Case Summary
| Case ID | 17F-H1716031-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2017-06-28 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Diane Mihalsky |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Jason West | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association | Counsel | Stewart F. Salwin, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Bylaw § 3.6
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner’s petition alleging the HOA failed to fill board vacancies (Bylaw § 3.6 violation), finding that the HOA had made reasonable efforts, but vacancies could not be filled because no eligible members were willing to serve, partly due to the Petitioner's actions.
Why this result: Respondent established that the Board performed all reasonable actions to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner's obstructionist tactics, rendering enforcement of the Bylaw impossible as it would lead to an absurdity.
Key Issues & Findings
Refusing to fill vacancies on Respondent’s Board of Directors
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Board had done all it could to fill vacancies, but no eligible members were willing to serve, and Bylaw § 3.6 does not empower the Board to conscript unwilling members.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
- Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 181 Ariz. 119, 122, 888 P.2d 777, 780 (1995)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Analytics Highlights
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
- Vazanno v. Superior Court
- A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
- MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
- BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
- Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
- A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 572314.pdf
17F-H1716031-REL Decision – 576049.pdf
Briefing Document: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (Case No. 17F-H1716031-REL)
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and final order concerning a petition filed by homeowner Jason West (“Petitioner”) against the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The Petitioner alleged that the HOA’s Board of Directors violated its own Bylaw § 3.6 by failing to fill vacant board positions.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the petition, a decision that was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central finding was that the Respondent had made repeated and reasonable efforts to fill the vacancies but was unsuccessful due to a lack of willing and eligible candidates. The ALJ concluded that the governing bylaw mandates the appointment of willing members but does not grant the power to conscript individuals to serve against their will. Furthermore, the decision determined that the shortage of volunteers was attributable, in part, to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics,” which created a hostile and dysfunctional environment, leading to a series of board member resignations and deterring potential candidates.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 17F-H1716031-REL
• Petitioner: Jason West, a homeowner and member of the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.
• Respondent: Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, representing a small community of approximately 40 homes.
• Core Allegation: On April 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging the Respondent violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.
• Hearing Date: June 21, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky.
• Final Disposition: The Petitioner’s petition was denied in a decision dated June 28, 2017. This decision was adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017, making it binding on the parties.
Governing Bylaw in Dispute
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 3.6 of the HOA’s Bylaws, which states:
Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board caused by any reason other than the removal of a director in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 of these Bylaws shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the first regular or special meeting of the Board held after the occurrence of such vacancy, even though the directors present at such meeting may constitute less than a quorum. Each person so elected shall serve the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.
Key Parties and Witnesses
Role / Affiliation
Key Testimony / Actions
Jason West
Petitioner, Homeowner, Former Board President
Filed the petition alleging bylaw violation. Previously filed recall petitions against other board members, resigned from the board himself, and proposed a bylaw amendment that disqualified newly elected members.
Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray
Respondent’s Board President
Testified that the board made repeated efforts to find volunteers, but no one was willing to serve, citing the Petitioner’s behavior as a major cause for resignations and lack of interest.
Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla
Community Manager, National Property Service (NPS)
Testified about sending multiple email requests for board candidates on behalf of the board, which yielded no interested parties other than those who would later be disqualified.
Christina Van Soest
Former Board Member
Resigned on Feb. 8, 2017, stating, “I have found the direction of some of the board does not appear to be in the best interest of the community as a whole.” Testified she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner.
Elizabeth Mayhew
Former Board Member
Resigned on Apr. 4, 2017, citing stress directly related to the Petitioner: “I have enough stress daily with my job and cannot handle this or him. It is making me physically ill and he is not worth that.”
Myron (“Ray”) Elmer
Former Board Member
Resigned on Apr. 5, 2017, with the stated reason: “[d]ue to continued problems Jason etc.”
Korey Hjelmeir & Debra Epstein
Former Board Members
Testified for the Petitioner’s rebuttal. Both had previously resigned in June 2016 in response to the Petitioner’s recall petitions and were later disqualified from serving by a bylaw amendment he proposed.
Chronology of Board Destabilization and Resignations
The hearing evidence established a pattern of significant board turnover and dysfunction between June 2016 and June 2017.
• June 23, 2016: Board members Adrian Justiniano, Debra Epstein, and Korey Hjelmeir resigned after the Petitioner filed recall petitions against them.
• August 3, 2016: The Petitioner, June Thompson, and Christina Van Soest were elected to the Board. The Petitioner served as president.
• August 18, 2016: The Board expanded from 3 to 5 members, appointing Gina Murray and Ray Elmer.
• August 29, 2016: June Thompson resigned.
• February 8, 2017: Christina Van Soest resigned, citing the board’s direction and her discomfort with the Petitioner’s “research into members’ backgrounds and history, and the way he was making Board decisions.”
• February 18, 2017: The Petitioner resigned from the Board because he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”
• April 4, 2017: Elizabeth Mayhew resigned, stating she could not handle the stress caused by the Petitioner and his “verbal assaults, constant lashing out, and personal attacks.”
