Robert A. White vs. Aspen Shadows Condominium Association

Posted on April 2, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	16F-H1616001-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Robert A. White	Counsel	—
Respondent	Aspen Shadows Condominium Association	Counsel	Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1253
A.R.S. § 33-1247
CC&Rs 4.23
A.R.S. § 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed all claims. The HOA was found to be in compliance with insurance and records statutes. The maintenance issue involved a Limited Common Element for which the owner was responsible. The noise issue was barred by CC&R waivers and timing.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof on all counts. The HOA demonstrated compliance with statutes (electronic records, reasonably available insurance) and the CC&Rs (Limited Common Element responsibility, noise waivers).

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Maintain All-Risk Insurance

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to maintain required insurance coverage because the insurer denied a claim for a slow leak/construction defect.

Orders: Dismissed. Respondent maintained a policy; exclusions for slow leaks/defects are common and reasonably available.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Maintain Common Elements (Grinder Pump)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to repair a grinder pump damaged by storm runoff and improper installation.

Orders: Dismissed. Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective. As a Limited Common Element, costs were assessable to Petitioner anyway.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Enforce Floor Covering Restrictions

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to enforce prohibitions against hard floor coverings in the unit above him, causing noise.

Orders: Dismissed. The flooring was installed years prior to Petitioner's purchase. Petitioner assumed risk of noise under CC&Rs.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Failure to Provide Records (Resale Disclosure)

Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide paper copies of governing documents upon purchase, offering electronic versions instead.

Orders: Dismissed. The statute permits electronic delivery.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Decision Documents

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 488610.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (203.0 KB)

16F-H1616001-BFS Decision – 495160.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:47 (59.8 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the hearing proceedings for Case No. 16F-H1616001-BFS.

**Case Overview**
**Petitioner:** Robert A. White (Owner of Unit 41)
**Respondent:** Aspen Shadows Condominium Association
**Hearing Date:** March 24, 2016
**Decision Date:** April 1, 2016 (Certified Final May 9, 2016)

The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding insurance coverage, common element maintenance, noise enforcement, and document delivery,.

**Key Issues and Arguments**

**1. Insurance Coverage (Water Damage)**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1253 and CC&R Article 8.1 by denying coverage for water damage caused by a leak from the unit above (Unit 42).
* **Arguments:** The Petitioner claimed the Association withdrew the claim, denying him protection. The Respondent argued it submitted the claim to Farmers Insurance, but the carrier denied it because the damage resulted from a "long-term" slow leak, a policy exclusion,.
* **Finding:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Association maintained the required insurance. The insurer's denial based on standard exclusions for maintenance issues (like slow leaks) did not constitute a violation by the Association,.

**2. Grinder Pump Liability**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner sought reimbursement for a grinder pump ($1,697.50) serving his unit, alleging it was damaged by storm runoff due to an improper diversion wall (a common element).
* **Arguments:** The Respondent contended the pump is a "Limited Common Element" serving only Unit 41. Evidence suggested the pump was previously functional and damage resulted from a dislodged lid allowing debris inside.
* **Finding:** The pump is a Limited Common Element. Under the CC&Rs, the Association may assess repair costs for such elements to the specific unit owner benefiting from them. The Petitioner failed to prove the pump was defective or that the Association was liable for the replacement.

**3. Hard Floor Noise Violation**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner alleged the unit above (Unit 42) had prohibited hard flooring, violating CC&R Article 4.23, and the Association failed to enforce the rule.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent noted the flooring was installed in 2008 (six years prior to the Petitioner's purchase) and argued the Petitioner assumed the risk of noise,.
* **Finding:** The CC&Rs contain a specific provision (Section 13.20) where owners assume the risk of noise and vibrations from adjacent units,. The Petitioner failed to establish the Association was liable for the potential violation or the resulting noise.

