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	no
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:

Decision Documents

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)

**Case Summary: Nowell v. Greenfield Village RV Resort**
**Case No.** 14F-H1415011-BFS

**Hearing Proceedings and Background**
The hearing was conducted on April 21, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner Kenneth Nowell, a resident, filed a petition alleging that Respondent Greenfield Village RV Resort Association, Inc. violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws.

The dispute centered on the Association’s authority and procedures regarding three specific actions: the purchase of land at 4711 East Main Street, the purchase of an option to buy that land, and the construction of a beverage serving center. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Key Arguments and Legal Findings**

**1. Land Purchase and Assessment**
The Association held an election in February 2014 where the membership voted to purchase and improve specific land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell alleged the Association lacked the authority to acquire property and that the assessment used to fund the purchase required approval by two-thirds of the membership.
* **Legal Finding:** The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation expressly authorize the Association to acquire property. Regarding the vote, the evidence showed the land was funded by a general assessment, not a special assessment as alleged. Regardless, the CC&Rs and Bylaws require only a majority vote for ratification of assessments, not a two-thirds vote. The assessments were properly ratified .

**2. The $20,000 Land Option**
Prior to the 2014 election, the Board authorized a $20,000 expenditure from operating funds to secure an option on the land.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** Nowell argued the Association was required to hold a membership vote to authorize this expenditure.
* **Legal Finding:** The Bylaws require a membership vote only for capital expenditures *in excess* of $20,000. Because the expenditure did not exceed this threshold, Nowell failed to prove a vote was required.

**3. The Beverage Serving Center**
The Board approved the construction of a new beverage serving center to replace an old facility located in a flood-prone retention basin

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

Dennis J. Legere vs. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA

Posted on April 23, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2015-04-23
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$2,000.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Dennis J. Legere	Counsel	—
Respondent	Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner on Rehearing. The Tribunal found that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by preventing members from speaking before board votes, failing to notice committee meetings, and using email unanimous consent (A.R.S. § 10-3821) to bypass open meeting requirements. The ALJ determined that A.R.S. § 33-1804 constitutes a specific statute that prevails over the general non-profit corporation statute allowing action without a meeting, and that the HOA cannot use Title 10 to impliedly repeal Title 33 open meeting mandates.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meeting Law Violations

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by preventing members from speaking on agenda items, holding unannounced architectural committee meetings, and using email/unanimous consent to conduct business in closed sessions.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(A); pay filing fee of $2,000 to Petitioner; pay civil penalty of $2,000 to the Department.

Filing fee: $2,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,000.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3821

Decision Documents

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 437956.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (228.9 KB)

14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg Decision – 443321.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:29:51 (62.7 KB)

**Case Summary: Dennis J. Legere v. Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1414001-BFS-rhg**

**Procedural History and Context**
This matter involves a dispute between Dennis J. Legere (Petitioner) and Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA (Respondent) regarding alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804),. The case includes an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision issued in August 2014 and a subsequent **Decision on Rehearing** issued in April 2015,.

**Original Proceedings (July–August 2014)**
In the original hearing, the Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by conducting business via "email meetings" (closed sessions), failing to provide notice for architectural committee meetings, and preventing members from speaking before Board votes,,.

The HOA argued that A.R.S. § 10-3821 (Title 10) and its Bylaws permitted the Board to take action without a meeting if they obtained unanimous written consent, a practice they adopted for efficiency,.

In the original decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding speaking rights and committee notices,. However, the ALJ declined to rule on the "email meeting" issue, stating the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine violations of Title 10 (Corporations) or resolve conflicts between Title 10 and Title 33.

**Rehearing Proceedings (March 2015)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the ALJ erroneously declined jurisdiction over the "email meeting" issue. The Petitioner asserted the issue was not whether the HOA violated Title 10, but whether complying with Title 10 allowed the HOA to evade the open meeting mandates of Title 33. The Department granted the rehearing.

**Key Legal Issues on Rehearing**
The central legal question was statutory interpretation: Can an HOA utilize A.R.S. § 10-3821 (allowing corporate action by unanimous written consent without a meeting) to bypass the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804,.