• April 5, 2017: Ray Elmer resigned, attributing his departure to “continued problems Jason etc.” This left Gina Murray as the sole remaining board member.
Respondent’s Efforts to Fill Vacancies
The Respondent provided evidence of multiple, documented attempts to recruit new board members.
• February 23, 2017: Following the resignations of Ms. Van Soest and the Petitioner, Community Manager Eddie Padilla sent an email requesting “motivated and dedicated individuals” to serve on the Board. No one responded.
• March 31, 2017: At an open Board Meeting with “Board appointments” on the agenda, Gina Murray asked for volunteers and nominations from the floor. No one responded.
• April 4 & 18, 2017: Mr. Padilla sent two further emails requesting members interested in serving on the board to submit biographies for an upcoming annual meeting. The only individuals to respond and submit biographies were Mr. Justiniano and Ms. Hjelmeir.
• May 15, 2017: At the annual meeting, Ms. Murray again accepted nominations from the floor. Debra Epstein was nominated.
• June 5, 2017: After the newly elected board was disqualified, Mr. Padilla sent another email asking for volunteers.
Petitioner’s Actions and Their Consequences
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision identified the Petitioner’s own actions as a primary cause for the board’s inability to fill vacancies.
• Instigation of Resignations: The Petitioner’s recall petitions in June 2016 and behavior cited in the 2017 resignation letters from Van Soest, Mayhew, and Elmer directly contributed to the board vacancies.
• Contradictory Claims: The Petitioner testified that four individuals (Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti) were interested in serving. However, the sign-in sheet for the March 31, 2017 meeting, where appointments were to be made, showed none of these individuals were present.
• Disqualifying Bylaw Amendment: The Petitioner proposed a new bylaw, § 3.12, which was passed at the May 15, 2017 meeting. It stated:
• Attempted Removal of Remaining Director: On June 12, 2017, the Petitioner submitted a petition to remove Gina Murray, the last remaining original board member, which would have left the board entirely vacant.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Decision
The ALJ’s conclusions of law were decisive in denying the petition.
1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent had violated its bylaws.
2. Interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6: The Judge ruled that while the bylaw requires the Board to appoint members to fill vacancies, “it does not empower the Board to conscript members who are not willing to serve on the Board.”
3. Principle of Absurdity: Citing legal precedent, the decision stated that bylaws must be construed to avoid an absurd result. Forcing an HOA to operate without a board because no eligible members are willing to serve, especially when the situation is exacerbated by the Petitioner, would be such an absurdity.
4. Respondent’s Due Diligence: The Judge found that “Respondent established that the Board has done all it could to fill vacancies.”
5. Petitioner’s Culpability: The final conclusion explicitly states that “at this time, no eligible members are willing to serve, in part due to Petitioner’s obstructionist tactics, including Petitioner and his claimed supporters.”
Based on these findings, the ALJ ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The order became final and binding upon adoption by the Arizona Department of Real Estate on July 12, 2017.
Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?
2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?
3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?
4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.
5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?
6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.
7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?
8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?
9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?
10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.
2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.
3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.
4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”
5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.
6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.
7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.
8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”
9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.
10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.
2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?
3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?
5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)
An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.
Bylaw § 3.6
The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.
Final Order
The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.
Jason West
The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.
National Property Service (NPS)
The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.
Study Guide: West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1716031-REL, Jason West v. Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal documents.
Short-Answer Quiz
Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the information in the case documents.
1. What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioner, Jason West, in his April 10, 2017 petition?
2. According to the text of Bylaw § 3.6, how are vacancies on the Board of Directors supposed to be filled?
3. Who was the sole remaining member of the Board of Directors at the time of the mass resignations in April 2017, and what was her stated reason for not resigning?
4. Describe the circumstances that led to the resignations of board members Christina Van Soest and Jason West in February 2017.
5. What was the immediate and paradoxical outcome of the May 15, 2017 annual meeting election?
6. Explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Bylaw § 3.12, which was sponsored by the Petitioner.
7. What efforts did the Respondent’s management company, National Property Service (NPS), make to recruit new board members?
8. On what grounds did Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky deny the Petitioner’s petition?
9. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, why were certain individuals he named hesitant to volunteer for the Board?
10. What action did the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate take regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s decision?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. Jason West’s single-issue petition alleged that the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association (the Respondent) had violated Bylaw § 3.6 by refusing to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors.
2. Bylaw § 3.6 states that vacancies on the Board (for reasons other than removal) shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining directors at the next meeting. The person elected serves the unexpired portion of the prior director’s term.
3. Eugenia (“Gina”) Murray was the sole remaining board member. She stated she had no intention of resigning because it was important for someone to serve the community’s interests, such as negotiating the insurance contract and handling other community affairs.
