large-scale complaints, the Board's insistence on proper procedure will likely be viewed as reasonable by a court.
Cooperation Matters: Community governance is a collaborative effort. A resident’s refusal to assist a Board in a "reasonable and prudent" request for updated information can be fatal to a subsequent legal claim.
The "Reasonableness" Standard: A Board’s duty to "perform diligently" does not require perfection or immediate results. The legal standard is whether the Board acted as a prudent person would under the same circumstances. If administrative delays (such as the death of a committee chair) occur, the Board is given reasonable latitude to regroup.

7. Conclusion: Navigating Community Governance

This case highlights that while CC&R enforcement is a primary responsibility of any Board, it cannot be done in a vacuum of unreliable data. Effective governance requires a clear line of communication between residents and the Board.

Residents who feel their Association has failed to meet its obligations should be aware of their rights under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08. Following a final administrative decision, parties may have the right to request a rehearing or seek judicial review by the Superior Court. However, as Schechter vs. Pueblo Del Sol demonstrates, the most effective way to ensure rules are enforced is to provide the Board with the accurate, timely, and cooperative documentation they need to take action.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Samuel G. Schechter (petitioner)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member (2011-2014); appeared on his own behalf
Peter Dodge (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Former Board member; assisted Petitioner in compiling complaints

Respondent Side

Steven D. Leach (attorney)
Attorney for Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Ron Murray (committee member)
Environmental Control Committee
Former ECC Chairman; passed away between Sept and Oct 2014
Roxanna McGinnis (board member)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President in Oct 2014; investigated violations
Theodore Pahle (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Board President as of July 1, 2015
Erescene Johnson-Stokes (witness)
Pueblo Del Sol POA Village One
Resident

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (agency director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director

Catherine Mullane vs.Thunder FE Condominium Group

Posted on September 21, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515016-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-09-22
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the bylaws. The evidence showed the HOA membership had previously voted to increase the board's spending authority limit from $50 to $7,500, covering the phased landscaping costs.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Catherine Mullane	Counsel	—
Respondent	Thunder Fe Condominium Group	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article V, paragraph i, number 1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated the bylaws. The evidence showed the HOA membership had previously voted to increase the board's spending authority limit from $50 to $7,500, covering the phased landscaping costs.

Why this result: Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show a violation; the HOA successfully demonstrated the spending limit had been validly amended by the membership.

Key Issues & Findings

Unapproved Capital Expenditure

Petitioner alleged the HOA Board spent $13,700 on a landscape project to remove grass and install desert landscaping without a vote of all unit owners, violating the $50 limit in the Bylaws.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 458291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:11 (111.0 KB)

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 463668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:54:24 (59.9 KB)

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 458291.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:57 (111.0 KB)

15F-H1515016-BFS Decision – 463668.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:57 (59.9 KB)

Case Briefing: Catherine Mullane vs. Thunder Fe Condominium Group

Executive Summary

The case of Catherine Mullane vs. Thunder Fe Condominium Group (No. 15F-H1515016-BFS) centered on a dispute over homeowners' association (HOA) governance and the authorization of capital expenditures. The Petitioner, Catherine Mullane, alleged that the Thunder Fe Condominium Group Board of Management (BOM) violated its bylaws and Arizona statutes by approving a $13,700 desert landscaping project without a vote from all unit owners.

The Respondent, Thunder Fe, argued that the project was a multi-year, phased initiative originally approved by membership in 2010. They further contended that the spending limit for the Board Chairman had been legally increased from $50.00 to $7,500.00 by a unanimous vote at an annual meeting in 2014. The administrative hearing, held on September 2, 2015, resulted in a dismissal of the petition. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Diane Mihalsky ruled that the HOA had acted within its authority and had not violated its bylaws. This decision was certified as final on October 28, 2015.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. Evolution of HOA Governance and Bylaws

A central conflict in the case was the modernization of the HOA’s financial protocols. For years, the association’s bylaws restricted the Chairman from approving expenditures exceeding $50.00 without a broader vote.

The Change: At the Annual General Meeting on January 29, 2014, members unanimously voted to increase this limit to $7,500.00.
Operational Necessity: Testimony from Board Chairman Cliff DeVlieg highlighted that the $50.00 limit was functionally impossible to adhere to, noting that even printing notices for meetings cost more than that amount.
Legal Standing: The ALJ found that because the limit had been raised via a valid meeting of qualified owners, the subsequent landscaping contracts did not breach the association's governing documents.

2. Resource Management and Financial Urgency

The decision to transition from grass to desert landscaping was framed not as an aesthetic choice, but as a fiscal necessity driven by external economic factors.

Utility Inflation: The HOA was facing an 86% to 87% increase in water and wastewater treatment rates from EPCOR water, as approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Cost Savings: Following the transition to desert landscaping, Thunder Fe reported a reduction in water bills of approximately $400.00 per month.
Phased Implementation: The project was executed in phases (sod removal followed by contouring and rock placement) to manage cash flow through the "landscape" account.

3. Member Participation and Communication

The case highlighted a disconnect between the Board’s actions and certain residents’ awareness.

Absentees and "Snowbirds": The HOA noted a high percentage of absentee owners, which complicated communication and quorum requirements.
Notice Procedures: The Board provided evidence that a notice describing the scope and schedule of the work was sent to all homes two realized weeks before the project began, receiving no initial comments or objections.
Attendance Issues: While the Petitioner’s witness expressed surprise at the landscaping changes, she admitted to not attending general or Board meetings where these issues were discussed.

Important Quotes

Regarding the Expenditure Limit

"The $50.00 limit on expenditures had been regularly violated because $50.00 was not enough to cover any expenditure… [the Chairman] cannot even get a bid for work to be done for $50.00."

— Cliff DeVlieg, Chairman of the Board of Management

Regarding the Shift to Desert Landscaping

"The urgency of the work was spurred by the Rate Increase by EPCOR water… which would increase the cost of water and wastewater treatment by 86%."

— Respondent’s Answer to the Petition

Legal Conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge

"Thunder Fe’s Board of Management established by a preponderance of the evidence that at a duly noticed general meeting, the qualified owners in the community unanimously voted to raise the expenditure allowed… to $7,500.00. Therefore, Petitioner did not establish… that Thunder Fe’s Board of Management violated any bylaw."

— ALJ Diane Mihalsky

Analysis of Evidence and Findings

Evidence Category	Findings and Data Points
Financial Authority	Article V, paragraph i, number 1 of the Bylaws was amended to grant the Chairman authority for expenditures up to $7,500.00.
Project Cost	Total project estimated at $13,700, but managed in phases: $6,500 for sod removal and a separate bill in 2015 for rock and watering systems.
Voting Majority	Article III and V require a two-thirds affirmative vote of owners present at a meeting for bylaw amendments. The 2014 amendment was unanimous.
Operational Impact	Conversion to desert landscape resulted in a $400/month reduction in utility costs.

Actionable Insights for HOAs and Residents

Bylaw Modernization is Critical: Outdated financial caps (such as a $50 limit) can paralyze HOA operations. Regular reviews of governing documents ensure that the Board has the flexibility to handle routine maintenance and respond to utility price hikes without constant litigation.
The Weight of Meeting Minutes: The case was decided largely on the strength of the HOA’s record-keeping. The inclusion of minutes from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 provided a clear "paper trail" that the project was not a surprise expenditure but a long-discussed plan.
Owner Responsibility: Residents who do not attend annual meetings or review sent notices have a significantly higher burden of proof if they wish to challenge Board actions later. The court noted the witness's failure to attend meetings as a factor in the context of her lack of awareness regarding the project.
Phased Projects and Budgeting: Breaking large capital improvements into distinct phases (e.g., removal vs. installation) can help HOAs manage budgets within their authorized spending limits while still achieving long-term sustainability goals.

Study Guide: Catherine Mullane vs. Thunder Fe Condominium Group

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Catherine Mullane vs. Thunder Fe Condominium Group (No. 15F-H1515016-BFS). It explores the legal disputes regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, the amendment of bylaws, and the authority of a Board of Management to oversee community projects.

Key Concepts and Case Background

1. The Dispute

The case originated from a petition filed by Catherine Mullane (Petitioner) against the Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s Board of Management (BOM) violated community bylaws and Arizona statutes by spending $13,700 on a landscaping project—transitioning from grass to desert landscape—without obtaining a vote from all unit owners.

2. Governance and Authority

The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety: The Arizona state agency authorized to receive and hear petitions regarding violations of planned community documents or statutes.
Board of Management (BOM) Powers: Under the Thunder Fe bylaws, the BOM is granted the right and power to maintain common areas and enter into contracts.
Expenditure Limits: A central point of contention was a bylaw (Article V, paragraph i, number 1) that originally limited the Chairman’s spending authority to $50.00. This limit was reportedly raised to $7,500.00 by a unanimous vote at an annual general meeting in January 2014.

3. Justification for the Landscape Project

The Respondent argued the project was necessary and financially prudent due to:

Water Costs: An anticipated 86% to 87% rate increase by EPCOR water.
Operational Savings: Following the transition to desert landscaping, the community's water bills decreased by $400.00 per month.
Long-term Planning: The transition had been discussed and voted upon in various phases since 2010.

4. Legal Standards

Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence."
Preponderance of the Evidence: A legal standard meaning the contention is "more probably true than not," or established by evidence with the most convincing force.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the total cost of the landscaping project challenged by the Petitioner?

Answer: $13,700.00.

2. According to the Respondent, why was the original $50.00 expenditure limit regularly violated?

Answer: The limit was too low to cover basic costs; for example, printing notices for meetings cost more than $50.00, and no contractor would provide a bid for that amount.

3. What was the specific percentage of the water rate increase that spurred the urgency of the landscaping work?

Answer: The Respondent cited an 86% to 87% increase by the AZ Corporation Commission/EPCOR.

4. How did the BOM justify the appointment of Rod Beale as treasurer?

Answer: Under Article V, paragraph m of the bylaws, if a vacancy occurs on the BOM for any reason, the remaining members may appoint a replacement to fill the unexpired term.

5. What is the quorum requirement for the transaction of business at Thunder Fe meetings according to Article V, paragraph e?

Answer: The presence, either in person or by proxy, of a majority of the owners.

6. What was the final ruling by Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky regarding the Petitioner’s claims?

Answer: The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the BOM violated any bylaws.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Procedural Requirements for Bylaw Amendments

Analyze the distinction between Article III and Article V of the Thunder Fe Bylaws regarding voting requirements. Article III suggests amendments require a two-thirds vote of "owners of record," while Article V, paragraph h, refers to a two-thirds vote of "owners present at a meeting." Discuss how these differing standards might impact the legitimacy of a Board’s actions and how the court reconciled these in the context of the January 2014 vote.

2. Fiscal Responsibility vs. Homeowner Oversight

In this case, the Board argued that a $50.00 spending limit was functionally impossible to follow in a modern HOA. Evaluate the tension between a community's need for efficient management (represented by the Board) and the homeowners' right to control major expenditures. Use the evidence regarding water rate increases and the subsequent $400 monthly savings to support your argument on whether the Board acted within its fiduciary duty.

3. The Role of Administrative Law in HOA Disputes

Based on the "Certification of Decision" provided in the source material, describe the process of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision becoming final in Arizona. What role does the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety play in accepting, rejecting, or modifying the decision, and what recourse does a party have if they are dissatisfied with the final administrative action?

Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes): The codified laws of the state of Arizona used to regulate planned communities and administrative hearings.
BOM (Board of Management): The governing body of the homeowners' association responsible for maintenance and contract execution.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): Recorded documents that govern the use of land within a common interest development; in this case, the Respondent claimed these were recorded by Del Webb and could not be easily changed.
Certification of Decision: The process by which an ALJ's decision is officially recognized as the final agency action, typically occurring if the department head does not act to modify or reject the decision within a statutory timeframe (e.g., 30 days).
Desert Landscaping (Xeriscaping): A landscaping method used to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental water from irrigation, used in this case to replace grass (sod).
Owners of Record: The individuals officially listed as the owners of the condominium units, entitled to vote on community matters.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The evidentiary standard in civil and administrative cases requiring that a claim be more likely true than not.
Quorum: The minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Snowbird Residents: A term used in the document to describe seasonal residents who are frequently absentee owners.

From Grass to Gravel: Navigating HOA Governance and Landscaping Disputes

The Hook: A Battle in Sun City

At the Thunder Fe Condominium Group in Sun City, Arizona, a fundamental disagreement over community aesthetics and fiscal authority recently escalated into a formal legal challenge. The conflict centered on a $13,700 landscape project initiated by the Board of Management (BOM) to convert traditional grass areas into desert landscaping. Catherine Mullane, a homeowner and member of the association, filed a petition alleging that the board had overstepped its bounds. The core question before the Office of Administrative Hearings was whether the board possessed the authority to approve such a significant expenditure without a community-wide vote.

As a consultant in this space, I often see these disputes framed as purely financial, but they are deeply personal. This case was no exception; during the hearing, testimony from neighbor Jacque Ledbetter—who is blind due to macular degeneration—illustrated the human impact. She described being "caught off guard" when she stepped out to find the area in front of her home transformed into rock without her knowledge.

The Petitioner’s Complaint: The $50 Rule and Governing Documents

In her testimony and filings, Catherine Mullane argued that the board violated Article V, paragraph i, number 1 of the association's bylaws. Her primary contention was that any expenditure exceeding $50 required a vote from the full membership—a rule she claimed was bypassed when the board approved the $13,700 project.

Beyond the expenditure limit, Mullane raised a significant legal argument regarding the hierarchy of documents. She contended that for a change of this magnitude, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) needed to be amended, not just the bylaws. She further argued that the community’s character was at stake, testifying that the property was valuable and should not be treated as "rinky dinky," citing a 1990s survey where residents expressed a clear preference for grass over "rock."

The Board’s Defense: Evolution of a Decision and Strategic Phasing

The Board of Management (BOM), represented by Chairman Cliff DeVlieg, argued that the transition to desert landscaping was a deliberative process spanning years, driven by fiscal necessity.

Key Governance Milestones:

November 18, 2010: Owners voted 20 to 3 in favor of transitioning from grass to desert landscape during the Annual Meeting.
2011–2013: The board continued discussions and scheduled the work in phases based on available funds.
January 29, 2014: During the Annual General Meeting, the membership voted unanimously to amend the expenditure limit in the bylaws from $50 to $7,500.
May 2015: The Sun City Condo Owner Association (SCCOA), an advisory body for 386 HOAs, "approved everything" the board had done, providing a vital third-party validation of their processes.