**4. Document Delivery**
* **Issue:** The Petitioner claimed the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by failing to provide paper copies of the CC&Rs and Bylaws before escrow closed.
* **Arguments:** The Respondent argued compliance by providing documents in electronic format, which the Petitioner refused to accept.
* **Finding:** A.R.S. § 33-1260 permits delivery in "either paper or electronic format". The Respondent’s use of electronic delivery was legal, and the Petitioner’s refusal to accept that format did not make the Association's actions a violation.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ determined the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated any statutes or CC&Rs,. The petition was **dismissed**, and no action was required of the Respondent. The decision became the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety on May 9, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert A. White (Petitioner)
Owner of Unit 41

Respondent Side

Maria R. Kupillas (attorney)
Choate & Seletos
Represented Respondent
Melanie Lashlee (community manager)
Testified for Respondent
Ty Hart (engineer)
Flagstaff Ranch
Facilities Engineer
Faith Johnson (escrow officer)
Respondent's escrow officer, initials 'f.j.'

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Kenji Cassady (witness)
Royal Plumbing, Inc.
Plumber who repaired leak in Unit 42
Nicolas Boley (claims representative)
Farmers Insurance
Senior Field Claims Representative
Tyler (contractor)
DC Restoration
Mitigation contractor
Jacqueline Martinez (contractor)
Damage Control AZ
Sent email confirming leak duration
Dave Taylor (unit owner)
Owner of Unit 42
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Agency head
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Joni Cage (staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy
Rosella J. Rodriguez (clerk)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Mailed/transmitted decision

Carol M. Root vs. Candlewood Estates at Troon North

Posted on March 28, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515014-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carol M. Root	Counsel	—
Respondent	Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02; Section 11.03

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that the governing documents obligated the parties to use a specific Dispute Resolution process (mediation/arbitration). The Department of Fire Building and Life Safety certified this decision as final.

Why this result: The Petitioner was bound by the mandatory arbitration/mediation provisions in the governing documents, precluding administrative hearing jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Dismiss / Mandatory Dispute Resolution

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the CC&Rs require mandatory dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) for all claims. Petitioner argued the amendment adding this clause was invalid.

Orders: The complaint was dismissed because the applicable governing documents require that the claim be handled through a mandatory Dispute Resolution process.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Candlewood Declaration Section 11.01
Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02
Candlewood Declaration Section 11.03
Master Declaration Article 16

Maxine Fairbanks vs. Santa Bird Condominium Association

Posted on March 28, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516012-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Maxine Fairbanks	Counsel	—
Respondent	Santa Bird Condominium Association	Counsel	Julianne C. Wheeler

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1254
A.R.S. § 33-1243
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Declaration Paragraph 9E

Outcome Summary

Respondent admitted to all allegations regarding misuse of surplus monies, failure to adhere to budget, refusal to provide financial records, and unilateral board member decisions. The new Board committed to future compliance. Respondent was ordered to comply with statutes and CC&Rs and reimburse Petitioner's $2,000 filing fee. No civil penalty was imposed due to mitigating testimony from the new Board chairman.

Key Issues & Findings

Surplus monies

Allegation that the Board used surplus monies without an approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Budget adherence

Allegation that the Board failed to adhere to the approved budget.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Financial records

Allegation that the Board refused to provide a financial report.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Board voting

Allegation that an individual board member made decisions without a Board vote.

Orders: Respondent admitted violation; ordered to comply.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 487946.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:46 (113.1 KB)

15F-H1516012-BFS Decision – 495139.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-28T11:12:47 (61.2 KB)

**Case Overview**
In the matter of *Maxine Fairbanks v. Santa Bird Condominium Association* (Case No. 15F-H1516012-BFS), the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings adjudicated a dispute regarding the mismanagement of condominium association funds and governance procedures.

**Key Issues and Allegations**
The Petitioner, Maxine Fairbanks, alleged that the Respondent (the Association) violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) and the Association's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The specific allegations included:
* **Surplus Monies:** Using surplus funds without an approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1254).
* **Budget Adherence:** Failing to adhere to the approved budget (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1243).
* **Financial Records:** Refusing to provide financial reports to members (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258).
* **Governance:** Allowing individual board members to make decisions without a formal vote of the Board (violation of Declaration Paragraph 9E).