4. Christina Van Soest resigned on February 8, 2017, stating the board’s direction was not in the community’s best interest and she was uncomfortable with the Petitioner’s methods. On February 18, 2017, Jason West resigned, citing his belief that he had “more important things to worry about than the management of this dysfunctional community.”
5. At the May 15, 2017 meeting, Eugenia Murray, Debra Epstein, Adrian Justiniano, and Korey Hjelmeir were elected to the Board. However, a bylaw amendment proposed by the Petitioner also passed at the same meeting, which made Epstein, Justiniano, and Hjelmeir ineligible to serve because they had resigned within the previous year.
6. The proposed Bylaw § 3.12 was designed to ban any director who resigns or is removed from serving on the board again for one year. Its passage at the May 15, 2017 meeting had the immediate effect of disqualifying three of the four newly elected board members.
7. NPS, through Community Manager Edward Padilla, sent out multiple emails requesting that interested individuals submit biographies to be considered for board positions. These requests were sent on February 23, April 4, April 18, and June 5, 2017.
8. Judge Mihalsky denied the petition because the Respondent had established that the Board did all it could to fill the vacancies. The judge concluded that the Bylaws cannot be construed to empower the Board to conscript unwilling members and that the lack of volunteers was due in part to the Petitioner’s own “obstructionist tactics.”
9. The Petitioner testified that Linda Siedler, Teresa Price, Bret Morse, and Bryan Brunatti were interested but had two conditions. They were concerned about serving with certain other members (Murray, Hjelmeir, Justiniano, or the Epsteins) and wanted assurance that the directors’ insurance policy would be renewed, which was questionable due to petitions filed by West himself.
10. On July 12, 2017, the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order made the denial of the Petitioner’s petition binding on the parties.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.
1. Analyze the role of Jason West in the series of board resignations and the difficulty in finding new board members, citing specific evidence presented by the Respondent and testimony from former board members.
2. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s interpretation of Bylaw § 3.6. How does the judge balance the literal requirement to fill vacancies with the practical realities faced by the Board, and what legal principles support this interpretation?
3. Trace the timeline of board membership from March 2016 to May 2017. What patterns emerge regarding appointments, resignations, and elections, and how do these events illustrate the internal conflict within the Desert Sage Two community?
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Bylaw amendment (§ 3.12) proposed by Jason West. Did it achieve its likely intended purpose, and what were its immediate, perhaps unintended, consequences for the governance of the homeowners’ association?
5. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument for why the Respondent, Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association, successfully defended itself against the Petitioner’s claim. Your answer should focus on the actions taken by the Board and its management company and the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Term / Entity
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over an administrative hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (“the Department”)
The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.
Bylaw § 3.12 (Proposed)
An amendment proposed by the Petitioner that would ban any director who resigns or is removed from the board from serving again for a period of one year. This amendment was passed at the May 15, 2017 annual meeting.
Bylaw § 3.6
The section of the Respondent’s bylaws that was the central issue of the petition. It requires the remaining directors to fill board vacancies by a majority vote at the next regular or special meeting.
Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association
The Respondent in the case; a small homeowners’ association for a development of approximately 40 condominium homes.
Final Order
The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which formally adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order makes the ruling effective and outlines the process for requesting a rehearing.
Jason West
The Petitioner in the case. He is a homeowner and member of the Respondent association who filed a petition alleging the Board violated Bylaw § 3.6.
National Property Service (NPS)
The management company employed by the Respondent, represented in the hearing by Community Manager Edward (“Eddie”) Padilla.
Office of Administrative Hearings
An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for cases referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Jason West.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has the greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Sage Two Homeowners Association.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jason West (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf; testified on his own behalf - Linda Siedler (witness, member)
Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray - Teresa Price (witness, member)
Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray - Bret Morse (witness, member)
Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; submitted absentee ballot; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray - Bryan Brunatti (witness, member)
Allegedly interested in serving on the Board; attended meeting and counted ballots; signed petition to remove Ms. Murray
Respondent Side
- Stewart F. Salwin (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Represented the Respondent - Eugenia Murray (board president, witness)
Only current Board member at the time of hearing; testified for Respondent - Edward Padilla (property manager, witness)
National Property Service (NPC)
Community Manager; testified for Respondent
Neutral Parties
- Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
- Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
ADRE Commissioner who adopted the ALJ Decision
Other Participants
- Korey Hjelmeir (witness, former board member)
Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election - Debra Epstein (witness, former board member)
Testified for Petitioner as former Board member; resigned and later sought re-election; appeared via Skype at a meeting - Adrian Justiniano (former board member)
Resigned and later sought re-election - June Thompson (former board member)
Elected and resigned in 2016 - Christina Van Soest (former board member)
Elected and resigned in 2017 - Myron Elmer (former board member)
Appointed and resigned in 2017 - Elizabeth Mayhew (former board member)
Appointed and resigned in 2017 - David Epstein (member)
Appeared via Skype at a meeting; expressed interest in serving on Board - Abby Hansen (HOA coordinator)
Individual to whom requests for rehearing should be addressed