From a tactical standpoint, the Board’s most effective defense was their use of phased contracting. By splitting the work, they remained in strict compliance with their newly updated $7,500 spending limit. They paid $6,500 in December 2014 for sod removal and the remaining balance in 2015 for the rock and irrigation systems. This move was spurred by an 86–87% water rate increase from EPCOR, a hike that the Board successfully countered by saving the association $400 per month through the new landscaping.

The Legal Turning Point: Amending the Bylaws

The pivotal moment in the case was the January 29, 2014, annual general meeting. The board successfully updated financial restrictions that had become functionally obsolete and impossible to follow in a modern economy.

Old Expenditure Limit	New Expenditure Limit
$50.00	$7,500.00

This amendment exposed a common source of HOA litigation: the conflict between different sections of the bylaws. Article III of the Thunder Fe bylaws suggests amendments require a two-thirds vote of "owners of record"—a high bar that is often difficult to reach. However, Article V(h) allows for amendments via a two-thirds vote of "owners present" at a meeting. The Board utilized Article V(h), and because the vote was unanimous among those in attendance, the Judge determined the amendment was validly adopted.

The Verdict: Why the Petition was Dismissed

Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky applied the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard. This requires that a contention be proven "more probably true than not."

The Judge concluded that the Board of Management demonstrated that the bylaws were legally amended at a duly noticed meeting. While the Petitioner argued that the CC&Rs were the controlling document, the Chairman testified that the CC&Rs (recorded by the developer, Del Webb) could not be changed in this manner, whereas the Bylaws explicitly granted the Board the power to maintain common areas. Because the board followed the updated $7,500 limit and the Petitioner failed to prove a violation of the current governing documents, the petition was dismissed.

Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

This case serves as a masterclass in community governance. As a consultant, I recommend three critical lessons:

Understand the Amendment Process and Perform Periodic Audits: Bylaws are living documents. Boards should conduct periodic audits to ensure limits (like a $50 spending cap) haven't become "functionally obsolete." Understanding whether your community requires a vote of "owners of record" or "owners present" is the difference between a valid amendment and a lawsuit.
The Power of the Quorum: The "unanimous" vote in this case was decided only by those who bothered to show up. In many HOAs, a small, active group can make major changes because the "quorum" hurdle is met by those in the room (or represented by proxy). Attendance is the only way for residents to ensure their voice is part of that majority.
Data-Driven Governance: The board’s defense was bulletproof because it was rooted in data. By documenting the 87% water rate hike and the subsequent $400 monthly savings, they proved that their "transformation to rock" was a matter of fiscal survival rather than a whim.

Closing: The Balance of Community Governance

The resolution of this case highlights the delicate balance between board authority and resident engagement. While the board successfully navigated the legal requirements for governance, the friction caused by the project reminds us that transparency is just as important as legality.

The final administrative decision, certifying the board's compliance and dismissing the complaint, was officially finalized on October 28, 2015. For any community association, the best defense against protracted legal conflict remains a combination of clear documentation, adherence to the amendment process, and an active, informed membership.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Catherine Mullane (Petitioner)
Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Unit Owner)
Appeared on her own behalf; has macular degeneration/is blind,
Jacque Ledbetter (Witness)
Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Resident)
Drove Petitioner to hearing; testified regarding landscape changes,

Respondent Side

Cliff DeVlieg (Board Member)
Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Chairman of the Board of Management)
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Rod Beale (Board Member)
Thunder Fe Condominium Group (Treasurer)
Appointed to fill vacancy; testified at hearing,,
Terry Lord (Former Treasurer)
Thunder Fe Condominium Group
Resigned late summer/early fall 2014; discussed in testimony,

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge,
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director; recipient of decision,
Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk/Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed copy of certification

Ferne Skidmore vs. Velda Rose Estates Homeowner Association

Posted on September 14, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-09-14
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA's restriction of the 'Stocking Project' from the clubhouse violated the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 3). The ALJ determined the project was charitable, not religious, and that the HOA had historically allowed non-members and other activities.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ferne Skidmore	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association	Counsel	Clint G. Goodman

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Section 3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA's restriction of the 'Stocking Project' from the clubhouse violated the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs (Article IV, Section 3). The ALJ determined the project was charitable, not religious, and that the HOA had historically allowed non-members and other activities.

Key Issues & Findings

Discrimination in Common Area Use

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the CC&Rs non-discrimination clause by prohibiting the 'Christmas Stocking Project' from using the clubhouse. The HOA argued the project had a religious affiliation and non-members participated. The ALJ found the project was a charitable organization for homeless children without religious affiliation and that the HOA's exclusion was discriminatory.

Orders: Respondent ordered to fully comply with CC&Rs; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article IV, Section 3
Article VII, paragraph 2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 457186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:56 (107.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:03 (63.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 457186.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (107.1 KB)

15F-H1515006-BFS Decision – 463653.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:36 (63.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Briefing: Skidmore v. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision regarding a dispute between Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner) and the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent/VRE). The case, No. 15F-H1515006-BFS, centered on the Petitioner's allegation that the Association’s Board of Directors (BOD) engaged in discrimination by banning a charitable group, the "Stocking Project," from using the community clubhouse.

The Board justified the ban by citing the group's alleged "religious affiliation" and concerns regarding the handling of monetary donations. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Stocking Project was a secular charitable organization and that the Board’s actions were inconsistent with its own practices and governing documents. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner, concluding that the Association violated the nondiscrimination clauses of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision was certified as final on October 28, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Definition of Religious vs. Charitable Activity

A central conflict in the case was the Board’s characterization of the "Stocking Project"—a group of women who create and fill Christmas stockings for needy children—as a religious entity.

The Petitioner’s Perspective: Ms. Skidmore and several Board members testified that the project was strictly charitable, non-secular, and intended solely to provide for homeless children.
The Board’s Perspective: Former and current Board presidents argued the project’s association with Christmas and its "religious affiliation" posed a liability risk and violated clubhouse rules against religious activities.
Legal Standard: The ALJ applied the definition from Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., which defines religious activity as that which "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." The ALJ concluded the Stocking Project did not meet this threshold.

2. Inconsistency in Policy Enforcement

The evidence highlighted significant inconsistencies in how Velda Rose Estates applied its rules regarding religious and social activities:

Religious Presence: Despite banning the Stocking Project for "religious affiliation," the Board regularly began sessions with prayer, and the clubhouse was historically decorated with a Christmas tree and lights.
Non-Member Participation: The Board cited the participation of non-members in the Stocking Project as a reason for exclusion. However, testimony revealed that other clubhouse activities, such as card games (with money prizes) and shuffleboard, allowed non-members to participate without restriction.

3. Financial Oversight and Non-Profit Status

The Association raised concerns regarding the Stocking Project's handling of funds.

HOA Concerns: Board members testified that any money collected by groups using the clubhouse should go through the Association’s treasurer to protect VRE’s IRS non-profit status.
Factual Finding: While Ms. Skidmore admitted to receiving approximately $250 in donations between 2012 and 2014, the ALJ found that the primary purpose of the project remained charitable and the exclusion based on these financial concerns was part of a larger discriminatory action.

4. Violation of Governing Documents

The ALJ focused on Article IV, Section 3 of the Velda Rose CC&Rs, which empowers the Board to adopt rules for the common areas but explicitly states: "The Rules and Regulations may not discriminate among Owners and shall not be inconsistent with this Declaration, the Articles, or Bylaws." The ALJ determined that targeting the Petitioner's group for exclusion constituted a discriminatory application of these rules.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"The VRE BOD ruled 'to follow our CCR’s and Bylaws to restrict use of the clubhouse due to religious affiliation.' This violates VRE’s bylaws and CCR’s nondiscrimination clauses."	Source: Petitioner’s Original Filing. This outlines the core grievance regarding the Board's decision on February 8, 2015.
"The sole purpose of the Stocking Project is 'to give children who have nothing at least one thing for Christmas.'"	Source: Testimony of Ferne Skidmore. Ms. Skidmore emphasizes the charitable nature of the group to counter claims of religious proselytizing.
"The Board had prohibited the Christmas Stocking Project from utilizing the clubhouse… due to the Christmas Stocking Project’s 'religious affiliation.'"	Source: Testimony of Darrell Walklin (Former Board President). This confirms the Board's specific intent and reasoning for the ban.
"The preponderance of the evidence established that the Board’s actions in excluding the Petitioner and the Stocking Project… was discriminatory in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the CC&Rs."	Source: ALJ Conclusions of Law. The final legal determination that the Association overstepped its authority and violated its governing documents.

Final Order and Outcomes

The Administrative Law Judge issued the following mandates in the Recommended Order, which was later certified as final:

Requirement	Description
Prevailing Party	Ferne Skidmore was officially deemed the prevailing party.
Future Compliance	Velda Rose Estates must fully comply with all applicable provisions of its CC&Rs in the future.
Financial Restitution	The Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550.00 to reimburse her filing fee within 30 days of the Order.
Civil Penalties	The ALJ determined that no civil penalty was appropriate in this specific matter.

Actionable Insights for Homeowners Associations

Uniform Policy Application: Boards must ensure that rules regarding the use of common areas are applied consistently across all groups. If non-members are allowed in certain social activities (like shuffleboard), they cannot be used as a basis to exclude other groups.
Evidence-Based Definitions: Before banning an activity on religious grounds, associations should look to established legal definitions (e.g., whether the activity primarily promotes a belief in a deity) rather than personal interpretations of holiday-related events.
Documentation of Board Actions: The ALJ noted that the 2010 minutes did not show official action against the Stocking Project, despite Board claims. All restrictions on member rights should be clearly documented in meeting minutes.
Conflict Between Secular and Religious Activities: Maintaining religious symbols (Christmas trees) or practices (prayers) while simultaneously banning member groups for "religious affiliation" creates a high risk of successful discrimination claims.

Case Study Guide: Skidmore vs. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative law case Ferne Skidmore vs. Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (No. 15F-H1515006-BFS). It covers the factual background, legal principles, and the final decision rendered by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Case Overview

The case involves a dispute between a homeowner, Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner), and the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Association’s Board of Directors (BOD) violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by discriminating against a charitable group, the "Stocking Project," by banning its use of the community clubhouse based on alleged religious affiliation.

Core Themes

Non-Discrimination: The application of HOA bylaws regarding the fair use of common areas.
Religious vs. Charitable Activity: The legal distinction between secular charitable work and religious promotion.
Board Authority: The limits of a Board’s power to adopt or enforce rules that contradict existing declarations or bylaws.
Administrative Procedure: The process by which Arizona homeowners can seek redress through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Summary of Findings and Evidence

The Stocking Project

The "Stocking Project" (also referred to as the "Christmas Stocking Project") is a group that creates and fills holiday stockings with donated items—such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, and toys—for homeless and needy children. Testimony established that:

The project had operated out of the Velda Rose clubhouse for approximately six years.
The clubhouse served as a pick-up and drop-off point for materials and finished stockings.
While the group operated during the Christmas season, testimony from multiple witnesses (including Board members) stated the project had no religious affiliation and religion was never mentioned during its activities.

The Association's Position

The Board prohibited the group from using the clubhouse in 2015, citing several reasons:

Religious Affiliation: The Board claimed the activity was religious and thus prohibited in the clubhouse.
Financial Concerns: The Board alleged that monetary donations received by the project should have been processed through the Association's treasurer to protect its IRS non-profit status.
Participation: The Board noted that many participants were non-members of the Association.

Contradictory Evidence

Evidence presented during the hearing undermined the Association's claims:

Inconsistency in Rules: The Board itself began sessions with prayer and decorated the clubhouse with Christmas trees, yet claimed the Stocking Project was "too religious."
Prior Usage: The clubhouse was regularly used for secular activities involving non-members, such as shuffleboard and card games where money prizes were awarded, without Board interference.
Lack of Documentation: Board members claimed the project had been banned as early as 2010, but official meeting minutes contained no record of such an action.

Legal Principles and Conclusions of Law

Standards of Proof

Burden of Proof: The party asserting the claim (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard used is "more likely true than not." The Petitioner successfully met this burden.

Applicable Statutes and Bylaws

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: Authorizes the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety to hear petitions regarding violations of planned community documents.
Article IV, Section 3 (CC&Rs): Grants the Board power to adopt rules for common areas, provided those rules do not discriminate among owners and are not inconsistent with the Declaration or Bylaws.
Legal Definition of Religious Activity: Based on Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., religious activity is defined as that which "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality."

Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Stocking Project was a secular charitable organization, not a religious one. Consequently, the Board’s decision to exclude the Petitioner and the group from the clubhouse was deemed discriminatory in violation of the Association’s CC&Rs.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who is the Petitioner and who is the Respondent in this case?
What specific group was at the center of the dispute, and what was its primary purpose?
Which section of the Velda Rose CC&Rs did the Petitioner claim the Association violated?
How does the case define "Preponderance of the Evidence"?
What were the three main reasons provided by the Board for banning the Stocking Project?
Why did the ALJ find the Board’s claim regarding "religious affiliation" to be inconsistent with the Board’s own practices?
According to the CC&Rs, what is the limitation on the Board's power to adopt, amend, or repeal Rules and Regulations?
What was the total amount of the filing fee the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner?
Which legal case was cited to define "Religious Activity"?
What happens to an ALJ decision if the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety takes no action within the statutory timeframe?

