Tag Archives: 2017

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3l6q5EeQJeD2EtYbIrgYnE

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 592935.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:03:47 (115.2 KB)

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:39 (90.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717034-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.






Study Guide – 17F-H1717034-REL


Study Guide: Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, involving John L. Shields and the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association. It includes a short-answer quiz to test factual recall, an answer key for verification, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the context of the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing all information directly from the provided legal decision.

1. Who are the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case, and what is their relationship?

2. What was the specific, single-issue claim that the Petitioner, John L. Shields, filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 3, 2017?

3. What is a “party wall” according to CC&R § 6.2(A), and what specific approval is required to alter one?

4. What was the timeline of the wall extension’s construction and Mr. Johnson’s subsequent submission for approval to the Committee?

5. On what grounds did the Respondent’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, approve Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

6. What was the Petitioner’s central argument for why the Respondent should not have approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal?

7. Why was a rehearing granted after the initial hearing on September 27, 2017?

8. What contradictory evidence did the Respondent’s board consider regarding whether the Petitioner had approved the wall extension before it was built?

9. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and who bore the burden of proof in this case?

10. What was the final recommended order from Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is John L. Shields, who owns a home at 20431 E. Bronco Drive. The Respondent is the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, a homeowners’ association in Queen Creek, Arizona. Mr. Shields is a member of the Respondent association.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated § 6.2(A) of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The violation claim was based on the Respondent approving a common block wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without the Petitioner’s required approval.

3. According to CC&R § 6.2(A), a “party wall” is a fence constructed upon the back of a lot. To alter or change the design, color, material, or construction of such a wall, approval is required from both the adjoining owner(s) and the Architectural Control Committee.

4. Mr. Johnson had the wall extension built on or about October 13, 2016, without prior approval. He subsequently submitted his proposal to the Committee for approval on or about November 2, 2016.

5. The board approved the proposal based on the criteria in CC&R § 7.2, which required it to consider if the alteration was aesthetically pleasing and harmonious with its surroundings. The board inspected other extensions in the development and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be consistent with them.

6. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s approval was improper because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained the Petitioner’s approval for the block wall extension, which is a stated requirement in CC&R § 6.2.

7. A rehearing was granted by Commissioner Judy Lowe on December 5, 2017. The Petitioner requested it based on claims of errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, other errors of law, and alleged misconduct by the initial Administrative Law Judge that deprived him of a fair hearing.

8. The board knew the Petitioner objected to the wall after it was built. However, the board was also aware of at least four witnesses who stated they heard the Petitioner either actually approve of the extension or fail to object while Mr. Johnson discussed building it in his presence.

9. “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. In this case, the Petitioner, John L. Shields, bore the burden of proof to establish his claim by this standard.

10. The judge ordered that the petition be dismissed and that no action was required of the Respondent. The reasoning was that under CC&R § 6.2(A), the responsibility to get an adjoining neighbor’s approval lies with the property owner (Mr. Johnson), not the Respondent, and CC&R § 7.2 only required the Respondent to consider aesthetic factors, which it did.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to provoke deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, structuring your answer in a standard essay format.

1. Analyze the distinct responsibilities assigned to the homeowner (Mr. Johnson) and the homeowners’ association (Respondent) by CC&R § 6.2(A) and § 7.2. How did the separation of these duties form the crux of the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the decision. Explain why the evidence presented by the Petitioner, including his testimony and photograph of the wall, failed to meet this burden of proof against the Respondent.

3. Examine the role and limitations of the Architectural Control Committee as described in CC&R § 7.2. In your analysis, consider what the committee is required to evaluate, what it is explicitly not responsible for, and the provision that its approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld.”

4. Trace the procedural history of this case, from the initial petition filing to the final order after the rehearing. What does this progression reveal about the administrative hearing process and the grounds upon which a rehearing can be granted?

5. Although the petition was dismissed, the facts indicate that Mr. Johnson built the wall extension before receiving any approval and that the City of Queen Creek later found his plan to move the gate violated city codes. Argue whether the Respondent (the HOA) bears any ethical, if not legal, responsibility in a situation where its approval process is disconnected from neighbor consent and municipal law compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Tammy L. Eigenheer, from the Office of Administrative Hearings who presides over evidentiary hearings and issues decisions on matters referred by state agencies like the Department of Real Estate.

Architectural Control Committee (“the Committee”)

A body within the homeowners’ association, in this case comprised of the board members, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying proposed alterations to properties, such as fences, based on aesthetic and other specified criteria.

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that permits an owner in a planned community to file a petition with the Department of Real Estate concerning violations of community documents.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to provide evidence that proves its claim. In this case, the Petitioner bore the burden to prove his claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set forth the rules for a planned community. This case centers on the interpretation of § 6.2(A) and § 7.2 of the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, is an HOA.

Party Wall

As defined in CC&R § 6.2(A), a fence constructed upon the back of any lot that is shared between adjoining properties. Alterations require approval from the adjoining owner and the Committee.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, John L. Shields, a homeowner and member of the Respondent association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, making it more probable that a contention is true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted in this instance because the Petitioner claimed there were errors of law and misconduct by the judge in the first proceeding that deprived him of a fair hearing.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch homeowners’ association.






Blog Post – 17F-H1717034-REL


4 Surprising Lessons From a Homeowner’s Lawsuit Against His HOA

It’s a scenario many homeowners can imagine: a neighbor erects a new wall along the property line without your consent. Your first instinct is to escalate the issue to your Homeowners’ Association (HOA), assuming it’s their job to enforce the community’s rules. This common assumption—that the HOA is the ultimate authority responsible for mediating all disputes between neighbors—is powerful, but is it always correct?

A real-life administrative court case, Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, provides a valuable case study in the delineation of duties within a planned community, revealing that the answer can be a surprising “no.” This case offers critical insights into the true roles and responsibilities of an HOA. Here are the top four counter-intuitive takeaways from this legal decision that every homeowner should understand.