The HOA maintained that taking action by unanimous written consent via email was a legal right under Title 10 and its Bylaws. The Petitioner argued this practice violated the intent of the Open Meeting Law by precluding member observation and participation.

**Rehearing Analysis and Conclusions**
The ALJ rejected the HOA's reliance on Title 10 to avoid open meetings. The decision established the following legal principles:
* **Statutory Priority:** A.R.S. § 33-1804 unambiguously requires HOA meetings to be open. While Title 10 governs non-profit corporations generally, Title 33 specifically regulates planned communities.
* **Harmonization:** Statutes must be construed together; however, an agency cannot disregard clear legislative directives,.
* **Ruling:** A specific statute (Title 33) prevails over a general statute (Title 10). The ALJ held that HOAs cannot use Title 10 to "impliedly repeal" the open meeting statutes of Title 33.

Consequently, the ALJ ruled that the Board's practice of taking action via email/unanimous consent *violated* A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

**Final Decision and Order**
The Rehearing Decision affirmed the Petitioner as the prevailing party. The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. **Email Meetings:** The use of unanimous written consent via email in lieu of open meetings is a violation of A.R.S. § 33-180

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dennis J. Legere (petitioner)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Homeowner and former board member
Tom Rawles (attorney)
Represented Petitioner in original hearing

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, PLC
Represented Respondent in original hearing; listed as 'Tony Stratman' in service list
Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Farley, Seletos & Choate
Represented Respondent in rehearing
Michelle O’Robinson (witness)
Vision Community Management
Property Manager and Field Operations Supervisor
James T. Foxworthy (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (during original hearing)
John Edgar Schuler (witness)
Pinnacle Peak Shadows HOA
Board President (as of March 2015)

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Agency Director certifying the decision
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the final administrative decision
Joni Cage (agency staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of transmitted decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution

Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association

Posted on March 2, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415006-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-03-02
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Logan C. Wolf	Counsel	—
Respondent	Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner prevailed. Respondent failed to appear. ALJ found Respondent violated CC&Rs by failing to convert Class B membership to Class A as required. Ordered to comply and pay fees/penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Convert Class B Membership

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to convert Class B memberships to Class A memberships within four years of the first lot conveyance, thereby improperly maintaining developer control.

Orders: Lakeside shall fully comply with Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of CC&Rs within 30 days; pay Petitioner $550.00 filing fee; pay Department $500.00 civil penalty.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2)

Decision Documents

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 430566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (105.6 KB)

14F-H1415006-BFS Decision – 438544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:42 (60.8 KB)

**Case Title:** *Logan C. Wolf vs. Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association*
**Case No.:** 14F-H1415006-BFS
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

### **Procedural Background**
The Petitioner, Logan C. Wolf, a homeowner and member of the Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association ("Lakeside"), filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety. He alleged that Lakeside violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding voting membership rights.

An administrative hearing was held on February 12, 2015. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf, while the Respondent (Lakeside) **failed to appear**. Additionally, Lakeside failed to file an Answer to the petition despite receiving proper notice, which may be deemed an admission of the allegations under Arizona law.

### **Main Issues and Key Facts**
The central legal issue was whether the Developer improperly retained control of the HOA by failing to convert "Class B" membership (Developer control) to "Class A" membership (Homeowner control) within the timeframe mandated by the CC&Rs.

* **Governing Provision:** Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs stipulated that Class B membership must cease and convert to Class A membership four years following the conveyance of the first lot to an owner other than the Developer.
* **Timeline of Events:**
* **September 16, 2005:** Original CC&Rs recorded.
* **February 19, 2008:** The first home was conveyed to a homeowner.
* **2012:** Based on the four-year rule, Class B membership should have expired and control should have passed to the homeowners.
* **March 26, 2013:** An amendment was created attempting to extend Class B membership, allowing the Developer (T.J. Bednar & Co.) to maintain control.

### **Arguments**
Mr. Wolf argued that the 2013 amendment was invalid because Class B membership should have already ceased in 2012. He testified that the Developer’s refusal to relinquish control was financially detrimental to homeowners, citing specifically that residents were paying over $7,000 annually to a management company selected without their vote.