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Threshold of Discrimination: Analyze how the ALJ determined that the Association’s actions were discriminatory. In your response, contrast the Board's treatment of the Stocking Project with its treatment of other clubhouse activities like card games and shuffleboard.
Charity vs. Religion in Private Communities: Discuss the legal challenges of distinguishing between secular charitable acts and religious activities within the context of a private homeowners association. Use the definition from Rosenberger v. Rector to support your argument.
Board Governance and Transparency: Examine the importance of official documentation (such as meeting minutes) in administrative hearings. How did the lack of recorded Board action from 2010 affect the credibility of the Respondent's testimony?
The Role of Administrative Oversight: Evaluate the process of seeking redress through the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety versus traditional court systems. What are the benefits of this administrative path for homeowners as evidenced by this case?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01	The Arizona Revised Statute that allows homeowners or associations to file petitions regarding violations of community documents.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	A judge who over-sees hearings and makes recommended orders for government agencies.
Bylaws	The rules adopted by an organization for its internal administration and management.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community.
Certification of Decision	The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final administrative action, often due to the passing of a statutory deadline for agency review.
Common Area	Areas within a development (like a clubhouse) that are owned and used by all members of the association.
Non-Secular	Relating to religious or spiritual matters (used in the petition to describe the group the Petitioner argued was being discriminated against).
Preponderance of the Evidence	A legal standard of proof meaning that a claim is more likely to be true than not true.
Prevailing Party	The party in a lawsuit or administrative hearing that wins the case.
Religious Activity	Activity that primarily promotes or manifests a belief in a deity or ultimate reality.
Secular	Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

The Case of the Christmas Stocking Project: A Victory for Homeowner Rights

1. Introduction: A Conflict Between Charity and Compliance

At Velda Rose Estates in Mesa, Arizona, a long-standing tradition of neighborly charity recently became the center of a landmark legal battle over homeowner rights and the limits of board authority. For years, a dedicated group of residents gathered to create and fill Christmas stockings for children in need. However, in early 2015, the Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) Board of Directors abruptly banned the group from the community clubhouse.

The Board's justification—a purported "religious affiliation"—led to a striking narrative irony: a secular group of "old ladies" was barred from their own community space on religious grounds, eventually forcing them to seek refuge in a local church hall to continue their work. This conflict led resident Ferne Skidmore to file a formal petition, sparking a legal inquiry into whether an HOA can selectively use "compliance" as a tool for discrimination.

2. The Heart of the Project: What was the "Stocking Project"?

According to the credible testimony of Ferne Skidmore and fellow resident Brodie Poole, the "Stocking Project"—frequently referred to as the "Christmas Stocking Project"—was a strictly volunteer, secular effort focused on local philanthropy.

Charitable Mission: The group created and filled stockings for homeless children with essential hygiene items and small gifts, including toothbrushes, toothpaste, and toys.
A Staple of the Community: The project had operated within the Velda Rose clubhouse for six years before the Board intervened.
A Secular Purpose: Despite the "Christmas" moniker, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the group’s witnesses to be highly credible in their assertion that the project was non-religious. As Ms. Skidmore testified, the sole purpose was "to give children who have nothing at least one thing for Christmas."

In a poignant turn of events highlighted during the hearing, witness Gwendolyn Krogstad—whom the Judge also found credible—testified that the Board’s ban forced this secular charitable group to relocate its operations to a hall owned by a local church.

3. The Board’s Defense: Justifying the Ban

The Velda Rose Estates Board, represented primarily through the testimony of former president Darrell Walklin and then-current president Roger A. Walklin, defended the exclusion by citing three primary concerns:

Religious Affiliation

The Board claimed the project’s name and association with Christmas constituted a prohibited religious activity.
President Roger A. Walklin argued that the ban was necessary to avoid potential liability stemming from groups related to religious organizations.

Financial Management

Darrell Walklin alleged that the project collected money that should have been processed through the HOA Treasurer to protect the association’s non-profit status.
While Mr. Walklin claimed he heard the group received up to $500, the Judge favored Ms. Skidmore’s credible testimony that the group received only $250 in donations over three years, all of which went toward supplies.

Non-Member Participation

The Board alleged the group consisted primarily of non-residents, which they argued violated clubhouse usage policies.

Notably, Roger A. Walklin claimed the group had been banned since 2010, yet he was forced to acknowledge that the 2010 Board minutes contained no record of such an action.

4. Challenging the Narrative: Inconsistency and "Religious Activity"

The legal challenge hinged on the Board’s inconsistent application of its own rules. While the Board targeted the Stocking Project for "religious" and "non-member" issues, their own practices suggested a double standard.

Consistency Check

HOA Claim/Restriction	Observed Reality/Board Practice
Religious activities are prohibited in the clubhouse.	The Board begins its own sessions with a formal prayer.
The Stocking Project is a prohibited religious activity.	The Board decorates the clubhouse with Christmas trees and lights annually.
Use is restricted due to non-member participation.	The Board allows shuffleboard and card games where non-members participate without restriction.
Use is restricted because money (donations) is involved.	The Board permits card games in which money prizes are awarded to players.

To adjudicate the "religious" claim, the ALJ applied the standard from Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., which defines religious activity as an effort that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." The ALJ found that the Stocking Project’s gift-giving did not meet this threshold; it was a secular charity, not a religious ministry.

5. The Legal Verdict: Why the HOA Lost

The ALJ’s Conclusions of Law provided a stern reminder that Board power is tethered to its governing documents. The HOA lost primarily because its actions were found to be discriminatory.

The Non-Discrimination Mandate: The Judge cited Article IV, Section 3 of the Velda Rose Bylaws. While the Board has the power to adopt rules, the Bylaws explicitly state that such rules "may not discriminate among Owners."
Selective Enforcement: Because the Board allowed other activities involving non-members and money (like card games), they could not legally single out the Stocking Project for the same factors.
The Recommended Order: Finding the Petitioner’s witnesses credible and the Board’s arguments inconsistent, the Judge ordered the HOA to:

Comply with the non-discrimination provisions of the CC&Rs in all future dealings.
Reimburse Ms. Skidmore for her $550 filing fee within 30 days.

6. Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

This case serves as a vital precedent for community governance in Arizona, offering several critical lessons:

The Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings, the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Skidmore succeeded because her credible testimony made her claims "more likely true than not."
Non-Discrimination is Non-Negotiable: Boards cannot selectively enforce rules. If a clubhouse is open to secular groups that include non-residents, the Board cannot ban another secular group simply because they dislike the nature of the charity.
Defining Religious vs. Charitable: Legally, "religious activity" requires the promotion of a deity. General acts of kindness or holiday-themed charity do not automatically qualify as religious, and Boards should be wary of using this label to exclude residents.
Administrative Recourse: Arizona homeowners have a specialized venue for justice. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety provides an accessible path to dispute CC&R violations through the Office of Administrative Hearings, avoiding the high costs of Superior Court.

7. Conclusion: The Final Certification

On October 28, 2015, the decision was officially certified as the final administrative action. Because the Department did not reject or modify the ALJ's findings, the ruling became a binding victory for homeowner rights.

The Case of the Christmas Stocking Project underscores a fundamental principle of community living: the Board’s duty to govern is not a license to discriminate. When the spirit of community service is met with arbitrary barriers, the law provides a clear mechanism to ensure that fairness and the community’s own bylaws prevail.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ferne Skidmore (Petitioner)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Member)
Homeowner; organizer of the Stocking Project
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Represented Petitioner
F. Robert Connelly (Attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Listed on service list for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Clint G. Goodman (Attorney)
Goodman Law Office, P.C.
Represented Respondent
Brodie Poole (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015; testified Stocking Project had no religious affiliation
Gwendolyn Krogstad (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Member since January 2015
Darrell Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Former Board President
Gloria Denesen (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board Treasurer
Roger A. Walklin (Witness)
Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association
Board President (appointed/elected 2013)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Agency Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the decision

Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas

Posted on August 27, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515008-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-08-27
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas Satterlee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA	Counsel	Michael Steven Shupe

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Articles XIII, XIV, XV
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA's 2015 amendment vote was valid under the 1990 CC&Rs because the 1992 updates relied upon by Petitioner were never properly adopted. No open meeting violations were found.

Why this result: Petitioner relied on invalid governing documents to assert procedural defects and failed to prove statutory violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Amendment Procedures

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to follow the amendment procedures set forth in the 1992 updated Bylaws/Articles, specifically regarding the format of the ballot. The ALJ found that the 1992 updates were never validly approved by the members, and thus the HOA was not bound by them.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Open Meeting Violation

Petitioner alleged the Board did not provide members sufficient time to review changes or discuss them at the annual meeting. The ALJ found the evidence failed to support a finding that the open meeting requirements were violated.

Orders: Petition dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:23 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:53:31 (60.1 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 454928.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (112.9 KB)

15F-H1515008-BFS Decision – 460537.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:41 (60.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent final decision in the case of Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner) vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Respondent), Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS. The dispute centered on whether the Association's Board of Directors violated procedural requirements when amending its governing documents—specifically the Articles of Incorporation, Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), and Bylaws—during an annual meeting on January 29, 2015.

The Petitioner contended that the Board failed to follow amendment procedures established in a 1992 update. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner failed to prove the 1992 update was ever validly adopted by the membership. Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the 1990 CC&Rs remained the governing authority and that the 2015 amendments were legally compliant. The petition was dismissed, and the decision was certified as the final administrative action on October 7, 2015.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Validity and Seniority of Governing Documents

The central legal conflict involved determining which version of the Association's documents held authority.

The 1990 CC&Rs: Recorded on September 20, 1990, these were established as the last "duly approved" documents. Section XXIII allowed for changes by a majority vote of owners of record.
The 1992 Update: Petitioner argued that a document recorded in March 1992 mandated a specific amendment format (citing original sections followed by proposed changes).
The Finding: The ALJ determined that recording a document does not equate to valid adoption. Because there was no evidence or certification that the 1992 update was approved by a majority of lot owners—as required by the 1990 CC&Rs—it was deemed invalid.

2. Procedural Compliance in Amendments

The Petitioner’s primary grievance was the "method" of change rather than the substance of the changes. He argued that the Board's failure to provide a side-by-side comparison of old and new text made comparison "virtually impossible."

Respondent's Position: The Board argued that because the documents were being "reorganized, revised and updated extensively," a section-by-section comparison was not feasible.
Legal Conclusion: The ALJ found that the January 29, 2015, vote complied with the 1990 CC&Rs, which only required a majority agreement of owners, not the specific formatting requested by the Petitioner.

3. Open Meetings and Member Participation

Testimony from the Petitioner and other members (Mr. Simpson and Mr. Koning) suggested a perceived lack of transparency and an aggressive Board "agenda."

Member Claims: Allegations included the Board "wanting power," failing to provide sufficient review time, and telling members to "sit down and shut up" during meetings.
Statutory Compliance: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona law mandates open meetings and reasonable notice. The evidence showed the Association held three meetings (October 2014, January 8, 2015, and January 29, 2015) where members were invited to review documents and ask questions.
The Finding: The ALJ concluded that the Association did not violate open meeting requirements, as the preponderance of evidence showed sufficient opportunity for member engagement.

Important Quotes with Context

On Governing Document Validity

"Petitioner’s complaint asserts that the Association did not follow the requirements for amendments set forth in the 1992 Update; however, Petitioner’s assertion is denied because the 1992 Update is not a valid amendment."

Context: Found in the Respondent’s Answer (Section 3.10), this quote encapsulates the core of the Association's defense: a procedural rule cannot be enforced if the document containing it was never legally ratified.

On Administrative Logic and Recording

"Mr. Satterlee asserted that 'no prudent man' would have recorded the updated 1992 Articles of Incorporation unless they had been properly voted on."

Context: Petitioner’s testimony (Finding 7). This highlights the Petitioner's reliance on the fact of public recording as proof of validity, an argument the ALJ ultimately rejected in favor of requiring evidence of a membership vote.

On the Burden of Proof

"The preponderance of the evidence failed to support a finding that the March 1992 Changes… were voted on and approved by members of the Association as required by the 1990 CC&RS."

Context: Conclusions of Law (Section 5). This demonstrates the legal standard applied: the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the 1992 document's legitimacy and failed to do so.

On State Open Meeting Policy

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided… to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items."

Context: A.R.S. § 33-1804(E). This statutory excerpt outlines the legal benchmark the Association had to meet regarding transparency.

Actionable Insights

For Association Governance

Verify Document Pedigree: Boards should maintain clear records of membership votes (ballots, certifications, and minutes) for every amendment. As shown in this case, a recorded document may be challenged and nullified decades later if the underlying vote cannot be proven.
Comprehensive Overhauls vs. Minor Changes: When documents are "reorganized, revised and updated extensively," the strict "strike-through/underline" format often found in bylaws may be impractical. However, ensuring a majority vote is obtained remains the ultimate safeguard for the legality of the new documents.
Documenting Transparency: To defend against claims of "rushed" or "secret" agendas, associations should document all informational sessions, the presence of legal counsel, and the distribution of draft documents well in advance of the final vote.

For Members/Petitioners

Burden of Proof: In administrative hearings, the Petitioner must provide more than assertions or logic (e.g., the "prudent man" argument). Tangible evidence of a vote or a certified document is necessary to establish the validity of a governing provision.
Standard of Evidence: The "preponderance of the evidence" standard means a claim must be "more likely true than not." Petitioners should focus on factual evidence of statutory or bylaw violations rather than subjective feelings regarding a Board's "power" or "agenda."

Final Disposition Table

Element	Status
Petitioner Claim	Failure to follow 1992 amendment procedures.
Legal Standard	Preponderance of the evidence.
Outcome	Petition dismissed; 2015 amendments upheld.
Finality	Certified as final agency action on Oct 7, 2015.

Study Guide: Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Thomas Satterlee vs. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (No. 15F-H1515008-BFS). It examines the legal dispute regarding homeowners' association (HOA) governance, the validity of governing document amendments, and the statutory requirements for planned communities in Arizona.

Case Overview and Key Entities

Core Dispute

The Petitioner, Thomas Satterlee, alleged that the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association (the Respondent) violated its own Bylaws and Arizona statutes during a January 2015 vote to rewrite the Association’s Articles of Incorporation, CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), and Bylaws. The central issue was whether the Board followed the correct procedure for amending these documents, specifically regarding the formatting of ballots and the validity of a prior "1992 Update."

Key Entities

Entity	Description
Thomas Satterlee	The Petitioner; a member and homeowner in Green Valley Vistas.
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA	The Respondent; a homeowners' association located in Green Valley, Arizona.
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety	The state agency authorized to receive petitions regarding HOA disputes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)	The tribunal that heard the case and issued the decision.
M. Douglas	The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing.

Key Legal Concepts and Statutory Framework

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the burden of proof rests with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner). The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner must persuade the judge that their claims are "more likely true than not."

2. Validity of Governing Documents

The case centered on the hierarchy and validity of different versions of Association documents:

1990 CC&Rs: The original recorded documents which stated that covenants would remain in effect until January 1, 2000, and automatically extend every ten years unless a majority of owners agreed to a change.
1992 Update: A recorded document that Petitioner claimed mandated a specific ballot format (original section followed by the proposed amendment). The court found this update was never properly approved by a vote of the members as required by the 1990 CC&Rs.
2015 Amended Documents: The extensively revised documents adopted by a majority vote on January 29, 2015.

3. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

A.R.S. § 33-1804: Governs open meetings for planned communities. It requires that meetings be open, notices be provided with agendas, and members be allowed to speak before a vote is taken. It emphasizes a policy of transparency.
A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: Authorizes homeowners or associations to file petitions for hearings concerning violations of community documents or statutes.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08: Outlines the process for the certification of an ALJ decision as a final administrative decision.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

Findings of Fact

The Petitioner argued that the 2015 amendment process was invalid because the ballots did not show the original sections being replaced, as allegedly required by the 1992 Update.
The Respondent argued the 1992 Update was never validly adopted and that the 2015 changes were necessary to fix "strange things" and mistakes made by previous boards.
Witnesses for the Petitioner claimed they were not given enough time to discuss changes and were told to "sit down and shut up" during meetings.
Board members testified that three meetings were held to review the changes (October 2014, January 8, 2015, and January 29, 2015) and that the changes were approved by a vast majority of owners.

Conclusions of Law

Failure of Proof on 1992 Update: The Petitioner could not prove that the 1992 Update was ever voted on or approved by the membership. Therefore, its specific requirements for ballot formatting were not legally binding.
Compliance of 2015 Vote: The January 29, 2015, vote complied with the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
No Violation of Open Meeting Laws: The evidence did not support a finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Dismissal: Because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof, the petition was dismissed.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who bears the burden of proof in an HOA dispute heard by the OAH?

Answer: The party asserting the claim (the Petitioner).

What specific formatting did Thomas Satterlee claim was required for the amendment ballots?

Answer: He claimed the ballots must contain the original section proposed to be changed followed by the proposed new section.

Why did the ALJ rule that the "1992 Update" was not a valid amendment?

Answer: There was no evidence or certification that it had been voted on or approved by a majority of the members as required by the original 1990 CC&Rs.

According to A.R.S. § 33-1804, what information must be included in a notice for a special meeting?

Answer: The time and place of the meeting, and the purpose of the meeting, including the general nature of any proposed amendments or changes in assessments.

What happened to the ALJ's decision when the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action by October 1, 2015?

Answer: The ALJ decision was certified as the final administrative decision of the Department.

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Tension Between Recordation and Validity: In this case, the 1992 Update was recorded with the Pima County Recorder, yet the judge found it was not a valid amendment. Analyze the legal distinction between a document being "recorded" and a document being "legally adopted." Why is recordation alone insufficient to make an HOA document binding?
Evaluating Open Meeting Compliance: While the ALJ found no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804, witness testimony suggested a contentious environment where members felt silenced. Discuss the "policy of the state" regarding open meetings as defined in the statute. How should boards balance the need for efficient business management with the statutory requirement to allow members to speak?
The Role of Preponderance of Evidence: Explore the impact of the "preponderance of evidence" standard in this case. How did the Petitioner's inability to provide documentation of a 1992 membership vote ultimately determine the outcome of the legal challenge against the 2015 amendments?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
A.R.S.	Arizona Revised Statutes; the codified laws of the state of Arizona.
ALJ	Administrative Law Judge; an official who presides over hearings and makes legal recommendations in administrative cases.
Bylaws	The rules adopted by an organization for its internal governance and management.
CC&Rs	Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community or neighborhood.
Certification	The process by which an ALJ decision becomes the final, legally binding action of a state agency.
Member of Record	An individual legally recognized as an owner of a lot within the subdivision or association.
Planned Community	A real estate development which includes commonly owned property and is governed by an association of owners.
Preponderance of the Evidence	A legal standard of proof where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely true than not true.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Green Valley Vistas HOA.
Statute	A written law passed by a legislative body.

HOA Governance on Trial: Lessons from the Satterlee vs. Green Valley Vistas Decision

1. Introduction: The Conflict at Country Club Vistas II

On August 14, 2015, the administrative courtroom became a crucible for testing the integrity of community association records. The hearing for Case No. 15F-H1515008-BFS brought to light a fundamental tension between a homeowner's expectations and a Board's legal authority. At the heart of the dispute was a challenge by Petitioner Thomas Satterlee, appearing pro se, against the Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners Association (POA), represented by legal counsel Michael Steven Shupe.

Mr. Satterlee sought to invalidate a comprehensive 2015 update to the community's governing documents, arguing that the Board had bypassed mandatory amendment procedures. For governance strategists, this case serves as a masterclass in the "burden of proof" and the critical distinction between a document being merely "recorded" and being legally "valid."

2. The Procedural Dispute: The "1992 Update" Mystery

The Petitioner’s challenge was built upon a document recorded on March 26, 1992, titled the "1992 Update." Mr. Satterlee argued that this document established a rigid protocol for all future amendments. Specifically, he cited Articles XIII, XIV, and XV, which allegedly required the Board to provide a side-by-side comparison—citing original sections followed by proposed changes—on any written ballot.

During testimony, Mr. Satterlee contended that the Board’s failure to provide this "side-by-side" format in the January 2015 update made it "virtually impossible" for members to evaluate the changes. He framed the Board’s actions as a deliberate attempt to limit participation, testifying that they "wanted power" and had "no intention" of allowing meaningful member review. This highlights a common risk for Boards: even when acting in good faith, a failure to address perceived procedural precedents can lead to accusations of bad-faith governance.

3. The Defense: Grounding Governance in Valid Records

Governance professionals must scrutinize the Association’s defense, which successfully dismantled the "recorded document" fallacy. The Respondent argued that the 1992 Update was never a valid amendment. The foundational authority was the original Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded on September 20, 1990.

Section XXIII of the 1990 CC&Rs explicitly stated that the covenants would remain in effect until January 1, 2000, at which point they would automatically extend for successive 10-year periods unless changed by a majority vote. The "smoking gun" in this case was the timeline: the 1992 Update was attempted eight years before the first authorized renewal date.

Furthermore, Board Secretary Linda Clemens testified that exhaustive research yielded no evidence or certification that the membership had ever voted on or approved the 1992 Update. While Mr. Satterlee argued that "no prudent man" would record a document unless it had been properly adopted, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recognized a hard legal truth: Recording is a ministerial act, not a validation of process. A recorded document that lacks proof of proper member adoption is a legal nullity.

4. Legal Analysis: Open Meetings and Member Participation

The case also examined the Association’s adherence to A.R.S. § 33-1804, the statute governing Open Meetings. Arizona policy mandates that meetings be conducted openly and that notices provide "reasonably necessary" information to ensure members have the "ability to speak" before a vote.

The Board established a clear timeline of transparency:

October 18, 2014: Initial review meeting with legal counsel.
January 8, 2015: Follow-up member meeting.
January 29, 2015: The Annual Meeting and final vote.

The hearing included testimony from members Mike Koning and Michael Simpson, who criticized the atmosphere of these meetings. Mr. Koning alleged he was told to "sit down and shut up." However, a strategist’s takeaway here is the distinction between meeting decorum and statutory compliance. While the interactions may have been adversarial, the ALJ found the Board had fulfilled its legal obligation by providing the opportunity to speak. The statute does not mandate a friendly atmosphere; it mandates an open process.

5. The Verdict: Understanding "Preponderance of the Evidence"

Under A.A.C. R2-19-119, the burden of proof in an administrative hearing rests on the party asserting the claim. As a pro se petitioner, Mr. Satterlee was required to prove his case by a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning he had to demonstrate that his allegations were "more likely true than not."

Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to meet this burden because he could not prove the validity of the very document (the 1992 Update) he sought to enforce. The ALJ's findings were definitive:

Validity of the 1990 CC&Rs: These were confirmed as the only duly approved and binding foundational documents.
Failure of the 1992 Update: The update was ruled invalid because there was no certification of a member vote and it was attempted prematurely under the 1990 CC&Rs timeline.
Legality of the 2015 Vote: The vote on January 29, 2015, was held in full compliance with the requirements of the valid 1990 CC&Rs.
Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Association successfully demonstrated that it met the statutory requirements for open meetings and member notice.

The petition was dismissed in its entirety.

6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members and Boards

The Satterlee vs. Green Valley Vistas decision underscores the necessity of professional-grade administrative record-keeping. To avoid the costs and divisiveness of such litigation, associations should implement the following strategies:

Verify Document Validity and the "Chain of Title" Never assume a recorded document is enforceable. Boards must maintain a Permanent Governance File that includes not just the recorded amendment, but the certified election results, meeting minutes, and the specific notice sent to members that authorized the change. This creates a verifiable "Chain of Title" for governance.

Strict Adherence to Procedural Timelines As seen with the January 1, 2000 milestone, CC&Rs often contain "lock-in" periods. Any attempt to amend documents outside of these windows—or without following the specific amendment provisions of the valid foundational document—is void ab initio.

Distinguish Between Decorum and Compliance To withstand challenges under A.R.S. § 33-1804, Boards must ensure the legal requirements of open meetings (notice, agenda, and the opportunity to speak) are documented. While maintaining a professional decorum is a best practice for community harmony, statutory compliance is the Board’s primary shield against legal petitions.

By maintaining clear, verifiable administrative records and grounding all actions in the foundational authority of validly adopted documents, Boards can protect the community from the disruption of "pro se" challenges and ensure the long-term stability of association governance.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas Satterlee (Petitioner)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf
Michael Simpson (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Member for approx 2.5 years; testified regarding insufficient review time
Mike Koning (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Testified regarding lack of time to present questions

Respondent Side

Michael Steven Shupe (attorney)
Goldschmidt and Shupe PLLC
Attorney for Respondent
Howard Marvin (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Former President of the Association (2012-2015)
Linda Clemens (witness)
Green Valley Country Club Vistas II POA
Board Secretary

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Greg Hanchett (Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/faxed the certification

John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Posted on July 7, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515003-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-07-07
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John & Debborah Sellers	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Crossings at Willow Creek	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners established a violation regarding the Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report, as these were association records not provided. However, Petitioners failed to establish violations regarding other requested documents (insurance, policy amendments, bids) as the evidence showed these documents did not exist or were not in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.

Why this result: For the specific records not awarded, the ALJ found the documents did not exist or were not retained by the Respondent at the time of the request.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide records (Giambanco affidavit and Manager's Report)

Petitioners alleged Respondent failed to provide requested documents (affidavit, insurance records, policy amendments, RV road access, manager's report, and bids) within the statutory 10-day timeframe.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide Petitioners with copies of the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager's Report within ten days. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:32 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:52:41 (64.6 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 447655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (126.7 KB)

15F-H1515003-BFS Decision – 453308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:29 (64.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the administrative law case John & Debborah Sellers vs. The Crossings at Willow Creek (No. 15F-H1515003-BFS). The dispute centered on an allegation that the Respondent, a homeowners' association, violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to provide various association records requested by the Petitioners in January 2015.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Respondent failed to comply with the statute regarding two specific documents: the "Giambanco affidavit" and the "Manager’s Report." While the Respondent argued these documents were either not in their possession or did not contain useful information, the ALJ ruled that accessibility and content utility do not negate the statutory obligation to provide records. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to produce the documents and reimburse the Petitioners for their $550.00 filing fee. The decision was certified as final on August 18, 2015.

Procedural History

January 29, 2015: Petitioners emailed a formal records request to the property management company, AMCOR.
February 27, 2015: Petitioners filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety alleging statutory violations.
June 17, 2015: A formal hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.
July 7, 2015: The ALJ issued a decision finding the Respondent in partial violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
August 18, 2015: The decision was certified as the final administrative action after the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety took no action to modify or reject the ruling.

Analysis of Records Request and Findings

The following table details the seven items requested by the Petitioners and the ALJ’s findings for each:

Requested Record	Respondent’s Defense	ALJ Finding / Outcome
1. Giambanco Affidavit (2007)	Not in Respondent's possession; questioned the Petitioners' need for it.	Violation. The document was an association record accessible via legal counsel. The "need" for the document is irrelevant.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance Records	Not in possession initially; later obtained from the carrier and offered to Petitioners.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed in Respondent's possession at the time of the request.
3. Member Notification Policy Amendments	No such policy or amendments existed.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the documents existed.
4. RV Road Access Records	Provided a payment document for a sign; did not retain the actual invoice.	No Violation. Petitioners failed to prove the document existed at the time of the request.
5. Manager’s Report (Jan 21, 2015)	Claimed pages were blank or only contained bullet points; utility was questioned.	Violation. The report existed in the Board Packet. Content utility is not a basis for denial.
6. Competing Management Bids	Bids were destroyed after AMCOR was selected.	No Violation. The documents did not exist at the time of the request.
7. Statements per ARS 10.11620	Petitioners conceded this issue was moot.	Moot. No ruling required.

Key Themes and Analysis

1. The Scope of "Association Records" and Accessibility

A central theme of the ruling is that an association’s duty to provide records extends beyond documents physically present in their office. The ALJ clarified that if a record is held by the association’s legal counsel, it is considered "accessible" and remains an association record. The Respondent’s failure to contact their attorneys to retrieve the Giambanco affidavit was a primary factor in the finding of a violation.

2. Physical vs. Electronic Record Management

The case highlighted a transition in the association’s record-keeping. When the Respondent was self-managed, records were stored electronically (Google.docs and thumb drives). However, upon hiring AMCOR, these electronic records were printed into hard copies. The ALJ ruled that while the electronic versions might still exist on the internet, they no longer constituted the "association’s records" once the management company elected to maintain only hard copies for inspection and production.

3. Record Retention vs. Statutory Production

The Petitioners argued that the Respondent violated its own record retention policy by destroying competing bids and failing to keep invoices. However, the ALJ noted that a violation of a retention policy does not automatically constitute a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The statute governs the production of existing records; it does not mandate the creation or preservation of records that no longer exist, regardless of why they were destroyed.

Important Quotes and Legal Context

Statutory Requirement for Production

"The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. On request for purchase of copies of records… the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records." — A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

On Accessibility of Records

"While the affidavit may not have been in Respondent’s possession at the time of the request, it was an association record that was accessible to Respondent had it sought to obtain a copy from counsel." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 5

On the Irrelevance of Document Content

"Whether that information would be useful to anyone is not a basis to deny the request. Again, Respondent did not establish that the document was covered by an exception to the statute…" — Conclusion of Law ¶ 6 (regarding the Manager's Report)

On the Burden of Proof

"Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805." — Conclusion of Law ¶ 2

Recommended Order and Final Action

The ALJ recommended, and the Office of Administrative Hearings certified, the following orders:

Production of Records: Respondent must provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days of the Order.
Financial Restitution: Respondent must pay the Petitioners $550.00 (the cost of the filing fee) within 30 days of the effective date.