——————————————————————————–

1. Your HOA Isn’t a Referee for Neighbor-to-Neighbor Agreements

Mr. Shields sued his HOA because it approved a neighbor’s wall extension that he, the adjoining owner, had not approved. He believed this violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), specifically § 6.2(A), which requires approval from the adjoining owner for such changes.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, found the HOA had no legal duty to enforce this particular rule. The responsibility to secure the neighbor’s approval fell solely on the property owner making the change, not the HOA. The judge’s finding on this point was direct and unambiguous:

CC&R § 6.2(A) required that the property owner, Mr. Johnson, obtain the adjoining property owner’s, Petitioner’s, approval before he built the block wall extension. Respondent [the HOA] had no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension.

This ruling clarifies that an HOA’s role is not that of a quasi-judicial body for resolving all private disputes; its enforcement powers are limited to the specific duties enumerated in its governing documents. CC&R § 6.2(A) effectively creates a private right of action between neighbors, which the HOA is not a party to. The HOA’s role is to enforce rules that obligate the homeowner to the association, not necessarily to other homeowners.

2. The Architectural Committee’s Job Is Narrower Than You Think

In its defense, the HOA’s board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, argued that its review was based on a different rule entirely: CC&R § 7.2. The judge agreed, highlighting the Committee’s very narrow scope of responsibility.

According to the case findings, the Committee’s only legal obligation was to determine if the proposed wall was “aesthetically pleasing and consistent” with other properties in the development. Its review under § 7.2 did not require it to confirm whether the neighbor had obtained Mr. Shields’ approval as mandated by the separate rule. This legal structure isolates the two duties, and the homeowner’s error was conflating them. The HOA’s limited aesthetic review reinforces the conclusion from our first lesson: it is not responsible for policing the separate neighbor-approval requirement. An architectural green light is often purely about community harmony, not a verification of compliance with every other covenant.

3. Building First and Asking Permission Later Creates Confusion

The sequence of events in this case was disorderly, which ultimately clouded the legal issues. From the outset, the petitioner himself “vacillated on whether his issue with Respondent was that it improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal… or that it failed to enforce the requirement that Mr. Johnson had to obtain Petitioner’s approval,” foreshadowing the difficulty in proving a specific violation.

The timeline further illustrates the breakdown in process:

• October 13, 2016: The neighbor, Mr. Johnson, built the wall extension before seeking any approval.

• October 16, 2016: Mr. Shields expressed his disapproval directly to the neighbor.

• November 2, 2016: The neighbor submitted his proposal to the HOA for approval—weeks after the wall was already built.

• November 2016: The HOA Board verbally approved the wall but astutely “advised him that ‘he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.’”

This retroactive process, combined with a dispute clouded by conflicting testimony—four witnesses claimed they heard Mr. Shields either approve of the wall or fail to object—muddied the waters, making it impossible for the petitioner to meet his burden of proof regarding the HOA’s actions. The messiness of the facts directly contributed to the legal failure.

4. The Burden of Proof Rests Entirely on You

In a legal dispute with an HOA, the “burden of proof” falls on the petitioner. Mr. Shields had to establish his case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which the court defines simply as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Crucially, he had to prove that the HOA specifically violated a statute or a rule within the CC&Rs. It wasn’t enough to demonstrate that his neighbor violated a rule or that the situation felt unjust. He had to prove the HOA failed to perform a duty for which it was explicitly responsible.

The judge ultimately dismissed the petition because Mr. Shields could not meet this burden. He failed to prove the HOA had a duty to deny the application based on his lack of approval. A subjective sense of unfairness is insufficient to meet the legal standard; a petitioner must prove a direct breach of a specified duty by the association.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Know Your Rules, Not Just Your Rights

The overarching lesson from the Shields case is that CC&Rs are a legal contract with a precise, and sometimes non-obvious, allocation of responsibilities among the homeowner, their neighbors, and the association itself. The HOA is not an all-powerful enforcer but an organization with a defined, and sometimes surprisingly limited, set of duties. Homeowners, in turn, have their own responsibilities—including, at times, enforcing certain rights directly with their neighbors.

Before escalating your next neighborhood issue, have you read the fine print to see who is truly responsible for what?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John Shields (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Maria R. Kupillas (HOA attorney)
    Law Offices of Farley Choate & Bergin
    Represented Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
  • Joe Johnson (neighbor/member)
    Lot owner who built the wall extension; Husband of Sandy Johnson
  • Sandy Johnson (neighbor/witness)
    Wife of Joe Johnson; next-door neighbor to Petitioner; testified in initial hearing
  • Dean Kabanuk (board member/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
    Respondent’s board president; testified in initial hearing
  • Kristi Hancock (board member/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Board
    Attorney; served as VP (Nov 2016-Nov 2017) and President (since Nov 2017); testified in both hearings
  • Brenda Campbell (property manager/witness)
    Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch
    Respondent’s community manager; testified in initial hearing
  • A.J. Denardo (witness)
    Lives near Petitioner; testified in initial hearing regarding Petitioner's tacit approval

Neutral Parties

  • Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the initial Administrative Law Judge Decision (October 11, 2017)
  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision following rehearing (February 26, 2018)
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Granted Petitioner's request for rehearing; decision transmitted to Commissioner
  • Felicia Del Sol (OAH staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Transmitted the rehearing decision

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:51:19 (90.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717034-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.


John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:58:02 (90.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717034-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.


William Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1717041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Dax R. Watson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the notice required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) must be 'actual notice,' and the evidence supported a finding that Petitioner received constructive notice.