Witness Christopher Grant supported Wolf’s testimony, stating that the Developer had repeatedly indicated an intent to turn over control but failed to do so, effectively "pulling the rug from under the homeowners" by attempting to amend the CC&Rs post-facto.

### **Findings and Final Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the testimony of Wolf and Grant credible. The tribunal concluded that Lakeside violated Article 2, Section 2.2(B)(2) of the CC&Rs because the transition to Class A membership was mandatory four years after the first conveyance.

**Outcome and Orders:**
The Petitioner (Wolf) was deemed the prevailing party. The Judge ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** Lakeside must fully comply with the CC&Rs (converting membership to Class A) within 30 days.
2. **Restitution:** Lakeside must reimburse the Petitioner’s $550.00 filing fee.
3. **Penalty:** Lakeside must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department.

**Certification:**
The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not reject or modify the decision within the statutory review period. Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge's decision was **certified as final** on April 28, 2015.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Logan C. Wolf (Petitioner)
Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf; testified.
Christopher Grant (Witness)
Lakeside Ridge Homeowners Association (Resident/Member)
Testified regarding developer control and management fees.

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing.
Gene Palma (Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed recipient of the decision.
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the Certification of Decision.
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in care of address for Gene Palma.
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/transmitted the certification.

William P. Lee vs. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA

Posted on February 17, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-02-16
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$200.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	William P. Lee	Counsel	—
Respondent	Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA	Counsel	Keith Hammond

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(4); A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) by failing to obtain a requisite signed petition from members before holding a special meeting to remove the Petitioner from the Board of Directors. However, the HOA did not violate statutes or bylaws regarding the vote to increase the number of directors. Petitioner was awarded half of the filing fees ($1,000) and the HOA was assessed a $200 civil penalty.

Why this result: Regarding the board expansion and other claims, the ALJ found the preponderance of evidence failed to support that the vote violated bylaws or statutes.

Key Issues & Findings

Improper Amendment of Bylaws/Board Expansion

Petitioner alleged the vote to increase the board size from 3 to 5/7 violated bylaws and statutes regarding absentee ballots and open meetings.

Orders: Denied; evidence failed to support finding of violation.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Removal from Board without Petition

HOA held a special meeting to remove Petitioner from the Board without first obtaining a petition signed by the required percentage of members.

Orders: HOA ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in the future; civil penalty assessed.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Misuse of Emergency Meeting

Petitioner alleged the Board misused an emergency meeting and resulting notice to harass and libel him.

Orders: Denied; insufficient evidence.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Decision Documents

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 428996.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (126.4 KB)

14F-H1415007-BFS Decision – 435021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:30:48 (60.7 KB)

**Case Summary: William P. Lee v. Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA**
**Case No. 14F-H1415007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing, held on February 4, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, addressed a petition filed by homeowner William P. Lee against Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA ("Greenlaw"). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated Arizona statutes and association bylaws regarding the amendment of board composition and the procedure used to remove him from the Board of Directors,.

**Key Facts and Arguments**
The Petitioner, a member of the HOA and former director, raised two primary issues:
1. **Board Expansion:** Lee alleged the HOA fraudulently amended Bylaw Article IV to increase the number of directors from three to five or seven without proper authority,.
2. **Removal from Board:** Lee alleged the "Secret Ballot" and Special Meeting used to remove him from the Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) and association bylaws.

Greenlaw’s defense included the following points:
* **Regarding Expansion:** The Board argued the increase was necessary to achieve quorums and was approved by a vote of the members, complying with bylaws allowing shareholders to change the number of directors,.
* **Regarding Removal:** Greenlaw conceded that it failed to obtain a signed petition by the members calling for Lee's removal prior to holding the vote, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). However, the Board argued the removal was justified because Lee was "aggressive and volatile," created dissension, and sent unauthorized letters to litigants involved in lawsuits against the HOA,. The vote to remove him was 70 to 4.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the claims.

1. **Violation of Removal Statute:** The ALJ found that Greenlaw violated A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1). The statute requires a specific petition signed by members before a special meeting for removal can be called. The HOA admitted it failed to obtain this petition before holding the vote to remove the Petitioner,.
2. **No Violation Regarding Board Expansion:** The ALJ ruled against the Petitioner regarding the board size amendment. The evidence showed that Article XI of the bylaws allows members to vote on changing the authorized number of directors, and the Petitioner failed to prove that the vote conducted violated the bylaws or A.R.S. § 33-1812,.