**Hearing Proceedings and Arguments**
During the hearing on March 17, 2016, the Respondent was represented by a newly elected Board of Directors.
* **Admissions:** The Respondent **admitted to all allegations**, attributing the violations to the conduct of the previous Board.
* **Mitigation:** Patricia Benner, the chairman of the new Board, testified that the Association’s records were in "disarray" when they took office. She detailed extensive steps taken to achieve compliance, including hiring a management company.
* **Petitioner’s Request:** The Petitioner requested an order ensuring future compliance with statutes and governing documents.

**Legal Findings and Decision**
Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party.
* **Violations Confirmed:** Based on the Respondent's admissions, the judge concluded that the Association had violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1254, 33-1243, 33-1258, and Paragraph 9E of the CC&Rs.
* **Mitigation Accepted:** The judge found Ms. Benner’s testimony credible and accepted the new Board's corrective actions as mitigation.

**Outcome and Order**
The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders on March 28, 2016:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with the applicable statutes and CC&Rs.
2. **Reimbursement:** The Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioner's **filing fee of $2,000.00** within 30 days.
3. **No Civil Penalty:** Due to the mitigating testimony regarding the new Board's efforts, no civil penalty was assessed.

**Final Status**
The decision was certified as the final administrative decision on May 9, 2016, after the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety took no action to reject or modify the ALJ's decision within the statutory timeframe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Maxine Fairbanks (Petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf; testified at hearing

Respondent Side

Julianne C. Wheeler (attorney)
Jennings, Haugh & Cunningham, LLP
Attorney for Respondent
Patricia Benner (witness)
Santa Bird Condominium Association
Chairman of the new Board; testified at hearing
Peggi Hollen (board member)
Santa Bird Condominium Association
Chairman (listed on mailing list)

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; signed certification
Joni Cage (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Agency Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed mailing/transmission

Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC

Posted on March 11, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516009-BFS
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-11
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners	Counsel	Beth Mulcahy
Respondent	MS Pavillions 35 LLC	Counsel	Danielle K. Graham

Alleged Violations

Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner (HOA). It was determined that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs by removing a deck railing without explicit approval, rejecting the defense that approval for fascia replacement covered the railing removal. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and reimburse the filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to obtain approval for exterior changes (deck railing removal)

The HOA alleged the Respondent removed a deck railing without approval. The Respondent argued approval to replace fascia implicitly included railing removal. The ALJ found the Committee could not have known removal was necessary based on the application, thus specific approval was required and not obtained.

Orders: Respondent must comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs and pay Petitioner's filing fee of $550.00.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Article VIII, Section 5(a)

Decision Documents

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 485540.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:34 (102.5 KB)

15F-H1516009-BFS Decision – 489011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:35 (188.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516009-BFS
**Date of Decision:** March 11, 2016

**Overview and Proceedings**
This hearing before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings addressed a dispute between Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners (Petitioners) and MS Pavillions 35 LLC (Respondent). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on February 26, 2016. The central issue was whether the Respondent violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by making unapproved exterior changes.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain approval from the Architectural Committee prior to removing a deck railing. This section of the CC&Rs mandates prior written approval for any exterior changes, alterations, or repairs.

On January 15, 2015, the Master Architectural Committee (MAC) granted the Respondent approval to install "New metal flashing at patio". The Respondent subsequently removed the deck railing while performing this work.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioners' Argument:** The Association argued that the MAC approved only the metal flashing, not the railing removal. Witnesses testified that exterior changes require specific approval and that the removal of the railing was never discussed or approved during the January 15 meeting.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent contended that approval to remove the railing was a necessary element of the approved fascia installation. Michael Shotay, the managing member for the Respondent, testified that the railing was attached to the old wood flashing and had to be removed to replace the flashing. He argued that the MAC knew or should have known that installing the new fascia was impossible without removing the railing.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The ALJ acknowledged the Respondent's testimony that the railing was attached to the wood flashing due to a previous remodel.