Key Issues & Findings

Prior to imposing reasonable monetary penalties on Petitioner for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by failing to provide proper notice before imposing penalties ($2,500 fine and $5,000 recoupment of expenses) and indefinitely suspending his membership privileges. The ALJ found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the hearing and that Respondent did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: notice, constructive notice, monetary penalties, suspension, certified mail, HOA violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:56 (83.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1717041-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision Analysis: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1717041-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner William Brown (Petitioner) and the Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent). The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, denying the Petitioner’s claim that the homeowners association violated Arizona state law regarding notification procedures before imposing penalties.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of “notice” as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1803(B). The Petitioner argued that the statute requires “actual notice”—proof of personal receipt of a notification—which he claimed he never received for a critical disciplinary hearing. The ALJ rejected this argument, establishing that “constructive notice” is legally sufficient. Constructive notice was deemed to have been achieved through the Respondent’s documented efforts to deliver notice via both certified and first-class mail.

A key factor in the decision was the ALJ’s finding that the Petitioner’s testimony was “not credible” regarding his claim that the United States Postal Service (USPS) failed to notify him of a certified letter. The decision upholds the sanctions imposed by the association, which include an indefinite suspension of membership privileges, a $2,500 fine, and the recoupment of $5,000 in related expenses.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from an incident on November 29, 2016, where Petitioner William Brown was alleged to have left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse containing papers listing several club properties. This act was interpreted as a threat, leading the Terravita Country Club to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Brown subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 28, 2017, alleging the club failed to provide proper notice before taking action.

Nov 29, 2016

William Brown allegedly leaves a box of matches and notes at the clubhouse.

Dec 2, 2016

The club’s General Manager sends a letter to Brown notifying him of an immediate suspension pending a review.

Dec 8, 2016

Brown signs for and receives the certified mail delivery of the December 2 suspension letter.

Dec 14, 2016

The club sends a letter via first-class and certified mail notifying Brown of a January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee hearing.

Dec 24, 2016

USPS tracking shows the December 14 certified letter is “out for delivery” at Brown’s temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

Jan 9, 2017

The Infractions Committee meets; Brown does not attend. The Committee sends a letter recommending indefinite suspension and fines.

Jan 12, 2017

The unclaimed December 14 certified letter is returned by the USPS to the club.

Jan 31, 2017

The club’s Board of Directors meets; Brown does not attend. The Board ratifies the sanctions.

Jan 31, 2017

The Board sends a letter to Brown detailing its decision: indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and $5,000 in expense recoupment.

Jun 28, 2017

Brown files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.

Sep 22, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings holds a hearing on the matter.

Oct 11, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issues the decision, denying Brown’s petition.

Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Notice”

The core of the legal dispute was the interpretation of the notice requirement within A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), which states, in part:

“After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”

The Petitioner argued that this statute requires “actual notice,” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” Because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016, letter notifying him of the initial hearing, he contended that all subsequent actions by the club were invalid.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation for two primary reasons:

1. Statutory Silence: The governing statute, A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, does not define the term “notice” or specify that it must be “actual notice.”

2. Legal Precedent and Practicality: The ALJ reasoned that requiring actual notice would create an unworkable loophole. A homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing,” thereby thwarting any disciplinary process.

Instead, the ALJ determined that “constructive notice” was sufficient. Constructive notice is defined as “notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The Respondent’s actions of sending notice via multiple methods met this standard.

Key Findings and Rulings

The ALJ made several critical findings of fact and conclusions of law that led to the denial of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, William Brown, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. The ALJ concluded he failed to meet this burden.

• Finding on Credibility: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s assertion was not credible. The decision notes: “Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.”

• Ruling on Constructive Notice: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner received constructive notice of the January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee meeting through two distinct actions taken by the Respondent:

1. The certified mailing of the December 14, 2016, letter, for which USPS tracking showed an attempted delivery and which the Petitioner was deemed to have refused.

2. The simultaneous first-class mailing of the same letter, which was “presumably delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.”

• Notice for Subsequent Meetings: The ALJ further presumed that the first-class mailing of the January 9, 2017, letter—notifying the Petitioner of the Board of Directors meeting—was also delivered, thus satisfying notice requirements for the final decision-making body.

Final Decision and Sanctions

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The ruling affirmed that Terravita Country Club, Inc. did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

This decision effectively upholds the sanctions imposed by the club’s Board of Directors on January 31, 2017, which include:

• Indefinite suspension of membership privileges.

• A fine of $2,500.00.

• Recoupment of expenses incurred related to the infraction, totaling $5,000.00.

The order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.






Study Guide – 18F-H1717041-REL


Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1717041-REL)

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner William Brown and Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source material.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the specific statutory violation that William Brown alleged Terravita Country Club had committed?

3. Describe the incident on November 29, 2016, that initiated the actions taken by the Respondent.

4. What was the immediate consequence imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent’s General Manager on December 2, 2016?

5. How did a temporary change of address filed by the Petitioner affect the delivery of the certified mail notice sent on December 14, 2016?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the type of notice he was required to receive for the disciplinary hearing?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge find the Petitioner’s claim about not being notified by the USPS of certified mail to be “not credible”?

8. What two forms of notice did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner had received for the January 9, 2017 meeting?

9. What were the final penalties that the Respondent’s Board of Directors imposed on the Petitioner on January 31, 2017?

10. What was the final recommended order from the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Petitioner’s petition?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Brown, and the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc. Terravita Country Club is a homeowners association in Arizona, and William Brown is a property owner and member of that association.

2. William Brown alleged that the Terravita Country Club violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803. The specific issue was that the Respondent failed to provide proper notice before imposing monetary penalties for violations of the association’s rules.

3. On or about November 29, 2016, the Petitioner allegedly left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse. Inside the box were three pieces of paper with the typed names of three locations: Director’s House, Desert Pavilion, and Country Club Clubhouse.

4. On December 2, 2016, the Respondent’s General Manager, Thomas Forbes, sent the Petitioner a letter immediately suspending him from all rights and privileges of the country club property. This suspension was to remain in effect until the disciplinary process was completed.