**Outcome and Final Order**
The ALJ deemed William P. Lee the prevailing party based on the violation regarding his removal.
* **Compliance:** Greenlaw was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(1) in future actions.
* **Monetary Sanctions:** Greenlaw was ordered to pay the Petitioner $1,000.00 (one-half of his filing fee) and pay a $200.00 civil penalty to the Department.

The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on April 1, 2015, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's ruling,.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William P. Lee (petitioner)
Homeowner and former board member

Respondent Side

Keith Hammond (attorney)
Keith A. Hammond P.C.
Judith W. Kyrala (witness)
Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two HOA
Board Secretary
Melanie Lashlee (property manager)
HOMECO
Community Association Manager; witness

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Gene Palma (agency director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Greg Hanchett (agency director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Interim Director; certified the decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Gene Palma
Rosella J. Rodriguez (staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk who mailed copies

R.L. Whitmer vs. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners,

Posted on January 6, 2015 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	14F-H1415004-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2015-01-07
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	R.L. Whitmer	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners	Counsel	Robert Anderson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, finding that the HOA failed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) by not ratifying the increased legal expenses through an amended budget. The HOA was ordered to comply with the statute and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Budget ratification for excess legal expenses

Petitioner alleged the HOA spent over $9,250 for legal expenses in 2013-2014 against a budget of $3,500 without proper ratification. The HOA admitted fees exceeded the budget due to unforeseen litigation but failed to hold a meeting to ratify an amended budget.

Orders: Respondent shall fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) in the future; Respondent shall pay Petitioner filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 423532.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (92.5 KB)

14F-H1415004-BFS Decision – 429149.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:10:59 (59.8 KB)

Here is a summary of the administrative hearing for Case No. 14F-H1415004-BFS.

**Case Overview**
* **Case Title:** *R.L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners*
* **Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
* **Administrative Law Judge:** M. Douglas
* **Hearing Date:** December 23, 2014
* **Decision Date:** January 7, 2015 (Certified Final on February 18, 2015)

**Background and Key Facts**
The Petitioner, R.L. Whitmer, a unit owner and member of the Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners (the "Association"), filed a petition alleging the Association violated Arizona state law regarding budget management. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that the Board President, Mrs. Karatz, authorized legal expenses exceeding $9,250, despite the approved budgets for legal expenses being only $2,500 for 2013 and $1,000 for 2014. These expenditures were made without proper ratification by the unit owners.

**Main Legal Issue**
The central issue was whether the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1243(D)**. This statute requires that, unless expressly authorized by the declaration to amend budgets independently, the Board must submit any budget or amendment to the unit owners for ratification.

**Key Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner's Position:** The Board overspent the budgeted legal fees without obtaining the necessary ratification from unit owners.
* **Respondent's Defense:**
* The Association argued the budget was insufficient because the Petitioner had filed multiple legal challenges, necessitating a response from the Association’s counsel.
* Mrs. Karatz, the former Board President, admitted that 2014 legal fees substantially exceeded the budget but argued the costs were unanticipated consequences of the Petitioner's lawsuits.
* Michael Bengson, a newly elected Board member, testified that the Board was aware of the issue and intended to meet soon to adopt an amended budget that would ratify the incurred expenses.

**Tribunal Findings and Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the burden of proof rests on the Petitioner to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the following:
1. **Statutory Requirement:** A.R.S. § 33-1243(D) mandates that budget amendments be ratified by unit owners.
2. **Violation:** The Association acknowledged

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

R.L. Whitmer (Petitioner)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Appeared on his own behalf; owner of a residence in Hilton Casitas

Respondent Side

Robert Anderson (Attorney)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Represented Respondent; retained by Michael Bengson
Michael Bengson (Board Member)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Elected to Board in October 2014; retained Robert Anderson
Esther Sue Karatz (Witness)
Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners
Former Board President; testified regarding prior legal counsel hiring

Neutral Parties

M. Douglas (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision
Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director to whom the decision was transmitted
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision as final
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Listed in copy distribution
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Administrative Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed the distribution of the certified decision