However, the ALJ found that because the Respondent had relocated the railing during that previous remodel, the Architectural Committee would not have known that it was impossible to install the new fascia without removing the railing. Consequently, the MAC's approval for the flashing did not implicitly include approval to remove the railing.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Respondent failed to obtain the required approval prior to removing the deck railing. The Decision ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs.
2. **Fees:** The Respondent must pay the Petitioners' filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was found to be appropriate.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Beth Mulcahy (Petitioner Attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm (implied)
Represented Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners
Dee Bloom (Witness)
Testified regarding the removal of the deck railing
James A. Funk (Witness)
Gainey Ranch Community Association
Executive Director and member of the Master Architectural Committee

Respondent Side

Danielle K. Graham (Respondent Attorney)
Represented MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
Michael Shotay (Respondent Representative)
MS-Pavillions 35 LLC
Managing member; testified at hearing; spelled 'Shotey' in minutes but 'Shotay' in decision text
Tom Tedford (Contractor)
Flo-Tech Inc.
Mentioned in testimony as the contractor who performed the work

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; transmitted decision

Arnold C. Williams vs. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.

Posted on March 9, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516007-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-09
Administrative Law Judge	M. Douglas
Outcome	yes
Filing Fees Refunded	$2,000.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Arnold C. Williams	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.	Counsel	Douglas W. Glasson

Alleged Violations

CC&R 7.4; CC&R 7.7

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found in favor of the Petitioner. The HOA admitted that the Board resolutions attempting to amend CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 were invalid as they lacked the required homeowner vote. Evidence showed the HOA failed to enforce the existing CC&Rs regarding service areas and parking. The HOA was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to enforce CC&Rs and Invalid Board Resolutions

Petitioner alleged that the HOA Board failed to enforce CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 regarding trash/storage and vehicle parking, leading to neighborhood deterioration. Petitioner also alleged the Board illegally passed resolutions to amend these CC&Rs without the required homeowner vote. Respondent admitted the resolutions were invalid and unenforceable.

Orders: Respondent ordered to comply with CC&R 7.4 and 7.7; Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner filing fee of $2,000.00; declared that any amendment to CC&Rs must be voted on by homeowners.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

CC&R 7.4
CC&R 7.7

Decision Documents

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 485232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:25 (106.6 KB)

15F-H1516007-BFS Decision – 492722.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:26 (60.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Arnold C. Williams v. Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc.**
**Case No. 15F-H1516007-BFS**

**Overview**
This administrative hearing addressed a petition filed by homeowner Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner) against the Sonoita Ranch Homeowner’s Association Inc. (Respondent). The dispute concerned the Association's failure to enforce specific Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Board's attempt to amend governing documents without a homeowner vote,.

**Key Facts and Issues**
The Petitioner alleged the Respondent failed to enforce two specific provisions:
1. **CC&R 7.4:** Pertaining to the screening of service areas, trash accumulation, and the concealment of bins,.
2. **CC&R 7.7:** Prohibiting the parking or storage of boats, trucks, trailers, and RVs on streets or lots unless in an attached carport,.

The Petitioner argued that the Board passed resolutions regarding these rules that contradicted the CC&Rs and violated the requirement for a homeowner vote. He testified that the lack of enforcement led to a sharp decline in the neighborhood's appearance, citing an "onslaught" of RVs and weeds, which hindered his ability to sell his residence,.

**Arguments and Testimony**
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Williams argued the Board illegally altered CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7 via board resolution rather than the required membership vote. He presented testimony that the neighborhood had deteriorated due to non-enforcement,.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association admitted passing resolutions in 2009 and 2012 to "clarify" the CC&Rs. However, the Association conceded these resolutions were invalid and unenforceable because they conflicted with the existing CC&Rs,. Board members testified they had relied on incorrect advice from a previous management company, which claimed the Board could amend CC&Rs by resolution,. The Association’s counsel confirmed that valid amendments require a 75% affirmative vote from homeowners.

**Legal Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. The ALJ concluded:
* The Respondent admitted the resolutions passed to remedy "perceived problems" with the CC&Rs were invalid.
* The Petitioner credibly established that the Association was not enforcing CC&Rs 7.4 and 7.7.
* The Association violated its governing documents by failing to enforce these rules and attempting improper amendments.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Order mandated the following:
1. **Enforcement:** The Respondent must comply with the applicable provisions of CC&R 7.4 and CC&R 7.7.
2. **Amendment Procedure:** Any future amendments to the CC&Rs must be voted on and passed by the homeowner members, as required by the governing documents.
3. **Monetary Award:** The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $2,000.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed.