5. Because the Petitioner had filed a temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to Coldspring, Texas. USPS tracking showed it was “out for delivery” on December 24, 2016, but the Petitioner failed to claim it, and it was eventually returned to the Respondent.

6. The Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) required “actual notice” of the January 9, 2017 hearing. He asserted that because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016 letter, the notice requirement was not met.

7. The decision document does not explicitly state the evidence for why the claim was not credible. However, the Judge’s conclusion implies that the documented evidence from the USPS showing the letter was “out for delivery” in Coldspring, Texas, between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was more convincing than the Petitioner’s denial.

8. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner received “constructive notice” via the certified mailing for which he refused to sign. Additionally, it was presumed that the first-class mailing of the same letter was delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

9. The Board of Directors suspended the Petitioner’s membership privileges indefinitely. They also imposed a fine of $2,500.00 and sought to recoup $5,000.00 in expenses incurred related to the infraction.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) regarding notice.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal distinction between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” as defined and applied in this case. Explain why accepting the Petitioner’s argument for requiring “actual notice” would have created a potential loophole, according to the Judge’s reasoning.

2. Trace the complete timeline of events and communications, beginning with the incident on November 29, 2016, and ending with the final decision from the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2017. Detail each key date, the action taken, and the method of communication used.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that he failed to meet this burden.

4. Describe the multi-step disciplinary process employed by the Terravita Country Club. Identify the roles and recommendations of the General Manager, the Infractions Committee, and the Board of Directors in addressing the Petitioner’s alleged violation.

5. Evaluate the Respondent’s communication strategy for notifying the Petitioner of the disciplinary proceedings. Discuss the methods used (first-class mail, certified mail) and explain how these methods became a central point of contention and the ultimate basis for the Judge’s decision.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C. R2-19-119

A reference to the Arizona Administrative Code rule establishing that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this type of proceeding.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes at the heart of the case. It provides that a homeowners association’s board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

Defined as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” This was the standard of notice the Petitioner argued was required.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) in the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes findings of fact, and issues a decision.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Terravita Country Club, Inc. that made the final determination on penalties, including the indefinite suspension and fines imposed on the Petitioner.

Constructive Notice

Defined as “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of” or “notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person.” The Judge ruled the Petitioner received this type of notice.

Notice

Defined as “[l]egal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation of law as a result of some fact…; definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, of an existing right or title.” The term is not specifically defined in the relevant state statute (Title 33, Chapter 16).

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, William Brown.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Terravita Country Club Infractions Committee

A committee within the homeowners association that met on January 9, 2017, to hear evidence regarding the Petitioner’s alleged infraction and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.






Blog Post – 18F-H1717041-REL


He Ignored a Letter From His HOA. It Cost Him $7,500. Here Are 5 Legal Lessons From His Case.

Introduction: The Dreaded Envelope

It’s a feeling many homeowners know: the sight of a formal, certified letter from the homeowners association (HOA). But for homeowner William Brown, the stakes were far higher than a dispute over landscaping or dues. His troubles began after he allegedly left a box of matches at the country club’s front desk, along with a list of three club properties. The HOA, Terravita Country Club, Inc., interpreted this as an implied threat of arson and took immediate action.

When Mr. Brown ignored the subsequent legal notices, it resulted in an indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 in expenses. This article distills the official administrative court decision from his case into five surprising and critical legal takeaways that every homeowner should understand.

1. You Can Be Legally Notified—Even If You Never Open the Letter

The core of this case hinged on a crucial legal distinction. The judge’s decision rested on the critical difference between two types of legal notice:

• Actual Notice: “Notice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

• Constructive Notice: “Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.”

Because the HOA sent the meeting notice via both certified and first-class mail, the judge concluded that the homeowner had received “constructive notice.” The certified mail provided a documented attempt at delivery, while the first-class mail carried a legal presumption of delivery. Together, this combination was legally sufficient, and the law presumed Mr. Brown was aware of the meeting. This distinction is a fundamental principle that every property owner must grasp.

2. Dodging Certified Mail Is a Terrible Legal Strategy

The homeowner’s primary argument was that because he never signed for or received the certified letter notifying him of the January 9, 2017 hearing, he could not be held responsible. The judge directly rejected this line of reasoning.

To accept Petitioner’s argument, a homeowner would be able to avoid receiving “actual notice” by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing, as Respondent alleged Petitioner did in this case.

The court viewed this as an attempt to create a loophole to evade responsibility. Allowing someone to claim ignorance by simply avoiding a signature would undermine the entire legal notification process. The lesson for homeowners is that actively avoiding mail is interpreted by the courts not as ignorance, but as a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility.

3. First-Class Mail Is More Powerful Than You Think

A critical fact in the case was that the HOA didn’t rely solely on trackable certified mail; it also sent the notices via standard USPS first-class mail. This proved to be a savvy “belt and suspenders” legal strategy. By using both methods, the HOA created a redundant and legally robust notification system that was almost impossible to defeat. The judge noted the legal presumption about this standard mail:

…it is presumed that the first class mailing of the same letter was delivered to Petitioner at his address of record.

This concept of “presumed delivery” is a powerful tool in legal proceedings. In many contexts, proof that a letter was properly addressed and sent via standard mail is sufficient to assume it was delivered, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. This case demonstrates that even a standard envelope in your mailbox should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

4. In a Dispute, Credibility Is Everything

The case wasn’t decided on technicalities alone; a subjective, human element played a pivotal role. Because the homeowner had filed an official temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to his location in Texas. He claimed that the USPS never even left a notice for him to pick it up. The judge’s assessment of this claim was devastating to his case.

Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.

In the end, the outcome hinged on the judge’s assessment of believability. With no hard evidence to back up his claim, the homeowner’s story was found to be unconvincing, which fatally undermined his entire argument. The lesson is clear: when a dispute comes down to your word against theirs, your credibility can be your most valuable asset—or your most fatal liability.