Actionable Insights

Proactive Document Retrieval: Associations must realize that records held by third-party agents (such as attorneys or past management companies) are still subject to member inspection requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Utility is Not a Defense: Associations cannot withhold records based on the belief that the records contain "useless" information or bullet points, provided the records do not fall under specific statutory exceptions (e.g., privileged legal advice).
Proof of Existence: Petitioners in these matters must be prepared to prove that the records they are seeking actually exist. The court cannot order the production of documents that have been destroyed, even if that destruction was arguably in bad faith or against a retention policy.
Management Transitions: When moving from self-management to a professional management company, associations should clearly define which medium (electronic or physical) constitutes the official record to ensure compliance with inspection requests.

Study Guide: Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek (Case No. 15F-H1515003-BFS)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law proceedings regarding a dispute between homeowners and their homeowners association (HOA). It covers the legal standards for records requests, the specific findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the resulting legal obligations.

Key Concepts and Case Summary

1. Legal Basis: A.R.S. § 33-1805

The central legal statute in this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the management of records for planned community associations. Under this statute:

Availability: All financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by a member or their designated representative.
Timeframes: Associations have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies of requested records.
Fees: Associations may charge for copies, but the fee cannot exceed fifteen cents per page.

2. Burden of Proof

In administrative hearings of this nature, the Petitioners (the homeowners) bear the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means they must demonstrate that it is "more probable than not" that the Respondent violated the law.

3. Record Possession vs. Accessibility

A key legal finding in this case was that an association is responsible for records that are "accessible" even if they are not in the association's immediate physical possession. If a document (such as a legal affidavit) is held by the association's counsel, it is still considered an association record that must be produced upon request.

4. Destruction and Existence of Records

The ALJ determined that an association cannot be found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 for failing to produce documents that:

Do not exist: Such as policies that were never formally adopted.
Have been destroyed: Such as competing bids that were discarded after a contract was awarded.
Are not retained: Such as specific invoices for which no copy was kept.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who were the Petitioners and the Respondent in this case?
What was the specific statutory violation alleged by the Petitioners?
According to A.R.S. § 33-1805, how many business days does an association have to provide requested copies of records?
How much was the filing fee paid by the Petitioners to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety?
Why did the ALJ rule that the failure to provide the "Giambanco affidavit" was a violation, even though the Respondent did not have it in their immediate possession?
What happened to the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development?
What was the Respondent’s initial claim regarding pages 21–23 of the Board Package (the Manager’s Report), and how did they later clarify this?
Did the ALJ find that the Respondent was required to allow inspection of electronic records on Google.docs? Why or why not?
What specific documents was the Respondent ordered to provide within ten days of the final Order?
If the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action on the ALJ’s decision by August 12, 2015, what was the legal result?

Essay Questions for Deeper Exploration

1. The Scope of Association Records

The Respondent argued they did not know why the Petitioners needed the Giambanco affidavit. Analyze the ALJ's conclusion regarding the relevance of a member's motive when requesting records under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Does the association have the legal right to vet the necessity of a request before fulfilling it?

2. Record Retention Policies vs. Statutory Compliance

During the hearing, Mr. Sellers presented a record retention policy that he claimed the Respondent failed to follow. Discuss the ALJ’s distinction between a violation of an internal record retention policy and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. Why did the ALJ rule that the retention policy was not relevant to the statutory determination?

3. Electronic vs. Physical Records Management

The Respondent transitioned from self-management to using a professional management company (AMCOR), during which electronic records were printed into hard copies and the electronic versions were no longer updated. Evaluate the legal implications of this transition as it relates to a member’s right to inspect records. How does the medium (electronic vs. hard copy) affect the association's obligations?

Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over an administrative hearing, hears evidence, and issues a decision or recommended order.
AMCOR	AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc., the property management company hired by The Crossings at Willow Creek.
A.R.S. § 33-1805	The Arizona Revised Statute that mandates the availability of association records to its members.
Association Record	Any financial or other document related to the operation of a homeowners association that is subject to member inspection.
Giambanco Affidavit	A specific legal document from 2007, signed by a board member, which became a central point of contention in the records request.
Manager’s Report	A document (or section of a Board Package) outlining updates from the property management company; in this case, it consisted of specific bullet points for discussion.
Petitioners	The parties who file a complaint or petition (in this case, John and Debborah Sellers).
Preponderance of the Evidence	The evidentiary standard in civil and administrative cases where a fact is proven if it is more likely than not to be true.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed (in this case, The Crossings at Willow Creek).
Statutory Timeframe	The legally mandated period within which an action must be taken (e.g., ten business days for record production).

Transparency at The Crossings: A Case Study in Homeowner Rights and Record Access

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Disclosure

In the realm of planned communities, transparency is not a courtesy—it is a statutory mandate. Yet, all too often, homeowners are met with stonewalling and administrative "runarounds" when they attempt to exercise their right to oversight. Such was the case for John and Debborah Sellers, who in early 2015 found themselves locked in a legal battle with "The Crossings at Willow Creek" homeowners association.

The dispute centered on the association’s failure to produce vital records within the ten-business-day window required by Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805. What began as a standard records request escalated to a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 17, 2015. The resulting decision, certified as final on August 18, 2015, serves as a landmark reminder that an HOA cannot hide behind its legal counsel or its management company to evade the law.

2. The 10-Day Rule: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

The legal backbone of this case is A.R.S. § 33-1805, which establishes the "Homeowner’s Bill of Rights" regarding association records. As synthesized from the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Conclusions of Law, the statute imposes the following strict obligations:

Broad Availability: All financial and other records of the association must be made "reasonably available" for examination by any member or their designated representative.
The Ten-Day Mandate: The association has precisely ten business days to fulfill a request for either the examination of records or the delivery of copies.
Capped Costs: While the act of reviewing records must be free of charge, the association may charge a copying fee, strictly limited to a maximum of fifteen cents per page.
Mandatory Disclosure: Unless a document falls under specific, narrow legal exceptions (such as attorney-client privilege or personal privacy), it must be produced regardless of the board's opinion on its utility.

3. The Information Gap: What the Homeowners Requested

On January 29, 2015, the Sellers—one of whom is a trained banker—submitted a written request for seven specific categories of records. Their background in finance made the discrepancies they observed in the 2014 accounts particularly concerning.

Requested Document	Brief Description/Context
1. Giambanco Affidavit	A November 2007 document signed by Board Member Peter Giambanco, prepared by the association's counsel (Ekmark & Ekmark) for a prior OAH hearing.
2. Employee Dishonesty Insurance	Policy copies and communications regarding additional coverage approved at the October 1, 2013, Board meeting.
3. Notification Policy Amendments	Records regarding a June 6, 2013, policy update involving member notification of Board meetings via post.
4. RV Road/Pioneer Park Access	Records and invoices regarding the closure of public access to Pioneer Park via the Association-owned RV road.
5. Manager’s Report	The report and contemporaneous notes from the January 21, 2015, Board Meeting (pages 21–23 of the Board Package).
6. Competing Management Bids	Written proposals from Hoamco, Liberty Management, and G&D Development (other than the winning firm, AMCOR).
7. A.R.S. § 10-11620 Statements	Explanatory statements regarding accounting changes; the Sellers noted the 2014 accounts differed substantially in format. (Later deemed moot during the hearing as info was eventually provided).

4. Defense vs. Reality: The Association’s Arguments

During the proceedings, the Association relied on a defense of "non-existence" and "loss of possession," arguments that the Judge viewed with varying degrees of skepticism.

The Miracle of the Missing Policy

Regarding the "Employee Dishonesty Insurance," the Association initially claimed it had no records. However, once the Sellers filed their petition, the Association "miraculously" contacted the insurance carrier, obtained the documents, and offered them months later. This highlights a common HOA tactic: claiming a record doesn't exist simply because it isn't currently in the desk drawer of the board president.

The Case of the Destroyed Bids

The Association admitted that once AMCOR was selected as the management company, the competing bids from Hoamco, Liberty, and G&D Development were destroyed. While the Judge ruled this was not a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805—because the records did not exist at the time of the request—this is a cautionary tale for homeowners. The law only requires the production of records that exist; it does not necessarily punish the prior "proper" destruction of documents unless a specific retention statute is proven.

Electronic vs. Hard Copy: A Warning

The Sellers argued that because the records were once maintained on Google.Docs and a thumb drive, they should be accessible electronically. However, management (AMCOR) testified they had converted everything to hard copies. The ALJ ruled that once an HOA chooses to maintain its records in hard copy format to facilitate inspection, it is not legally required to provide them in an electronic format it no longer utilizes.

5. Precedent Set: Why Possession Does Not Equal Ownership

The ALJ found the Association in direct violation of state law regarding two specific items. These rulings set a critical precedent for homeowner rights.

Constructive Possession: The Giambanco Affidavit

The Association tried to deflect responsibility by claiming they didn't have the 2007 affidavit—their lawyers, Ekmark & Ekmark, did. The Judge flatly rejected this, establishing the principle of constructive possession: If a document is held by the Association’s agents (lawyers or managers), it is an accessible "association record." Furthermore, the Association’s query into why the Sellers wanted the affidavit was ruled irrelevant. An HOA is not a gatekeeper of motive; if the record is requested, it must be produced.

The "Useless" Manager’s Report

The Association initially claimed pages 21–23 of the Board Package were blank. They later admitted the pages contained bullet points for the manager’s discussion topics but argued the info wasn't "useful." The Judge ruled that utility is not a legal basis for withholding documents. If the document contains information—even just bullet points—it is a record subject to disclosure.

6. The Final Order: Restoring Accountability

On July 7, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order designed to penalize the Association’s delays and restore the Sellers' rights:

Mandatory Production: The Association was ordered to provide the Giambanco affidavit and the Manager’s Report within ten days.
Cost-Shifting Reimbursement: Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Association was ordered to reimburse the Sellers their $550.00 filing fee. While the Association may view this as a penalty, the law views it as a necessary restoration of the homeowners' finances after being forced to litigate for records they were legally entitled to from the start.

7. Conclusion: The Homeowner's Bill of Rights for Record Access

The Sellers v. The Crossings at Willow Creek case is a blueprint for how homeowners can successfully challenge HOA secrecy. The key takeaways form a modern "Bill of Rights" for record access:

Agents’ Files are Association Files: Records held by your HOA's attorney or management company are legally "in the possession" of the HOA.
Motive is Legally Irrelevant: You do not need a "good reason" to see your Association's records. The board cannot demand a justification.
The 10-Day Clock is Absolute: Associations cannot use administrative transitions or lawyer delays to bypass the ten-business-day deadline.
Content Trumps Form: Whether a report is a polished document or a page of bullet points, if it belongs to the Association, it belongs to the members.

Transparency is the only antidote to community mismanagement. When an HOA fails to provide the "paper trail," the law provides the hammer. Homeowners should never hesitate to demand the accountability they are guaranteed by statute.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

Brenda Dozier (representative)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Peter Giambanco (board member)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Appeared on behalf of Respondent
Dennis May (property manager)
AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
President of AMCOR
Mrs. Giambanco (unknown)
The Crossings at Willow Creek
Alleged note keeper for board meetings
Robin Thomas (property manager)
AMCOR Property Professionals Inc
Copied on final certification

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certification

Morris, Deana vs. Sundance Residential HOA

Posted on June 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-06-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Deanna Morris	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sundance Residential HOA	Counsel	Mark Sahl

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article VII, Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04; Article 1, Sections 1.64, 1.65; Article II, Section 2.08; Article X, Section 10.16
N/A

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ordered that the petition be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed the prevailing party. The HOA was found to have properly approved the architectural changes, and the billing dispute was resolved prior to the hearing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents regarding the architectural approval, and the billing issue was moot.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs regarding neighbor's gazebo and balcony

Petitioner alleged that the HOA improperly approved a neighbor's walkout balcony and gazebo, claiming the structures blocked views, violated privacy, and were not compliant with the CC&Rs or design guidelines.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Improper invoice charge

Petitioner alleged the HOA added an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to her quarterly bill.

Orders: Petition dismissed (Issue resolved: HOA removed the charge as an administrative error before hearing).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: resolved_prior_to_hearing

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:42 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:47 (49.6 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 446035.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (111.5 KB)

15F-H1515001-BFS Decision – 464029.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:20 (49.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Deanna Morris vs. Sundance Residential HOA (Case No. 15F-H1515001-BFS)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law proceedings between Deanna Morris (Petitioner) and the Sundance Residential HOA (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Petitioner's allegations that the Respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by approving a neighbor's architectural additions—specifically a gazebo and a walkout balcony—and by incorrectly billing the Petitioner for attorney’s fees.

Following a hearing on June 10, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas issued a decision on June 23, 2015, dismissing the petition. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the HOA had violated its governing documents. Although a rehearing was initially considered, an order dated October 29, 2015, vacated the rehearing after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the request, effectively concluding the matter at the administrative level.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Architectural Control and Committee Authority

The primary conflict involved the Sundance Architectural Committee's approval of a construction project for Martha Duran, the Petitioner’s neighbor. The Petitioner argued that the Committee failed to follow its own rules and that the resulting structures were not "in harmony" with the neighborhood.

Rule Applicability: A point of contention was which set of rules applied. The Petitioner asserted the Committee should have used the rules effective April 1, 2014, rather than the 2011 rules. However, the Architectural Change Request was submitted in November 2013 and approved in December 2013, predating the 2014 rules.
Approval Process: Evidence showed the Committee exercised its authority selectively; while they approved the gazebo and balcony, they denied Ms. Duran’s request for a second-story addition.
Municipal Compliance: The construction was not only approved by the HOA but also permitted and inspected by the City of Buckeye, fulfilling the requirements of Article VII, Section 7.04 of the CC&Rs.

2. Homeowner Rights vs. Community Standards

The Petitioner alleged that the new structures infringed upon her personal property rights, specifically citing:

Loss of Views: The Petitioner claimed the walkout balcony and gazebo blocked her view of the sunset, which was a primary reason for her home purchase.
Privacy and Value: The Petitioner argued the HOA failed to protect her property's privacy and overall value.
Neighbor Veto Power: The proceedings clarified that under the Sundance CC&Rs, individual homeowners do not possess a "veto power" over construction projects on neighboring properties that have been approved by the HOA and meet community standards.