**Procedural Note**
The ALJ issued the decision on March 9, 2016. The Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety did not accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the ALJ’s ruling was certified as the final administrative decision on April 26, 2016.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Arnold C. Williams (Petitioner)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Member)
Appeared on his own behalf
Kenneth Elflein (Witness)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc. (Resident)
Testified regarding neighborhood deterioration

Respondent Side

Douglas W. Glasson (Respondent Attorney)
Curl & Glasson, P.L.C.
Represented Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Nathan Tennyson (Witness)
Brown Olcott PLLC
General counsel for Sonoita; testified regarding CC&Rs
Scott DeRosa (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board actions
Eloy Blanco (Board Member)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding Board meetings
Sarah Curley (Board President)
Sonoita Ranch Homeowner's Association Inc.
Testified regarding CC&R amendments
Paul Gready (Property Manager)
Express Property Management
Testified as expert in HOA management

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 (OAH 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
Signed mailing certificate

Carol M. Root vs. Candlewood Estates at Troon North

Posted on February 17, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1515014-BFS
Agency	DFBLS
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2016-03-28
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Carol M. Root	Counsel	—
Respondent	Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02; Section 11.03

Outcome Summary

Why this result: The Petitioner was bound by the mandatory arbitration/mediation provisions in the governing documents, precluding administrative hearing jurisdiction.

Key Issues & Findings

Motion to Dismiss / Mandatory Dispute Resolution

Orders: The complaint was dismissed because the applicable governing documents require that the claim be handled through a mandatory Dispute Resolution process.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Candlewood Declaration Section 11.01
Candlewood Declaration Section 11.02
Candlewood Declaration Section 11.03
Master Declaration Article 16

Decision Documents

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481408.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:51 (82.6 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 481409.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (38.5 KB)

15F-H1515014-BFS Decision – 487851.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:11:52 (59.8 KB)

**Case Title:** *Carol M. Root v. Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association*
**Case Number:** 15F-H1515014-BFS

**Procedural History and Facts**
This matter came before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) regarding a dispute between Petitioner Carol M. Root and Respondent Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association. The Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Hearing," arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction because the community's governing documents mandated a specific Dispute Resolution process.

The relevant governing documents included the Master Declaration for Troon North and the Candlewood Declaration. Sections 11.02 and 11.03 of the Candlewood Declaration detailed mandatory procedures for "all Claims" arising from the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the documents. This process required notice, mediation, and binding arbitration through the Arbitration & Mediation Center of Arizona (AMCA).

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The HOA asserted that the restrictive covenants act as a binding contract. Because the Declarations mandate alternative dispute resolution for all enforcement and interpretation claims, the Petitioner was preempted from pursuing remedies through the OAH.
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner opposed dismissal on two grounds:
1. **Validity of Amendment:** She argued the 2004 amendment adding the dispute resolution clause was adopted in violation of the CC&Rs and was invalid. However, she presented no evidence that the amendment had ever been successfully challenged or legally determined to be invalid.
2. **Scope of Provision:** She argued that because Section 11.01 was titled "Agreement to Avoid Litigation," the provision only prohibited filing lawsuits in court, not filing administrative proceedings with the OAH.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tammy L. Eigenheer analyzed the covenants as a contract binding on the property owner. The ALJ rejected the Petitioner's arguments for the following reasons:
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner failed to provide evidence that the 2004 amendment was invalid.
* **Contract Interpretation:** The ALJ found that Section 11.02 clearly defines "all Claims" broadly. While Section 11.01 mentions avoiding litigation, the plain language of the subsequent sections mandates that any dispute regarding the governing documents must be handled through the specific Dispute Resolution process.
* **Conclusion:** The covenants explicitly prevent the dispute from being brought in the OAH.

**Outcome and Final Decision**
On February 17, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision recommending that the complaint be dismissed.