5. The Burden of Proof Is on You, the Accuser

A fundamental legal concept that worked against the homeowner was the “burden of proof.” Because Mr. Brown filed the complaint, the responsibility was on him to prove that the HOA had violated the law, not the other way around. The judge stated this rule directly:

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

“Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.” In other words, Mr. Brown had to prove that his version of events was more likely true than not true. As the petitioner, he failed to provide enough convincing evidence to support his accusation, and his case collapsed.

Conclusion: A $7,500 Lesson

This case is a stark reminder that legal communication is a serious process. Ignoring notices, dodging mail, and hoping problems will disappear is a strategy that carries severe financial and personal consequences. For Mr. Brown, the final outcome was an indefinite suspension from the country club, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 for the expenses the HOA incurred.

The next time a formal notice arrives in your mailbox, will you see it as just a piece of paper, or as a legal process you can’t afford to ignore?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Dax R. Watson (HOA attorney)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Thomas Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

John Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2018-02-26
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John L. Shields Counsel —
Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Counsel Maria R. Kupillas

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 6.2(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated its CC&Rs by approving the wall extension, as the HOA’s approval duties were limited to aesthetic considerations under CC&R § 7.2 and did not extend to enforcing or ensuring adjoining owner approval required by CC&R § 6.2(A).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent erroneously approved the proposal, as Respondent's duties under CC&R § 7.2 did not require considering adjoining neighbor approval specified in CC&R § 6.2(A).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs by HOA improperly approving a neighbor's block wall extension without adjoining owner's approval.

Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor's block wall extension that served as a party wall because Petitioner, the adjoining owner, had not approved the wall. Respondent argued their approval duties under CC&R § 7.2 only concerned aesthetics, not ensuring neighbor approval.

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

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • CC&R § 6.2(A)
  • CC&R § 7.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Control Committee, Fence, Party Wall, Rehearing, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717034-REL Decision – 619560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:16 (90.8 KB)





Briefing Doc – 17F-H1717034-REL


Briefing Document: Analysis of Administrative Law Judge Decision in Shields v. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG, dated February 26, 2018. The central issue was a petition filed by homeowner John L. Shields against the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch Homeowners’ Association (HOA), alleging the HOA improperly approved a wall extension built by his neighbor, Joe Johnson, without Mr. Shields’ required consent.

The petition was ultimately dismissed. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petitioner, Mr. Shields, failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The decision rests on a critical distinction between the responsibilities of a homeowner and the responsibilities of the HOA under separate articles of the CC&Rs. The ALJ determined that the obligation to secure an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a wall alteration (under CC&R § 6.2) falls exclusively on the homeowner undertaking the project. In contrast, the HOA’s duty (under CC&R § 7.2) is limited to an aesthetic review of the proposed alteration, which it conducted appropriately. The HOA had no legal obligation to enforce or verify neighbor-to-neighbor approval.

I. Case Overview

Case Name

John L. Shields (Petitioner) vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch (Respondent)

Case Number

17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Date of Decision

February 26, 2018

Core Dispute

The petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R § 6.2(A) by approving a neighbor’s approximately 5’ x 6’ block wall extension without the petitioner’s consent.

Final Outcome

The petition was dismissed, with no action required of the respondent HOA.

II. Petitioner’s Claim and Arguments

John L. Shields, a homeowner at 20431 E. Bronco Drive within the Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch development, filed a petition against the HOA concerning a wall extension built by his next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson.

• Core Allegation: After vacillating on the specifics of his complaint during the hearing, Mr. Shields firmly asserted that his single issue was that the HOA improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal to build a block wall extension and move his gate forward.

• Basis of Claim: The petitioner argued that under CC&R § 6.2, the HOA should have withheld its approval because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated that he had first obtained Mr. Shields’ approval for the wall extension between their properties.

• Evidence and Testimony: Mr. Shields denied ever having approved the wall. He submitted a photograph he had taken from his front porch and testified that the block wall extension “was an eyesore.”

III. Respondent’s Position and Evidence

The Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA, represented by board president Kristi Hancock, denied all complaint items and argued its actions were consistent with the governing CC&Rs.

• Basis of Approval: The HOA contended that its approval was based solely on the criteria outlined in CC&R § 7.2. The board, acting as the Architectural Control Committee, reviewed Mr. Johnson’s proposal for its aesthetic qualities and consistency with other properties in the development.

• Aesthetic Review: Ms. Hancock testified that the board inspected other wall extensions and gates and found Mr. Johnson’s proposal to be “aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the other properties.”

• Neighbor Consent Issue: The HOA acknowledged its awareness of Mr. Shields’ objection to the wall after it was built. However, Ms. Hancock testified that the board’s understanding of whether Mr. Shields had approved the wall before construction was unclear. She stated that “at least four witnesses had stated that they heard Petitioner either actually approve of or fail to state an objection to the block wall extension while, in Petitioner’s presence, Mr. Johnson discussed having the block wall extension built.”

• Separation of Duties: The HOA’s position was that its duty under § 7.2 was distinct from the homeowner’s duty under § 6.2. The HOA was not responsible for obtaining or verifying neighbor approval.

IV. Chronology of Key Events

1. October 13, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson has the block wall extension built without first obtaining approval from the HOA’s board or committee.

2. October 16, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Shields expresses his disapproval of the newly built wall to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.

3. November 2, 2016 (approx.): Mr. Johnson retroactively submits his proposal for the wall extension and a plan to move his gate forward to the Architectural Control Committee for approval.

4. November 2016: The HOA’s newly elected board meets as the Committee and verbally approves Mr. Johnson’s wall but advises him that “he will need to seek neighboring property owner’s approval.”