3. Administrative and Financial Discrepancies

The dispute also touched on the HOA's administrative handling of homeowner accounts and document requests:

Billing Errors: The Petitioner was initially billed $1,076.00 for attorney’s fees. The Community Manager testified this was an "administrative error," and the charge was removed after the petition was filed.
Document Requests: The Petitioner’s claim regarding a lack of transparency was weakened by her acknowledgment that her request for documents from the HOA was not made in writing.

4. Construction Timelines and Specifications

The Petitioner alleged the neighbor's structures were not built within the approved time frames and deviated from the approved plans.

Design Guidelines: The 2011 guidelines require construction to start within 90 days and be completed within six months of approval.
Findings: The ALJ found credible testimony from the neighbor and a Committee member that construction started within the allowed period and that the "as-built" structures complied with the approved plans and specifications.

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Source/Context	Significance
"All plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Architectural Committee for harmony and compatibility of external design and location in relation to… views from neighboring living units."	Article VII, Section 7.01 of the CC&Rs	Established the HOA's duty to consider neighboring views, which was the basis of the Petitioner's complaint.
"Neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects that have been approved by Sundance."	Willard Brunner, Architectural Committee Member	Clarified the limit of an individual homeowner's influence over their neighbor's property improvements.
"The inclusion of the attorney’s fees in the invoice that Respondent issued to Petitioner was an administrative error."	Tom Campanella, Community Manager	Served as the HOA's admission of a financial mistake, though it was corrected before the final judgment.
"Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sundance violated its governing documents (CC&Rs) in this matter."	ALJ M. Douglas, Conclusions of Law	The legal turning point that resulted in the dismissal of the petition.

Actionable Insights

Based on the findings and the legal outcome of this case, the following insights are derived for homeowners and associations:

Adherence to Written Protocols: Homeowners seeking documents or making formal complaints should ensure all communication is in writing. The Petitioner's failure to provide a written document request was noted in the findings of fact.
Exhaustion of Internal Remedies: Before seeking administrative hearings, homeowners must utilize internal HOA complaint processes. The ALJ noted that the Petitioner had not filed a formal complaint regarding "bright lights" with the HOA, despite testifying about them at the hearing.
Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings: The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires the complaining party to prove that their claim is "more likely true than not." Subjective complaints about "harmony" or "views" are difficult to prove when the HOA can demonstrate a consistent application of committee reviews and municipal inspections.
Clarification of CC&R Finality: As per Article VII, Section 7.07, decisions of the Board regarding architectural control are final. This emphasizes the importance for homeowners to participate in the initial architectural review and appeal process rather than relying on post-construction litigation.
Timeline Documentation: Both HOAs and homeowners should keep meticulous records of construction start and end dates. In this case, the neighbor's ability to testify that they started and finished within the periods allowed by the 2011 Design Guidelines was critical to the defense.

Administrative Law Study Guide: Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Deanna Morris and the Sundance Residential Homeowners Association (HOA). It covers the legal framework, factual findings, and procedural outcomes of the case.

1. Case Overview

Case Number: 15F-H1515001-BFS
Petitioner: Deanna Morris
Respondent: Sundance Residential HOA
Presiding Official: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas
Hearing Date: June 10, 2015
Location: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

2. Core Legal Concepts and Standards

Statutory Authority

Under A.R.S. § 41-2198.01, the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety is authorized to receive petitions from homeowners or associations regarding violations of planned community documents or regulating statutes. These matters are heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in an administrative hearing lies with the party asserting the claim (the Petitioner). The required standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the Petitioner must persuade the judge that the allegations are "more likely true than not."

Governing Documents

The dispute centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the following:

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): Specifically Article VII (Architectural Control), Article I, Article II, and Article X.
2011 Design Guidelines: Rules regarding construction timelines and architectural approval.

3. Key Findings of Fact

The Dispute

On January 5, 2015, Deanna Morris filed a petition alleging that Sundance Residential HOA violated its CC&Rs by:

Approving a neighbor’s (Ms. Duran) gazebo and walkout balcony that allegedly did not comply with design standards or harmony requirements.
Allowing construction to proceed outside of approved time frames.
Issuing an unexplained invoice for $1,076.00 to the Petitioner’s account.

The HOA and Neighbor Response

Architectural Approval: Ms. Duran submitted an Architectural Change Request in November 2013. The Committee approved the balcony and gazebo in December 2013 but denied a request for a second-story addition.
Municipal Compliance: The City of Buckeye issued building permits for the structures and conducted inspections upon completion.
Administrative Error: The HOA acknowledged that the $1,076.00 invoice (for attorney's fees) was an administrative error and removed it from Ms. Morris's account on May 13, 2015.

Evidence and Testimony

Witness	Key Testimony Points
Deanna Morris	Asserted the structures blocked her view of the sunset, lacked harmony, and violated 2014 rules.
Rod Fleishman	Co-owner of the residence; testified the structures blocked a portion of the scenic view.
Martha Duran	Neighbor; testified she received all necessary HOA and City approvals before and during construction.
Willard Brunner	Architectural Committee member; testified that the structures met community standards and that neighbors do not have "veto power."
Tom Campanella	Community Manager; confirmed the approval followed CC&Rs and the invoice was an error.

4. Legal Provisions Referenced

CC&R Section 7.01: Requires the Architectural Committee to review plans for "harmony and compatibility of external design" in relation to surrounding structures and views.
CC&R Section 7.04: Establishes that HOA approval is in addition to, not in lieu of, municipal permits.
CC&R Section 7.07: States that Board decisions on architectural control are final and not subject to alternate dispute resolution.
2011 Design Guidelines:
Approval Expiration: Construction must start within 90 days of approval.
Construction Period: Projects must be completed within six months of approval unless otherwise specified.

5. Decision and Subsequent Actions

The Recommended Order (June 23, 2015)

ALJ M. Douglas ruled that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated its governing documents. Key factors included:

The Committee followed proper procedures in reviewing and approving the plans.
The completed structures were inspected and found to comply with approved specifications.
The Respondent (Sundance HOA) was deemed the prevailing party, and the petition was dismissed.

Subsequent Procedural History (October 2015)

Following the initial decision, a rehearing was briefly considered. However, on October 29, 2015, the Department rescinded the Order Granting Rehearing Request. The hearing scheduled for November 2, 2015, was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the Department for further action.

6. Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the primary reason Deanna Morris challenged the construction of her neighbor's balcony and gazebo?
Which specific standard of proof is required in an Arizona administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes?
What did the Architectural Committee deny in Ms. Duran's original Architectural Change Request?
According to the 2011 Design Guidelines, within how many days must construction begin once an application is approved?
How did the HOA address the $1,076.00 charge on Ms. Morris's bill?
Does an HOA approval exempt a homeowner from obtaining municipal building permits according to Section 7.04?

7. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Tension Between Harmony and Property Rights: Analyze how CC&R Section 7.01 attempts to balance the "harmony and compatibility" of a neighborhood with an individual owner's right to improve their property. Use the testimony of Ms. Morris regarding her "blocked view" versus the Committee's approval to support your argument.
The Role of Procedural Regularity: Evaluate the importance of the Architectural Committee’s testimony in this case. How did the documentation of the approval process and the subsequent inspections by the City of Buckeye influence the ALJ’s determination that the HOA had not violated its governing documents?
The "Veto Power" Concept: Discuss the legal and practical implications of Willard Brunner’s statement that "neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects." How does this concept affect the stability of community design standards?

8. Glossary of Important Terms

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01: The Arizona Revised Statute that grants the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety the authority to hear HOA-related disputes.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A professional presiding officer who hears evidence and issues recommendations in administrative legal proceedings.
Architectural Committee: A body within an HOA responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed changes to properties to ensure they meet community standards.
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property owners within a planned community.
Harmony and Compatibility: A subjective architectural standard used to ensure new constructions or modifications fit the aesthetic and structural character of the existing neighborhood.
Petitioner: The party who initiates a lawsuit or petition (in this case, Deanna Morris).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof where a claim is proven if it is shown to be more likely than not to be true.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Sundance Residential HOA).
Vacated: To cancel or render void a scheduled legal proceeding or order.

When Views Clash with CC&Rs: Lessons from a Sundance Residential HOA Dispute

In the quiet community of Buckeye, Arizona, a standard architectural improvement became the center of a protracted legal battle that serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners and associations alike. The dispute in Morris v. Sundance Residential HOA pitted resident Deanna Morris against her homeowners’ association (HOA) over the approval of a neighbor’s backyard additions—a gazebo and a walkout balcony.

The conflict centered on Ms. Morris’s assertion that the Sundance Architectural Committee (the "Committee") failed to uphold community standards, resulting in structures that allegedly obstructed her views and invaded her privacy. This analysis explores the 2015 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision, examining how the "harmony" of a community is legally weighed against the subjective expectations of its individual members.

The Petitioner’s Case: Allegations of Oversight

Ms. Morris filed a multi-issue petition alleging that Sundance Residential HOA violated several provisions of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically citing Articles 1 (Sections 1.64, 1.65), II (Section 2.08), VII (Sections 7.01, 7.03, 7.04), and X (Section 10.16). Supported by the testimony of co-owner Rod Fleishman, who corroborated the loss of a "scenic view," Ms. Morris presented a case built on the following grievances:

Improper Regulatory Framework: Ms. Morris argued the Committee erroneously applied the 2011 Design Guidelines to the project. She contended that the 2014 rules—which became effective April 1, 2014—should have governed the build, despite the neighbor’s application being submitted on November 18, 2013.
Deviation and Delays: The Petitioner alleged the structures deviated from the approved plans and were not completed within the mandatory construction timelines (90 days to start, six months to complete).
Loss of Aesthetic Amenity: The core of the complaint was the loss of "unobstructed views of the sunset," which Ms. Morris claimed was a primary factor in her home purchase. She asserted the structures negatively impacted her property value and privacy.
"Park-Like" Lighting: Ms. Morris highlighted the installation of twelve unapproved lights under the balcony and one in the gazebo, testifying that the resulting illumination made the yard look "like a park" at night.
Financial Reactive Management: A mysterious $1,076.00 invoice for attorney fees appeared on Ms. Morris’s account. Notably, the HOA only removed this charge on May 13, 2015—well after the petition was filed—citing it as an "administrative error."

The HOA and Neighbor Response: Following the Process

The Respondent, Sundance Residential HOA, and the neighbor, Martha Duran—who notably purchased her residence before Ms. Morris—maintained that the approval followed all established protocols. They argued that the architectural process functioned exactly as intended to balance neighbor interests.

Evidence of Compliance

Issue	HOA/Neighbor Defense
Committee Oversight	The Committee exercised active discretion by approving the balcony and gazebo but denying the neighbor's request for a second-story addition.
Regulatory Validation	Ms. Duran obtained building permits from the City of Buckeye; the structures passed all municipal inspections and a final HOA inspection.
Timeline Adherence	Evidence demonstrated that construction commenced within 90 days and was completed within the six-month window required by the 2011 Guidelines.
Harmony & Precedent	Committee member Willard Brunner testified that "numerous" similar balconies and gazebos exist in Sundance, making these structures consistent with community "harmony."

The Legal Verdict: Why the Petition was Dismissed

The case was adjudicated by ALJ M. Douglas under the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard, requiring the Petitioner to prove her claims were "more likely true than not." Ultimately, the ALJ found that Ms. Morris failed to meet this burden.

The ruling was based on the broad authority granted to the Committee under the CC&Rs:

Objective Harmony: Under Article VII, Section 7.01, the Committee is tasked with reviewing plans for harmony with "surrounding structures, landscaping, topography and views." The judge found the Committee’s determination that the structures met community standards to be credible.
Compliance with Law: Per Section 7.04, the neighbor’s successful acquisition of City of Buckeye permits and subsequent passing of inspections provided strong evidence of compliance.
Finality of Authority: The court highlighted Article VII, Section 7.07, which states that Board decisions regarding architectural control are final and not subject to further appeal or alternate dispute resolution.

Because the structures were consistent with community standards and the "as-built" measurements matched the approved plans, the ALJ recommended dismissal.

Administrative Post-Script: The Order to Vacate

The legal proceedings saw a brief extension when a rehearing was initially considered. However, the matter reached its final conclusion in October 2015. ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer signed an "Order Vacating Hearing" after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety rescinded the rehearing request. The matter was remanded to the Department, effectively upholding ALJ Douglas's initial recommendation and finalizing the dismissal of Ms. Morris's claims.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for HOA Members

The Morris case provides a roadmap for how architectural governance is viewed through a legal lens. For homeowners, the following lessons are paramount:

Understand the "Harmony" Clause: Architectural committees evaluate projects based on the aesthetic of the entire community, not the subjective preference of an individual. Per Section 7.01, "harmony" is a collective standard involving topography and surrounding structures, which often supersedes a single neighbor's desire for a specific view.
Documentation is Mandatory: Formal disputes require a paper trail. A critical weakness in Ms. Morris’s case was her admission (referencing Paragraph 14 of the findings) that her requests for documents from the HOA were not made in writing. Verbal requests rarely hold weight in administrative hearings.
The Limits of Veto Power: As testified by Willard Brunner, "neighbors do not have a veto power for construction projects" that have been approved by the HOA and meet municipal codes. Living in a planned community means accepting the Committee’s authorized discretion over architectural changes.