The decision was transmitted to the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety for review. The Department did not take action to accept, reject, or modify the decision within the statutory timeframe. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 4

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Carol M. Root (Petitioner)

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Debra Blake (Interim Director)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Joni Cage (Staff)
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
c/o for Debra Blake
F. Del Sol (Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution
Greg Hanchett (Interim Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed Certification of Decision
Rosella J. Rodriguez (Staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy distribution

John W. Griggs v. Executive Towers HOS

Posted on January 20, 2016 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	15F-H1516004-BFS
Agency	Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal	Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	2016-01-20
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	no
Filing Fees Refunded	$550.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	John W. Griggs	Counsel	—
Respondent	Executive Towers Homeowners Association	Counsel	Christina N. Morgan

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Paragraph 13; Bylaws Article 4, Section 6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Association's conversion of a suite into a fitness center was not a structural alteration requiring a vote under the CC&Rs. Additionally, the $4,000 refurbishment cost did not trigger the Bylaws' $5,000 capital expenditure vote requirement, and the equipment lease payments were not considered capital expenditures.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the renovation was a structural alteration or that the costs constituted a capital expenditure exceeding the limit requiring a vote.

Key Issues & Findings

Unauthorized Structural Alteration and Capital Expenditure

Petitioner alleged the Association violated the CC&Rs and Bylaws by converting a commercial suite into a fitness center without a majority vote of the membership required for structural alterations and capital expenditures exceeding $5,000.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
A.R.S. § 33-1202
A.R.S. § 41-1202
A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(7)

Decision Documents

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 477049.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (183.8 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486638.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (174.6 KB)

15F-H1516004-BFS Decision – 486698.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:12:19 (60.8 KB)

**Case Summary: Griggs v. Executive Towers Homeowners Association**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516004-BFS
**Hearing Date:** January 6, 2016
**Judge:** Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

**Proceedings and Background**
Petitioner John W. Griggs, a condominium owner, filed a petition against the Respondent, Executive Towers Homeowners Association, alleging violations of the Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute arose from the Board's decision to convert "Suite 7," a vacant revenue-generating commercial space within the building, into a fitness center.

The Board had previously solicited feedback via a survey, in which a majority of responding owners favored the fitness center, but the participation level did not constitute a majority of the *entire* membership's voting power. The Respondent proceeded with the conversion based on the survey results and Board approval.

**Key Arguments**
The Petitioner argued that the Board acted outside its authority by proceeding without a formal majority vote of the entire membership. His claims relied on two main legal points:
1. **Structural Alteration:** The Petitioner argued the project constituted a "structural alteration" under CC&Rs Paragraph 13, which requires prior approval from a majority of owners. He contended that "structural" should be interpreted to include mental or monetary implications, not just physical changes.
2. **Capital Expenditure:** The Petitioner argued the project violated Article 4, § 6 of the Bylaws, which prohibits the Board from approving capital expenditures over $5,000 without a two-thirds vote of total ownership. He asserted that the total cost, including equipment leasing payments, exceeded this limit.

The Respondent argued that:
1. The renovation was not structural (removing non-load-bearing walls and flooring) and required no permits.
2. The refurbishment costs were approximately $4,000 (under the $5,000 cap), and the equipment was leased rather than purchased, meaning it was not a capital asset.
3. The Board had the discretion to repurpose common elements to protect property values and utilize vacant space.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The ALJ placed the burden of proof on the Petitioner to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

* **Structural Alteration:** The ALJ defined "structural alteration" as a significant change creating a different building or structure. The evidence showed the work involved removing temporary walls, replacing flooring, and electrical upgrades, none of which required permits or affected load-bearing walls. Consequently, the ALJ found the project was not a structural alteration requiring membership approval under CC&Rs Paragraph 13.
* **Capital Expenditure:** The ALJ accepted testimony that the refurbishment cost was $4,000, falling below the $5,000 Bylaw threshold. Regarding the equipment, the ALJ defined "capital expenditure" as an outlay to acquire or improve a fixed asset.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

John W. Griggs (petitioner)
Appeared on own behalf; owner of a residence in Executive Towers
Linda Pollack (witness)
Resident/owner; testified for Petitioner
Helen Jerzy (witness)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Board Member; testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Christina N. Morgan (HOA attorney)
VialFotheringham LLP
William B. Early (witness)
Former board member; testified for Respondent
Wayne Peter Parente (board president)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Testified for Respondent
Jay Russett (property manager)
Executive Towers Homeowners Association
Executive Director; testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
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 (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed copy certification