5. January 2017: The board formally approves Mr. Johnson’s proposal for the wall extension and gate move.

6. May 3, 2017 (approx.): Mr. Shields files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

7. September 27, 2017: An initial hearing is held, and Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky dismisses the petition.

8. December 5, 2017: The Real Estate Commissioner grants Mr. Shields’ request for a rehearing based on his claims of legal errors and judicial misconduct.

9. February 5, 2018: A rehearing is held before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer.

V. Analysis of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision hinged on the distinct and separate functions of two key CC&R sections.

This section governs alterations to shared fences and walls.

Such Party Walls and Fences shall not be altered, or changed in design, color, material or construction from the original installation made by the Developer without [the] approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Architectural Control] Committee.

• Interpretation: The ALJ interpreted this section as creating two separate approval requirements for the homeowner making the alteration: one from the adjoining owner and one from the Committee. It does not obligate the Committee to enforce the adjoining owner’s approval.

This section defines the scope and limits of the Architectural Control Committee’s power.

No . . . fences . . . shall be commenced [or] erected . . . until the plans and specifications showing the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, the Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any Alteration which is not suitable or desirable in their opinion for aesthetic or other reasons…

• Interpretation: The ALJ found that this section limits the Committee’s review to specific criteria, including aesthetics, harmony with surroundings, and effect on neighboring property. It explicitly states that approval “shall not be unreasonably withheld” and does not require the Committee to verify compliance with other CC&Rs or city ordinances.

VI. Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale for Dismissal

The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on a clear legal interpretation of the CC&Rs and the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof.

• Distinct and Separate Obligations: The core of the ruling is that the CC&Rs create parallel but separate responsibilities.

1. Homeowner’s Responsibility: The duty to obtain an adjoining neighbor’s approval for a shared wall alteration under § 6.2(A) rests solely with the homeowner performing the work (Mr. Johnson).

2. HOA’s Responsibility: The HOA’s duty under § 7.2 is limited to reviewing the project on its aesthetic merits and consistency within the community.

• Key Legal Finding: The decision explicitly states the separation of these duties:

• Scope of HOA Review: The ALJ affirmed that the HOA’s scope of review was properly limited.

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: Because the HOA acted within the authority and limitations defined by CC&R § 7.2, the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA had violated its governing documents.

• Other Responsibilities: The decision also noted that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with City of Queen Creek ordinances (related to the gate move) ultimately rested with Mr. Johnson, not the HOA.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be dismissed.

• No action is required of the Respondent, Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch HOA.

• The decision, issued as a result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties.

• Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date the order was served.


William Brown vs. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 18F-H1717041-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2017-10-11
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner William Brown Counsel —
Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. Counsel Dax R. Watson

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) because the Petitioner received constructive notice of the infraction committee meeting before the penalties and suspension were imposed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the notice required by A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) must be 'actual notice,' and the evidence supported a finding that Petitioner received constructive notice.

Key Issues & Findings

Prior to imposing reasonable monetary penalties on Petitioner for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner proper notice in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) by failing to provide proper notice before imposing penalties ($2,500 fine and $5,000 recoupment of expenses) and indefinitely suspending his membership privileges. The ALJ found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the hearing and that Respondent did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioner's petition in this matter is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: notice, constructive notice, monetary penalties, suspension, certified mail, HOA violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1717041-REL Decision – 593953.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:21:22 (83.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 18F-H1717041-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision Analysis: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in case number 18F-H1717041-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner William Brown (Petitioner) and the Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Respondent). The ALJ ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent, denying the Petitioner’s claim that the homeowners association violated Arizona state law regarding notification procedures before imposing penalties.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of “notice” as required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1803(B). The Petitioner argued that the statute requires “actual notice”—proof of personal receipt of a notification—which he claimed he never received for a critical disciplinary hearing. The ALJ rejected this argument, establishing that “constructive notice” is legally sufficient. Constructive notice was deemed to have been achieved through the Respondent’s documented efforts to deliver notice via both certified and first-class mail.

A key factor in the decision was the ALJ’s finding that the Petitioner’s testimony was “not credible” regarding his claim that the United States Postal Service (USPS) failed to notify him of a certified letter. The decision upholds the sanctions imposed by the association, which include an indefinite suspension of membership privileges, a $2,500 fine, and the recoupment of $5,000 in related expenses.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute originated from an incident on November 29, 2016, where Petitioner William Brown was alleged to have left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse containing papers listing several club properties. This act was interpreted as a threat, leading the Terravita Country Club to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Brown subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 28, 2017, alleging the club failed to provide proper notice before taking action.

Nov 29, 2016

William Brown allegedly leaves a box of matches and notes at the clubhouse.

Dec 2, 2016

The club’s General Manager sends a letter to Brown notifying him of an immediate suspension pending a review.

Dec 8, 2016

Brown signs for and receives the certified mail delivery of the December 2 suspension letter.

Dec 14, 2016

The club sends a letter via first-class and certified mail notifying Brown of a January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee hearing.

Dec 24, 2016

USPS tracking shows the December 14 certified letter is “out for delivery” at Brown’s temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

Jan 9, 2017

The Infractions Committee meets; Brown does not attend. The Committee sends a letter recommending indefinite suspension and fines.

Jan 12, 2017

The unclaimed December 14 certified letter is returned by the USPS to the club.

Jan 31, 2017

The club’s Board of Directors meets; Brown does not attend. The Board ratifies the sanctions.

Jan 31, 2017

The Board sends a letter to Brown detailing its decision: indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and $5,000 in expense recoupment.

Jun 28, 2017

Brown files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.

Sep 22, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings holds a hearing on the matter.

Oct 11, 2017

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issues the decision, denying Brown’s petition.

Central Legal Issue: The Definition of “Notice”

The core of the legal dispute was the interpretation of the notice requirement within A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), which states, in part:

“After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.”