Ultimately, this dispute reinforces that while CC&Rs protect a community's standards, they do not guarantee an individual homeowner permanent control over their neighbor’s airspace or aesthetic choices, provided the formal Architectural Change Request process is followed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Deanna Morris (Petitioner)
Sundance Residential HOA member
Appeared on her own behalf; owner of residence in Sundance
Rod Fleishman (Witness)
Co-owner of Petitioner's residence
Testified regarding scenic view blockage

Respondent Side

Mark Sahl (Respondent Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented Sundance Residential HOA
Martha Duran (Witness)
Neighbor/Homeowner
Testified regarding her construction of the gazebo/balcony at issue
Willard Brunner (Witness)
Sundance Architectural Committee
Member of the Committee; testified regarding approval process
Tom Campanella (Witness)
Sundance Residential HOA
Community Manager

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Order Vacating Hearing in related docket 15F-H1515001-BFS-rhg
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
CC'd on Order Vacating Hearing
Dawn Vandeberg (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed/Processed Order Vacating Hearing

Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix

Posted on May 22, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1415008-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-05-22
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge deemed Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association the prevailing party and dismissed Attila Revesz's petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws regarding the annual meeting and quorum requirements.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Attila Revesz	Counsel	—
Respondent	Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association of Phoenix	Counsel	Craig Boates

Alleged Violations

Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

Why this result: The ALJ found credible testimony that a quorum was present (including a member via telephone) and Petitioner offered no substantial evidence to the contrary.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to hold valid annual meeting

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Article 2.1 of Bylaws

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 442072.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:25 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:51:31 (62.5 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 442072.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (83.9 KB)

15F-H1415008-BFS Decision – 447098.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:10 (62.5 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Attila Revesz vs. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

Executive Summary

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. The Validity of the 2014 Annual Meeting

The core of the dispute was the Petitioner's claim that no annual meeting occurred in 2014. While a meeting did take place on May 22, 2014, the Petitioner argued it was invalid due to:

Lack of a Board Quorum: Three Board members are required for a quorum. Two were present in person, but the third (Angelo Peri) participated via telephone.
Lack of a Homeowner Quorum: The Petitioner challenged whether enough homeowners were present, either in person or by proxy, to conduct business.

The Respondent provided testimony from Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of RealManage, who affirmed that a quorum was met for both the Board and the homeowners.

2. Evidentiary Standards and Credibility

The decision hinged largely on the credibility of witness testimony regarding the telephonic presence of Board member Angelo Peri:

Testimony Conflict: A witness for the Petitioner, Rick Sanchez, testified he did not see a telephone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Conversely, Ms. Greenstein testified that Mr. Peri was present via cell phone, noting the room lacked a landline.
Documentary Errors: Draft minutes of the meeting initially listed Mr. Peri as absent. Ms. Greenstein clarified that these were errors typical of draft documents and that the final adopted minutes correctly showed Mr. Peri as present.

3. Petitioner Inconsistency

4. Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings

Important Quotes with Context

Quote	Context
"Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."	The legal definition of "Preponderance of the Evidence" used by the ALJ to evaluate the case (citing Black’s Law Dictionary).
"This finding is strongly supported by the fact that Mr. Revesz, by acting as a director or Board member during 2014, accepted that he had been elected as Board member at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting."	The ALJ's justification for crediting the Respondent's version of events, noting the Petitioner's contradictory actions.
"Ms. Greenstein provided credible testimony that Mr. Peri was present by telephone at the May 22, 2014 annual meeting and that there was a quorum."	The ALJ’s formal finding regarding the presence of the necessary Board members to validate the meeting.
"No action by the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety was received… the attached Administrative Law Judge Decision is certified as the final administrative decision."	The statement by Interim Director Greg Hanchett confirming that the decision became final because the Department did not modify or reject it within the statutory timeframe.

Procedural Timeline and Certification

The administrative process followed a specific statutory timeline:

February 6, 2015: Notice of Hearing issued.
May 7, 2015: Hearing conducted.
May 22, 2015: ALJ Decision transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
June 26, 2015: Deadline for the Department to accept, reject, or modify the decision.
July 1, 2015: Decision certified as final after no action was taken by the Department.

Actionable Insights

Documentation and Minutes

Telephonic Participation

The decision confirms that telephonic participation (in this case, via cell phone) can satisfy quorum requirements, provided it is documented and the individual is considered "present."

Consistency in Legal Challenges

Rights to Appeal

Parties dissatisfied with a certified final decision have the right to:

Request a rehearing from the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A).
Seek judicial review in Superior Court, though they may be required to request a rehearing first. Filing a notice of action with the Office of Administrative Hearings is required within ten days of filing a complaint for judicial review.

Study Guide: Attila Revesz v. Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association

I. Case Overview and Key Facts

The Central Dispute

The Association maintained that an annual meeting was held on May 22, 2014. Revesz contested the validity of this meeting based on two primary arguments:

Lack of Board Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough Board members present.
Lack of Homeowner Quorum: Revesz argued there were not enough homeowners present to conduct business.

Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner’s Case: Rick Sanchez testified he did not see a phone or hear anyone on a phone during the meeting. Draft minutes initially listed Board member Angelo Peri as absent.
The Respondent’s Case: Jo-Ann Greenstein (RealManage) testified that a quorum of homeowners was present (personally or by proxy). She clarified that while there was no landline in the room, Board member Angelo Peri attended via cell phone.
The Conflict of Action: Following the May 22, 2014 meeting, Revesz and Sanchez were elected to the Board by voice-vote and subsequently acted in their capacities as Board members throughout 2014. This behavior was cited by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as evidence that they accepted the validity of the meeting at the time.

II. Key Concepts and Legal Standards

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

2. Quorum Requirements

Board Quorum: For Shadow Mountain Villas, three Board members constitute a quorum.
Homeowner Quorum: Must be established through members present in person or via proxy.
Telephonic Presence: The case established that presence via cell phone constitutes being present for the purposes of a quorum, even if a physical landline is not available.

3. Administrative Procedure

Agency Action: The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety has a specific window to accept, reject, or modify an ALJ's decision.
Final Certification: If the Department takes no action within the statutory timeframe (pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08), the ALJ’s decision is automatically certified as the final administrative decision.

III. Short-Answer Practice Questions

Who was the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing?
What was the specific Bylaw article allegedly violated by the Association?
On what date was the contested annual meeting held?
According to the Association's records, how many Board members are required for a quorum?
What was the Association's explanation for the draft minutes listing Angelo Peri as absent?
Why was the Board election on May 22, 2014, conducted by voice-vote rather than a written ballot?
By what date did the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety have to act before the ALJ decision was automatically certified?
What error was noted regarding Attila Revesz's name in the Board meeting minutes?
Who provided the testimony regarding the presence of homeowners via proxy?
What is the first step a party must take if they wish to challenge the final administrative decision in Superior Court?

IV. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Preponderance of Evidence: Analyze the ALJ’s determination that Revesz failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Discuss how the Association’s testimony regarding telephonic attendance and the Petitioner’s own subsequent actions as a Board member weighed against the Petitioner's claims.
The Validity of Telephonic Participation: Evaluate the implications of the ALJ's finding that a Board member's presence via cell phone satisfies quorum requirements. How does this decision reflect the practicalities of modern administrative meetings versus traditional landline or in-person requirements?
Administrative Certification and Finality: Explain the process by which an ALJ decision becomes "final." Discuss the significance of the June 26, 2015, deadline in this case and what the Department’s inaction meant for the legal standing of the ALJ's original order.

V. Glossary of Important Terms

Term	Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)	An official who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving government agencies.
Bates Numbers	A numbering system used to identify and track individual pages of evidence or documents in a legal matter.
Certification	The process by which an ALJ decision is officially designated as the final agency action, often due to the passage of time without modification by a director.
Preponderance of the Evidence	The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that makes a claim more likely to be true than not.
Proxy	Authority given by one person to another to act or vote on their behalf, often used to establish a quorum in homeowner association meetings.
Quorum	The minimum number of members of an assembly or board that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.
Respondent	The party against whom a petition or complaint is filed; in this case, the Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association.
Voice-vote	A voting method in which those in favor say "aye" and those opposed say "no," used here because the number of candidates matched the number of open seats.

Quorum, Cell Phones, and Irony: Lessons from an HOA Legal Dispute

The Hook: When Governance Becomes Personal

The Core Complaint: A Question of Legitimacy

The Quorum Controversy: Presence via Cell Phone

Witness Volatility: The hearing featured a dramatic shift in testimony. Rick Sanchez, appearing for the Petitioner, initially admitted during cross-examination that the meeting minutes were approved without objection in March 2015. However, under follow-up questioning by Mr. Revesz, Mr. Sanchez reversed his position, claiming no vote had occurred. This inconsistency weakened the Petitioner’s case in real-time.
The "Draft" Minute Fallacy: Mr. Revesz relied on draft minutes which listed Mr. Peri as absent. The Association countered with the final minutes adopted in March 2015, which recorded Mr. Peri’s telephonic presence. Jo-Ann Greenstein, vice-president of the management firm RealManage, testified that draft minutes are inherently prone to clerical errors. A prime example of this administrative fallibility was found in the Board meeting minutes, where Mr. Revesz himself was erroneously listed as "Attilla Balbo."

Key Evidence While the Petitioner’s witness noted the absence of a landline in the room, the ALJ found the manager’s testimony more credible. The Association successfully established that modern technology satisfies attendance requirements; Board Member Angelo Peri’s participation via cell phone was sufficient to constitute a quorum.

The Paradox of the Petitioner: An Unexpected Election

Legal Standards: The "Preponderance of Evidence"

In administrative hearings, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but rather a lower threshold known as the Preponderance of the Evidence.

Element	Description
Standard of Proof	Preponderance of the Evidence (A.A.C. § R2-19-119).
Definition	Evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposition (more probable than not).
Burden of Proof	Rests entirely on the Petitioner (Mr. Revesz).
Result of Failure	If the evidence is "tied" or unconvincing, the Petitioner fails to meet the burden and loses the case.

The Final Verdict: Certification and Dismissal

Key Takeaways for HOA Members

Prioritize Formal Adoption Over Draft Records: Draft minutes are legally unreliable. Boards must ensure that the formal approval process is used to correct clerical errors (like the "Attilla Balbo" misspelling) before records are finalized.
Digital Presence is Legal Presence: Unless specifically prohibited by an HOA’s bylaws, telephonic participation—including via cell phone—is a valid method for establishing a quorum.
Conduct Constitutes Acceptance: A homeowner cannot easily challenge the validity of an election if they have spent months acting as an elected official. Your behavior as a member or director can serve as a legal validation of the Association’s actions.
The Rebuttal Requirement: To challenge a manager’s testimony regarding homeowner quorums and proxies, a petitioner must provide "substantial evidence." Mere skepticism of the results is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Attila Revesz (Petitioner)
Homeowner
Also referred to erroneously as Attilla Balbo in board minutes
Rick Sanchez (witness)
Testified for Petitioner; acted as board member in 2014

Respondent Side

Craig Boates (attorney)
Boates & Crump, PLLC; Boates Law Firm, PLLC
Full name Craighton T. Boates
Jo-Ann Greenstein (witness)
RealManage
Vice-president of RealManage (agent for Respondent)
Russell Hutchinson (board member)
Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
Shelly Rothgeb (board member)
Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
Present at May 22, 2014 meeting
Angelo Peri (board member)
Shadow Mountain Villas Condominium Association
Present via telephone at May 22, 2014 meeting

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presided over hearing and rehearing dismissal
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decisions
Debra Blake (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Interim Director; recipient of transmitted decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Care of for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/e-mailed/faxed copies of decisions

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort

Posted on May 11, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415011-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-05-11
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Kenneth Nowell	Counsel	—
Respondent	Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Steven D. Leach

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 6.4, 6.5; Bylaws 6.4, 10.2
Bylaws 6.4
CC&Rs 3.25, 6.4(b)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the CC&Rs or Bylaws regarding land acquisition, financial assessments, or construction projects.

Why this result: Burden of proof not met; Association actions were found to be within their authority and properly voted upon where required.

Key Issues & Findings

Land Purchase and Funding of Improvements

Petitioner alleged the Association violated governing documents by purchasing land and levying assessments/loans without a 2/3 vote. The ALJ found the Association had authority and the required majority votes were obtained.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

The $20,000 Option

Petitioner alleged the Board required a membership vote to purchase a $20,000 land option. The ALJ found the expenditure did not exceed the threshold requiring a vote.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

The Beverage Serving Center

Petitioner alleged the Board constructed a serving center without a vote (changing common area nature) and improperly used reserve funds. The ALJ found it was a replacement (allowed) and did not change the nature of the area.

Orders: Dismissed

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:50 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T10:50:59 (61.6 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 440536.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (117.3 KB)

14F-H1415011-BFS Decision – 446583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:09 (61.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Nowell v. Greenfield Village RV Resort (Case No. 14F-H1415011-BFS)

Executive Summary

This briefing document outlines the administrative hearing and final decision regarding a dispute between Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner) and Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). Mr. Nowell alleged several violations of the Association’s governing Community Documents—comprising the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The core of the dispute involved the Association’s authority to purchase land, the methods used to fund improvements, the purchase of a land option, and the construction of a beverage serving center. Following a hearing on April 21, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden determined that Mr. Nowell failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. On June 26, 2015, the ALJ's decision was certified as the final administrative action, dismissing Mr. Nowell’s petition and naming Greenfield Village RV Resort as the prevailing party.

Analysis of Key Themes

1. Board Authority and Governance Hierarchy

A central theme of the case is the scope of the Board’s power versus the rights of the Association members. The ALJ established a clear hierarchy for the "Community Documents":

Articles of Incorporation: Control if they conflict with the Bylaws.
CC&Rs: Control if they conflict with the Bylaws.
Board Discretion: Under CC&Rs § 4.1 and § 11.9, the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the Association unless a specific membership vote is required by the Community Documents.

2. Fiscal Responsibility and Assessment Classification

The dispute highlighted the legal distinctions between types of assessments and expenditures:

General Assessments: Used for operating expenses and the Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund.
Special Assessments: Used for construction or replacement of items in Common Areas.
Capital Expenditures: Defined as distinct from maintenance expenses, requiring membership approval if they exceed $20,000.
Borrowing Limits: The Association is restricted from borrowing more than $20,000 without a majority vote of the membership.

3. Evidentiary Standards in Administrative Hearings

The case underscores the burden of proof required in such proceedings. The Petitioner was required to prove that violations were "more probable than not" (preponderance of the evidence). The ALJ found that the Petitioner provided little evidence and often relied on mistaken interpretations of the governing documents.

Detailed Analysis of Disputed Actions

The Land Purchase and Financing

In February 2014, the Association held an election regarding the purchase of land at 4711 East Main Street, Mesa, for $940,000 and improvements estimated at $862,500.

Issue	Petitioner Allegation	ALJ Finding
Authority	The Association lacks the authority to acquire property.	The Articles of Incorporation (§§ 2 and 3) explicitly grant the Association authority to acquire property.
Vote Threshold	A 2/3 majority was required for the assessments.	Only a majority vote is required for general and special assessments per CC&Rs §§ 6.4, 6.5 and Bylaws § 6.1.
Funding Source	Land was paid for via an improper special assessment.	Evidence showed the land was purchased via a general assessment, which was properly ratified.

The $20,000 Land Option

Prior to the 2014 election, the Board spent $20,000 from operating funds to secure an option on the land.

Ruling: The ALJ found that because the expenditure did not exceed $20,000, it did not trigger the Bylaw requirement for a membership vote. The Board acted within its authority under the $20,000 threshold for capital expenditures.

The Beverage Serving Center

A new beverage center was constructed on higher ground to replace an older center prone to flooding. The project cost approximately $79,000, funded by a combination of a $50,000 reserve fund allocation, a $20,000 operating fund allocation, and an $8,000 donation from a tennis club.

Ruling on Nature of Area: The Petitioner failed to show that the center changed the "nature or purposes" of the Common Area, which would have required membership approval under CC&Rs § 3.25.
Ruling on Reserve Funds: The ALJ determined the center was a "replacement" for an existing facility. Under CC&Rs § 6.4(b), the Board is authorized to use reserve funds for the replacement of improvements in Common Areas.

Important Quotes with Context

"Unless the CC&Rs, the Bylaws, or the Articles of Incorporation specifically require a vote of the Membership, the Board may act on the Association’s behalf."

Context: This finding clarifies the default state of governance within the RV resort, placing the burden on the Petitioner to find specific prohibitions against Board actions.

"Mr. Nowell’s allegations… [are] predicated on Mr. Nowell’s mistaken opinion that the Association may not purchase land."

Context: The ALJ noted that the Petitioner's legal arguments were fundamentally flawed because they ignored the broad powers granted to the Association in its Articles of Incorporation.

"Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."

Context: The ALJ's definition of "preponderance of the evidence," which served as the legal yardstick that the Petitioner failed to meet.

Actionable Insights

For Association Boards

Strict Adherence to Expenditure Thresholds: The Board successfully defended its $20,000 option purchase because it remained exactly at the limit. Boards should be meticulously aware of "bright-line" financial triggers in their Bylaws.
Ratification is Critical: The fact that the annual budget and assessments were ratified by a majority of the membership was a primary factor in the Association's victory.
Document Hierarchy Knowledge: Boards should ensure that their actions are supported by the Articles of Incorporation, as these can override conflicting Bylaws.

For Members/Petitioners

Burden of Proof: Petitioners must provide specific evidence rather than opinions. In this case, acknowledging a lack of certainty regarding the allegations (as the Petitioner did during the hearing) significantly weakened the case.
Read the Articles of Incorporation: Many restrictions or permissions are found in the Articles, not just the CC&Rs. A misunderstanding of these foundational documents can lead to the dismissal of a petition.
Distinguish Maintenance from Capital Improvement: Understanding the legal definition of a "replacement" vs. a "new construction" is vital when challenging the use of reserve funds.

Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort: Administrative Law Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings between Kenneth Nowell and the Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. (Case No. 14F-H1415011-BFS). It covers the governance of homeowners' associations, legal standards of proof, and the interpretation of community governing documents.

I. Case Overview and Key Concepts

1. Regulatory Framework and Governing Documents

The Greenfield Village RV Resort is governed by a hierarchy of "Community Documents." When these documents conflict, a specific order of precedence applies:

Articles of Incorporation: The primary document establishing the Association's purpose, including its right to acquire and manage property.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Also referred to as the "Declaration," these outline the use of common areas and the authority to levy assessments. They take precedence over the Bylaws.
Bylaws: These detail the operational procedures of the Board and the Association, including voting requirements for expenditures and borrowing.

2. Legal Standard: Preponderance of the Evidence

In administrative hearings of this nature, the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner (the person bringing the complaint). The standard used is a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, showing that the alleged facts are "more probable than not."

3. Board Authority vs. Membership Approval

Under the Community Documents:

General Authority: The Board may act on the Association’s behalf unless the Community Documents specifically require a vote of the membership.
Majority Vote Requirements: A majority of votes cast is required to ratify the budget, general assessments, and special assessments.
The $20,000 Threshold: Membership approval is specifically required for capital expenditures (distinct from maintenance) exceeding $20,000 and for borrowing in excess of $20,000.
Common Area Changes: Consent of the Association is required for alterations that change the nature and purposes of the Common Area.

II. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What were the three primary events central to Kenneth Nowell’s allegations against the Association? Answer: The Association's purchase and financing of land and related improvements at 4711 East Main Street, the Board’s purchase of a $20,000 option on that same land, and the Board's approval to construct a new beverage serving center.

2. According to the Bylaws, what is the specific voting requirement for a "special assessment"? Answer: A special assessment must be ratified by a majority of votes cast at a meeting of the Association.

3. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the $20,000 expenditure for a land option did not require a membership vote? Answer: Section 6.4 of the Bylaws requires a vote for capital expenditures greater than $20,000. Because the expenditure was exactly $20,000 and the Petitioner failed to prove it was a "capital expenditure" requiring a vote, the Board’s action was upheld.

4. How does the Association define the difference between a general assessment for "Operating Expenses" and a "Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund"? Answer: Operating expenses cover required or appropriate activities to carry out Association purposes, while the Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund is maintained specifically for periodic replacement and repair of improvements in Common Areas.

5. What is the hierarchy of authority if the CC&Rs and the Bylaws conflict? Answer: According to Bylaw § 12.2, the CC&Rs control when they conflict with the Bylaws. Similarly, the Articles of Incorporation control if they conflict with the Bylaws.

6. What was the outcome of the 2014 election regarding the land purchase and borrowing? Answer: The membership approved purchasing the land for $940,000 (Issue #2), a general assessment/budget to fund the purchase (Issue #3), a special assessment for improvements (Issue #5), and borrowing up to $1,598,500 for related loans (Issue #6).

III. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Analysis of Board Discretion and Fiduciary Duty

The ALJ found that the Board did not violate the CC&Rs when constructing a new $79,000 beverage serving center. Discuss the distinction made between a "capital expenditure" and a "replacement" as defined in Section 6.4(b) of the CC&Rs. How does the source of funding (donations, reserve funds, and operating funds) impact the legality of a Board’s decision to build without a full membership vote?

2. Evaluating the Burden of Proof in Administrative Law

In this case, Kenneth Nowell acknowledged at the hearing that he was unsure of the specific allegations he had raised and presented "little evidence." Analyze the importance of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. How does this standard protect an organization from unsubstantiated claims by individual members, and what must a petitioner provide to successfully challenge a Board's decision?

3. The Scope of Association Purpose

Mr. Nowell argued that the Association did not have the authority to acquire property under Section 4.1 of the CC&Rs. However, the ALJ cited the Articles of Incorporation to rule otherwise. Examine the relationship between different governing documents. Why is it essential for an Information Architect or Legal Professional to review the Articles of Incorporation in addition to the CC&Rs when determining the legal powers of a Homeowners Association?

IV. Glossary of Important Terms

ALJ (Administrative Law Judge): A presiding officer in an administrative hearing who hears evidence and issues a decision (in this case, Thomas Shedden).
Articles of Incorporation: The legal document that creates the Association and defines its primary purposes and powers.
Capital Expenditure: Funds used by an organization to acquire, upgrade, and maintain physical assets such as property or buildings, distinguished from day-to-day maintenance expenses.
CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The declaration that governs the use of land and the rights/obligations of the Association and its members.
Common Area: Property within the resort intended for the use and enjoyment of all Association members, such as tennis courts or recreational facilities.
General Assessment: Periodic fees collected from members to cover operating expenses and reserve funds.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; it means a fact is more likely to be true than not true.
Ratification: The formal validation or approval of a proposed action (such as a budget or assessment) by the membership.
Special Assessment: A one-time fee charged to members to cover specific projects, such as major improvements or unexpected repairs, which must be approved by a majority vote.
Supplemental Budget: A financial plan created to address expenses not covered in the original annual budget, which the Board may only enter into if provided for in the governing documents.

Understanding Community Governance: Key Lessons from the Greenfield Village RV Resort Legal Decision

1. Introduction: When Community Vision Meets Legal Challenges

In the complex landscape of residential association management, major capital projects—such as land acquisitions and facility expansions—frequently serve as catalysts for internal friction. When a community’s vision for growth clashes with individual dissent, the resulting legal disputes often hinge on the meticulous interpretation of governing documents. Such was the case in Kenneth Nowell vs. Greenfield Village RV Resort (No. 14F-H1415011-BFS), a high-stakes matter adjudicated in April 2015 involving a project with a total value exceeding $1.8 million.

The dispute arose when a resident challenged the Board's authority to execute a massive expansion and facility upgrade. This case serves as a definitive study for board members and homeowners alike, illustrating how the specific language in community documents and adherence to voting procedures determine the legality of board actions.

2. The Governance Hierarchy: Articles, Bylaws, and CC&Rs

Governance at Greenfield Village is dictated by a set of "Community Documents" that operate under a strict legal hierarchy. As an expert analyst, it is critical to note that these documents are not co-equal. According to Section 12.2 of the Bylaws, conflicts are resolved through the following prioritizations:

Articles of Incorporation: These are the supreme authority. When the Articles conflict with the Bylaws, the Articles control.
CC&Rs (Declaration): These establish the primary rights and obligations of the community. When the CC&Rs conflict with the Bylaws, the CC&Rs control.
Bylaws: These serve as the operational framework for the Board but remain subordinate to both the Articles and the CC&Rs.

Under Sections 4.1 and 11.9 of the CC&Rs, the Board of Directors is granted the general authority to manage the business and affairs of the Association. Crucially, the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the Association in all instances unless a specific vote of the membership is expressly required by the Community Documents.

3. The $1.8 Million Expansion: A Case Study in Proper Procedure

The focal point of the Nowell case was a February 12, 2014, election regarding the purchase and improvement of land at 4711 East Main Street. This project was a significant undertaking for the Association, involving the following financial commitments:

Land Purchase Price: $940,000, structured to be paid in five annual installments.
Improvements: Estimated at $862,500.
Financing: The membership approved a total borrowing capacity of up to $1,598,500 to facilitate these two components.

The Association correctly utilized two distinct assessment categories to fund the project, grounded in the CC&Rs:

General Assessments (CC&R § 6.4): Applied to the land purchase. These assessments cover operating expenses and the "Replacement and Repair Reserve Fund." Because the land purchase was integrated into the annual budget over five years, it was categorized as an operating expense.
Special Assessments (CC&R § 6.5): Applied to the $862,500 in improvements. These are specifically reserved for the construction, reconstruction, or repair of items in the Common Area.

From a governance perspective, the success of this project was bolstered by overwhelming membership support. Despite being given a five-year payment option, approximately 87% of the membership chose to pay their assessments in full in advance, providing a powerful mandate for the Board’s actions.

4. Debunking the "Two-Thirds" Myth: Voting Requirements Explained

A recurring point of contention in community disputes is the misunderstanding of voting thresholds. The Petitioner in the Nowell case argued that a two-thirds majority was required to approve the land purchase and assessments. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, debunked this "myth" by citing CC&Rs §§ 6.4 and 6.5 and Bylaws § 6.1.

The Voting Standard: To ratify budgets, general assessments, or special assessments, the Association requires only a majority of the votes cast at a meeting where a quorum is present—not a two-thirds majority.

The evidence demonstrated that the Association had correctly followed these procedures, and the majority vote obtained during the February 2014 election was legally sufficient.

5. The $20,000 Threshold: Managing Capital Expenditures

Bylaws Sections 6.4 and 10.2 impose a $20,000 limit on certain Board actions. Specifically, any "capital expenditure" (distinct from maintenance) or loan exceeding $20,000 requires membership approval. The Nowell case examined two specific board actions against this threshold:

The Land Purchase Option: The Board spent $20,000 from operating funds to secure an option on the Main Street land prior to the formal election. The court ruled this was a valid exercise of Board authority; it did not exceed the $20,000 limit and served as a necessary "due diligence" step using operating funds before seeking a full membership vote.
The Beverage Serving Center: The Board authorized a $79,000 replacement of a beverage center that had been suffering from safety issues due to its flood-prone location. This project was funded by an $8,000 donation from the tennis club, $50,000 from the Long Range Fund (managed by the Long Range Planning Committee), and $20,000 from operating funds.

The ALJ ruled that this did not violate the $20,000 capital expenditure rule because the center was a replacement of an existing facility rather than a brand-new capital addition. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to prove that a replacement intended to rectify a flooding safety issue constituted a "capital expenditure" as defined in the Bylaws.

6. The Burden of Proof: Why the Petitioner’s Case Was Dismissed

In administrative proceedings, the "Preponderance of the Evidence" standard requires the petitioner to prove that their allegations are "more probable than not." The Nowell case highlighted the difficulties faced by pro se litigants; in fact, the ALJ noted that the Petitioner acknowledged during the hearing that he was "not sure what allegations he had raised" due to confusion over his initial filings.

The Association prevailed through the "credible testimony" of President Ron Thorstad and the definitive legal "checkmate" found in the Articles of Incorporation §§ 2 and 3, which explicitly grant the Association the power to "acquire property." This supreme document superseded the Petitioner’s claims that the Association lacked the authority to buy land. Consequently, all allegations regarding violations of CC&R sections 3.25, 6.4, 6.5 and Bylaws sections 6.4 and 10.2 were dismissed.

7. Conclusion: Practical Takeaways for Association Members

The Nowell vs. Greenfield Village decision offers vital practical takeaways for ensuring effective community governance:

Prioritize the Articles of Incorporation: The right to acquire property or engage in major business acts is often established at the highest level of the document hierarchy. Boards should look to the Articles first to establish foundational authority.
The Maintenance vs. Capital Distinction: Replacing or repairing an existing facility (especially for safety or flood mitigation) may be classified as maintenance or replacement, which often grants the Board more flexibility than the "capital expenditure" rules used for entirely new additions.
Documentation is Defensive: The Association’s victory was secured by maintaining clear records of election results and ratified budgets. When a board can prove that it followed the specific "majority of votes cast" standard and correctly utilized funds (like the Long Range Fund), it is shielded from legal challenge.

Ultimately, transparency in the budget process and a rigorous adherence to the established hierarchy of governing documents protect the community's assets and the Board's decision-making integrity.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Kenneth Nowell (Petitioner)
Resident appearing on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Steven D. Leach (attorney)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Attorney for Respondent
Ron Thorstad (witness)
Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc.
Association President; testified at hearing

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Director listed on transmission
Greg Hanchett (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; signed Certification of Decision
Debra Blake (Agency Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Director; recipient of certified decision
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (OAH Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing certificate