The Petitioner argued that this statute requires “actual notice,” defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” Because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016, letter notifying him of the initial hearing, he contended that all subsequent actions by the club were invalid.

The ALJ rejected this interpretation for two primary reasons:

1. Statutory Silence: The governing statute, A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, does not define the term “notice” or specify that it must be “actual notice.”

2. Legal Precedent and Practicality: The ALJ reasoned that requiring actual notice would create an unworkable loophole. A homeowner could “avoid receiving ‘actual notice’ by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing,” thereby thwarting any disciplinary process.

Instead, the ALJ determined that “constructive notice” was sufficient. Constructive notice is defined as “notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.” The Respondent’s actions of sending notice via multiple methods met this standard.

Key Findings and Rulings

The ALJ made several critical findings of fact and conclusions of law that led to the denial of the petition.

• Burden of Proof: The Petitioner, William Brown, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. The ALJ concluded he failed to meet this burden.

• Finding on Credibility: The ALJ explicitly stated that the Petitioner’s assertion was not credible. The decision notes: “Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.”

• Ruling on Constructive Notice: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner received constructive notice of the January 9, 2017, Infractions Committee meeting through two distinct actions taken by the Respondent:

1. The certified mailing of the December 14, 2016, letter, for which USPS tracking showed an attempted delivery and which the Petitioner was deemed to have refused.

2. The simultaneous first-class mailing of the same letter, which was “presumably delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.”

• Notice for Subsequent Meetings: The ALJ further presumed that the first-class mailing of the January 9, 2017, letter—notifying the Petitioner of the Board of Directors meeting—was also delivered, thus satisfying notice requirements for the final decision-making body.

Final Decision and Sanctions

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The ruling affirmed that Terravita Country Club, Inc. did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

This decision effectively upholds the sanctions imposed by the club’s Board of Directors on January 31, 2017, which include:

• Indefinite suspension of membership privileges.

• A fine of $2,500.00.

• Recoupment of expenses incurred related to the infraction, totaling $5,000.00.

The order is binding on both parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.






Study Guide – 18F-H1717041-REL


Study Guide: Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Case No. 18F-H1717041-REL)

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Petitioner William Brown and Respondent Terravita Country Club, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source material.

1. Who were the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what was their relationship?

2. What was the specific statutory violation that William Brown alleged Terravita Country Club had committed?

3. Describe the incident on November 29, 2016, that initiated the actions taken by the Respondent.

4. What was the immediate consequence imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent’s General Manager on December 2, 2016?

5. How did a temporary change of address filed by the Petitioner affect the delivery of the certified mail notice sent on December 14, 2016?

6. What was the Petitioner’s primary legal argument regarding the type of notice he was required to receive for the disciplinary hearing?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge find the Petitioner’s claim about not being notified by the USPS of certified mail to be “not credible”?

8. What two forms of notice did the Administrative Law Judge conclude the Petitioner had received for the January 9, 2017 meeting?

9. What were the final penalties that the Respondent’s Board of Directors imposed on the Petitioner on January 31, 2017?

10. What was the final recommended order from the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Petitioner’s petition?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, William Brown, and the Respondent, Terravita Country Club, Inc. Terravita Country Club is a homeowners association in Arizona, and William Brown is a property owner and member of that association.

2. William Brown alleged that the Terravita Country Club violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803. The specific issue was that the Respondent failed to provide proper notice before imposing monetary penalties for violations of the association’s rules.

3. On or about November 29, 2016, the Petitioner allegedly left a box of matches at the Respondent’s clubhouse. Inside the box were three pieces of paper with the typed names of three locations: Director’s House, Desert Pavilion, and Country Club Clubhouse.

4. On December 2, 2016, the Respondent’s General Manager, Thomas Forbes, sent the Petitioner a letter immediately suspending him from all rights and privileges of the country club property. This suspension was to remain in effect until the disciplinary process was completed.

5. Because the Petitioner had filed a temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to Coldspring, Texas. USPS tracking showed it was “out for delivery” on December 24, 2016, but the Petitioner failed to claim it, and it was eventually returned to the Respondent.

6. The Petitioner argued that A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) required “actual notice” of the January 9, 2017 hearing. He asserted that because there was no evidence he personally received the December 14, 2016 letter, the notice requirement was not met.

7. The decision document does not explicitly state the evidence for why the claim was not credible. However, the Judge’s conclusion implies that the documented evidence from the USPS showing the letter was “out for delivery” in Coldspring, Texas, between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was more convincing than the Petitioner’s denial.

8. The Judge concluded that the Petitioner received “constructive notice” via the certified mailing for which he refused to sign. Additionally, it was presumed that the first-class mailing of the same letter was delivered to his temporary address in Coldspring, Texas.

9. The Board of Directors suspended the Petitioner’s membership privileges indefinitely. They also imposed a fine of $2,500.00 and sought to recoup $5,000.00 in expenses incurred related to the infraction.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) regarding notice.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the legal distinction between “actual notice” and “constructive notice” as defined and applied in this case. Explain why accepting the Petitioner’s argument for requiring “actual notice” would have created a potential loophole, according to the Judge’s reasoning.

2. Trace the complete timeline of events and communications, beginning with the incident on November 29, 2016, and ending with the final decision from the Administrative Law Judge on October 11, 2017. Detail each key date, the action taken, and the method of communication used.

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. Explain what the Petitioner was required to prove and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that he failed to meet this burden.

4. Describe the multi-step disciplinary process employed by the Terravita Country Club. Identify the roles and recommendations of the General Manager, the Infractions Committee, and the Board of Directors in addressing the Petitioner’s alleged violation.

5. Evaluate the Respondent’s communication strategy for notifying the Petitioner of the disciplinary proceedings. Discuss the methods used (first-class mail, certified mail) and explain how these methods became a central point of contention and the ultimate basis for the Judge’s decision.

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.A.C. R2-19-119

A reference to the Arizona Administrative Code rule establishing that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this type of proceeding.

A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)

The specific section of Arizona Revised Statutes at the heart of the case. It provides that a homeowners association’s board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations after providing “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Actual Notice

Defined as “[n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.” This was the standard of notice the Petitioner argued was required.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (Tammy L. Eigenheer) in the hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings who hears evidence, makes findings of fact, and issues a decision.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Terravita Country Club, Inc. that made the final determination on penalties, including the indefinite suspension and fines imposed on the Petitioner.

Constructive Notice

Defined as “[n]otice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of” or “notice presumed by law to have been acquired by a person and thus imputed to that person.” The Judge ruled the Petitioner received this type of notice.

Notice

Defined as “[l]egal notification required by law or agreement, or imparted by operation of law as a result of some fact…; definite legal cognizance, actual or constructive, of an existing right or title.” The term is not specifically defined in the relevant state statute (Title 33, Chapter 16).

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, William Brown.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet. It is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.”

Respondent

The party against whom the petition was filed. In this case, Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Terravita Country Club Infractions Committee

A committee within the homeowners association that met on January 9, 2017, to hear evidence regarding the Petitioner’s alleged infraction and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.






Blog Post – 18F-H1717041-REL


He Ignored a Letter From His HOA. It Cost Him $7,500. Here Are 5 Legal Lessons From His Case.

Introduction: The Dreaded Envelope

It’s a feeling many homeowners know: the sight of a formal, certified letter from the homeowners association (HOA). But for homeowner William Brown, the stakes were far higher than a dispute over landscaping or dues. His troubles began after he allegedly left a box of matches at the country club’s front desk, along with a list of three club properties. The HOA, Terravita Country Club, Inc., interpreted this as an implied threat of arson and took immediate action.

When Mr. Brown ignored the subsequent legal notices, it resulted in an indefinite suspension, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 in expenses. This article distills the official administrative court decision from his case into five surprising and critical legal takeaways that every homeowner should understand.

1. You Can Be Legally Notified—Even If You Never Open the Letter

The core of this case hinged on a crucial legal distinction. The judge’s decision rested on the critical difference between two types of legal notice:

• Actual Notice: “Notice given directly to, or received personally by, a party.”

• Constructive Notice: “Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of facts and circumstances that a party had a duty to take notice of.”

Because the HOA sent the meeting notice via both certified and first-class mail, the judge concluded that the homeowner had received “constructive notice.” The certified mail provided a documented attempt at delivery, while the first-class mail carried a legal presumption of delivery. Together, this combination was legally sufficient, and the law presumed Mr. Brown was aware of the meeting. This distinction is a fundamental principle that every property owner must grasp.

2. Dodging Certified Mail Is a Terrible Legal Strategy

The homeowner’s primary argument was that because he never signed for or received the certified letter notifying him of the January 9, 2017 hearing, he could not be held responsible. The judge directly rejected this line of reasoning.

To accept Petitioner’s argument, a homeowner would be able to avoid receiving “actual notice” by simply refusing to sign for a certified mailing, as Respondent alleged Petitioner did in this case.

The court viewed this as an attempt to create a loophole to evade responsibility. Allowing someone to claim ignorance by simply avoiding a signature would undermine the entire legal notification process. The lesson for homeowners is that actively avoiding mail is interpreted by the courts not as ignorance, but as a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility.

3. First-Class Mail Is More Powerful Than You Think

A critical fact in the case was that the HOA didn’t rely solely on trackable certified mail; it also sent the notices via standard USPS first-class mail. This proved to be a savvy “belt and suspenders” legal strategy. By using both methods, the HOA created a redundant and legally robust notification system that was almost impossible to defeat. The judge noted the legal presumption about this standard mail:

…it is presumed that the first class mailing of the same letter was delivered to Petitioner at his address of record.

This concept of “presumed delivery” is a powerful tool in legal proceedings. In many contexts, proof that a letter was properly addressed and sent via standard mail is sufficient to assume it was delivered, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. This case demonstrates that even a standard envelope in your mailbox should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

4. In a Dispute, Credibility Is Everything

The case wasn’t decided on technicalities alone; a subjective, human element played a pivotal role. Because the homeowner had filed an official temporary change of address with the USPS, the certified letter was forwarded to his location in Texas. He claimed that the USPS never even left a notice for him to pick it up. The judge’s assessment of this claim was devastating to his case.

Petitioner’s assertion that the USPS failed to notify him of the certified letter at any time between December 24, 2016, and January 12, 2017, was not credible.

In the end, the outcome hinged on the judge’s assessment of believability. With no hard evidence to back up his claim, the homeowner’s story was found to be unconvincing, which fatally undermined his entire argument. The lesson is clear: when a dispute comes down to your word against theirs, your credibility can be your most valuable asset—or your most fatal liability.

5. The Burden of Proof Is on You, the Accuser

A fundamental legal concept that worked against the homeowner was the “burden of proof.” Because Mr. Brown filed the complaint, the responsibility was on him to prove that the HOA had violated the law, not the other way around. The judge stated this rule directly:

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

“Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force.” In other words, Mr. Brown had to prove that his version of events was more likely true than not true. As the petitioner, he failed to provide enough convincing evidence to support his accusation, and his case collapsed.

Conclusion: A $7,500 Lesson

This case is a stark reminder that legal communication is a serious process. Ignoring notices, dodging mail, and hoping problems will disappear is a strategy that carries severe financial and personal consequences. For Mr. Brown, the final outcome was an indefinite suspension from the country club, a $2,500 fine, and an order to pay $5,000 for the expenses the HOA incurred.

The next time a formal notice arrives in your mailbox, will you see it as just a piece of paper, or as a legal process you can’t afford to ignore?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William Brown (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Dax R. Watson (HOA attorney)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.
  • Thomas Forbes (General Manager)
    Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate