Tag Archives: 2017

Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on June 26, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Brian Sopatyk	Counsel	Nathan Andrews
Respondent	The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.	Counsel	Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The ALJ found that the $660 charge was a working capital fee authorized by the CC&Rs and was not subject to the statutory fee cap for disclosure documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in dispute was deemed a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a resale disclosure fee capped by A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum transfer/disclosure fee

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 transfer fee, exceeding the $400 statutory maximum for disclosure documents. The Association argued the $660 was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, which had been mislabeled.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for orders requiring compliance, refunds, and civil penalties was denied. The Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory limit, mislabeled fee, ARS 33-1260

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:43 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:43 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:44 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:56:44 (59.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Brian Sopatyk vs. The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.

Posted on June 26, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1716004-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-08-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Brian Sopatyk	Counsel	Nathan Andrews
Respondent	The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association, Inc.	Counsel	Bradley R. Jardine

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition because the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260. The ALJ found that the $660 charge was a working capital fee authorized by the CC&Rs and was not subject to the statutory fee cap for disclosure documents.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof; the fee in dispute was deemed a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, not a resale disclosure fee capped by A.R.S. § 33-1260.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statutory maximum transfer/disclosure fee

Petitioner alleged the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging a $660 transfer fee, exceeding the $400 statutory maximum for disclosure documents. The Association argued the $660 was a working capital fee authorized by CC&R section 8.13, which had been mislabeled.

Orders: The petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request for orders requiring compliance, refunds, and civil penalties was denied. The Association was deemed the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(A)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA fees, transfer fee, working capital fund, statutory limit, mislabeled fee, ARS 33-1260

Additional Citations:

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1260
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
• ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 571793.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:50 (96.8 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 580965.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:51 (61.2 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593042.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:51 (100.9 KB)

17F-H1716004-REL-RHG Decision – 593045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:00:52 (59.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of the case Brian Sopatyk v. The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 17F-H1716004-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was Petitioner Brian Sopatyk’s allegation that the Respondent Condominium Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1260 by charging a $660 “transfer fee” upon the sale of a condominium unit, which exceeded the statutory maximum of $400 for resale disclosure services.

The Association’s defense centered on the argument that the $660 charge was not a disclosure fee but a separate “working capital fee” authorized by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Association contended that this fee had been erroneously mislabeled as a “transfer fee” due to a clerical error inherited by its current manager. The actual statutory fee for disclosure documents, the Association argued, was a separate $30 charge paid by the seller.

After an initial hearing in November 2016 and a subsequent re-hearing in June 2017, the Administrative Law Judge consistently found that Mr. Sopatyk failed to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence supported the Association’s claim of a mislabeled working capital fee. Consequently, Mr. Sopatyk’s petition was dismissed on both occasions, and the Association was deemed the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdiction

Representation

Petitioner

Brian Sopatyk

On his own behalf (Initial Hearing); Nathan Andrews, Esq. & Jill Kennedy, Esq. (Re-Hearing)

Respondent

The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Bradley R. Jardine, Esq. (Both Hearings)

Jurisdiction

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Authority under A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Adjudicator

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, AZ

Core Allegation and Governing Statute

• Allegation: Brian Sopatyk alleged that The Lakeshore Village Condominium Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260 by charging fees exceeding the statutory maximum for resale disclosure services. Specifically, a $660 fee labeled as a “transfer fee” was charged when he purchased his unit.

• Petitioner’s Request: Mr. Sopatyk sought an order for the Association to comply with the statute, issue refunds to all who paid fees in excess of the maximum, and for a civil penalty to be imposed.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1260 stipulates that a condominium association “may charge the unit owner a fee of no more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation of a statement or other documents furnished… for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property.” The statute explicitly forbids charging any other fees for these services except as authorized.

——————————————————————————–

Chronology of Legal Proceedings

March 2, 2015

The Association issues a “Disclosure Form” for Mr. Sopatyk’s purchase, listing a $660 transfer fee and a $30 statement fee.

May 18, 2016

The Association’s Board of Directors meets to address Mr. Sopatyk’s claim. They conclude the $660 fee was a mislabeled working capital fee and direct corrective accounting.

August 9, 2016

Mr. Sopatyk files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

November 14, 2016

The initial hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

November 29, 2016

ALJ Shedden issues a decision dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

December 13, 2016

The ADRE Commissioner, Judy Lowe, adopts the ALJ’s decision, issuing a Final Order dismissing the case.

February 7, 2017

A Notice of Re-Hearing is issued after Mr. Sopatyk requests one.

June 9, 2017

A re-hearing is conducted before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

June 26, 2017

ALJ Shedden issues a new decision, again dismissing Mr. Sopatyk’s petition.

August 1, 2017

The deadline passes for the ADRE to accept, reject, or modify the ALJ’s re-hearing decision. No action is taken.

August 10, 2017

The Office of Administrative Hearings certifies the ALJ’s decision from the re-hearing as the final administrative decision in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Brian Sopatyk)

• Primary Argument: The Association’s own documents, specifically the Disclosure Form and the HUD-1 settlement statement, explicitly labeled the $660 charge as a “Transfer Fee.” This amount is a prima facie violation of the $400 statutory cap in A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Evidence Presented:

◦ March 2, 2015 Disclosure Form: Showed a required payment of a $660 “transfer fee” and a $30 “statement fee.”

◦ HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Documented that the $660 Transfer Fee was paid to the Association, with $330 paid from the Borrower’s (Sopatyk’s) funds and $330 from the Seller’s funds. It also showed the Seller paid a separate $30 Resale Statement Fee.

• Contradictory Testimony: In his sworn petition, Mr. Sopatyk stated the $660 fee was “split between the seller and the buyer.” However, during the re-hearing, he testified that he had “in fact paid the entire $660 as part of the negotiated price of the unit.” The ALJ noted this discrepancy, stating “either Mr. Sopatyk’s sworn statement or his testimony must be false.”

Respondent’s Position (The Lakeshore Village Condo. Association)

• Primary Argument: The $660 fee was not for resale disclosure services but was a working capital fee authorized by the Association’s CC&Rs. The “transfer fee” label was a historical clerical error that the Board had since identified and corrected.

• Evidence and Testimony:

◦ CC&R Section 8.13 (“Transfer Fee and Working Capital Fund”): This provision authorizes the Association to assess each new owner a fee of “at least twice the average monthly assessment” to be deposited into the working capital fund (referred to as the Reserve Fund). The monthly assessment was $328.83, making the $660 fee consistent with this rule.

◦ Testimony of Amy Telnes (Association Manager): Ms. Telnes testified that when she became manager, she was incorrectly informed that the working capital fee was the transfer fee. She affirmed that the $660 fee was deposited into the Association’s reserve fund and that the separate $30 fee was the one charged pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1260.

◦ May 18, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes: These minutes, entered into evidence, documented the Board’s conclusion that it was collecting a working capital contribution but “erroneously calling it a transfer fee.” The Board directed Ms. Telnes to perform an accounting and transfer all such fees collected after October 1, 2013, to the Reserve Account. The minutes also show the Board voted to change its fee structure moving forward to a single $400 fee to avoid future confusion.

——————————————————————————–

Judicial Findings and Final Disposition

Standard and Burden of Proof

Across both hearings, the ALJ established that the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.” The burden of proof rested entirely on the petitioner, Mr. Sopatyk, to demonstrate that a violation had occurred.

Initial Hearing Decision (November 29, 2016)

• Findings of Fact: The ALJ found that the Association was charging a $660 working capital fee in accordance with its CC&Rs but had been mislabeling it. It was also charging a separate $30 document preparation fee.

• Conclusion of Law: Mr. Sopatyk did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.

• Order: The petition was dismissed, and the decision was adopted as final by the ADRE Commissioner on December 13, 2016.

Re-Hearing Decision (June 26, 2017)

• Findings of Fact: The re-hearing produced more detailed findings but led to the same conclusion. The ALJ found that the Association had authority under its CC&Rs to collect the $660 working capital fee and that the statutory disclosure statute did not apply to this charge. The fee applicable to the statute was the $30 charge paid by the seller.

• Conclusion of Law: The ALJ reiterated that Mr. Sopatyk failed to meet his burden of proof. The Association’s argument that the claim should fail because Sopatyk did not personally pay over $400 was deemed “not persuasive,” as the statute applies to all violations regardless of particularized harm.

• Order: The petition was again ordered to be dismissed.

Final Administrative Disposition

The ADRE took no action to modify or reject the ALJ’s re-hearing decision by the statutory deadline of August 1, 2017. As a result, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the June 26, 2017 decision as the final administrative decision on August 10, 2017, concluding the matter in favor of the Respondent Association.

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on June 19, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Pyron	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association

Additional Citations:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:49 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:01:50 (959.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on June 19, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Pyron	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association

Additional Citations:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:26 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:26 (959.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.

Study Guide: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717026-REL between Tom Pyron (Petitioner) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent). It covers the central arguments, key evidence, relevant bylaws, and the final legal decision.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. What was the single issue at the heart of Tom Pyron’s petition filed on March 16, 2017?

2. According to the Association’s bylaws, how are Board of Director terms structured when the board consists of three members?

3. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding Jeff Oursland’s term on the Board of Directors?

4. What was the Respondent’s counter-argument regarding Barbara Ahlstrand’s 2015 election and, subsequently, Jeff Oursland’s term?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in an attempt to resolve the dispute with the Petitioner before the hearing?

6. Who was the key witness for the Respondent, and what was their role?

7. Explain the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s core legal reasoning for concluding that only one board position was open in 2017?

9. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Recommended Order and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. Following the Final Order issued on July 12, 2017, what legal recourse was available to a party dissatisfied with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Tom Pyron’s petition alleged that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board position was open for a one-year term in the 2017 election. Pyron contended that two positions—one for a one-year term and another for a two-year term—should have been up for election.

2. Bylaw Article III, § 3.02 specifies that for a three-person board, the directors hold staggered terms of one year, two years, and three years. The bylaw further dictates which terms end at which annual meetings (e.g., the two-year term ends at the second, fourth, sixth, etc., annual meetings).

3. The Petitioner argued that Barbara Ahlstrand was elected to a two-year term in 2015. Therefore, when Jeff Oursland was appointed to fill her vacancy, his term should have expired in 2017, meaning his two-year position should have been on the 2017 ballot.

4. The Respondent argued that under the plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since Sandra Singer received the most votes and secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, meaning Mr. Oursland’s appointed term expired in 2016.

5. In response to the petition, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued ballots to include all candidates who had submitted an application. The Association also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with this resolution.

6. The key witness for the Respondent was Cynthia Quillen. She served as the Community Manager for the Association’s management company, Associated Property Management, and testified about the Board’s composition and her interpretation of the bylaws.

7. “A preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence, which is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

8. The Judge’s decision was based on the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02. This bylaw dictated that only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since the parties agreed Ms. Singer won the three-year term, the Judge concluded Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, making the Respondent’s subsequent actions and election notices correct.

9. The Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, making it binding on the parties.

10. According to the Final Order, a dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty days by filing a petition setting forth the reasons. The document lists eight specific causes for a rehearing. A party could also appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-style response for each.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the 2015 election presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02 to resolve this conflict, and what does this reveal about the interpretation of governing documents in legal disputes?

2. Trace the chain of events from the 2012 election to the 2017 dispute. Explain how the board composition, terms of office, and specific actions (like Ms. Ahlstrand’s resignation) compounded to create the disagreement at the heart of this case.

3. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Define “preponderance of the evidence” and explain why the Petitioner, Tom Pyron, failed to meet this standard in the view of the Administrative Law Judge.

4. Examine the roles and authorities of the different entities involved: the homeowners’ association Board, the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge. How do these bodies interact to resolve disputes within a planned community?

5. Based on the Final Order, outline the legal recourse available to Tom Pyron following the denial of his petition. What specific grounds for a rehearing are mentioned, and what is the process for further appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Acclamation

A form of election where a candidate is declared elected without opposition, as when Sandra Singer’s election was “unanimously passed by acclamation” in 2014.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

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. The Commissioner of the Department, Judy Lowe, issued the Final Order in this case.

Bylaws

The governing documents of the homeowners’ association that outline its rules and procedures, including the number of directors, terms of office, and process for filling vacancies.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which accepts and adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order becomes effective and can only be changed by a successful rehearing or judicial appeal.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Pyron, a homeowner in the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing, defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioner bore this burden to prove the Respondent violated its bylaws.

Recommended Order

The decision and order issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. In this case, it recommended that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Rehearing

A formal request to have a case heard again. The Final Order specifies that a petition for rehearing must be filed within thirty days and may be granted for specific causes, such as newly discovered evidence or an arbitrary decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Staggered Terms

A system where not all board members are elected at the same time. As defined in Bylaw § 3.02, the three-person board had terms of one, two, and three years to ensure continuity.

Unexpired Portion of the Prior Director’s Term

The remainder of a board member’s term that an appointee serves after the original member resigns or is removed, as specified in Bylaw § 3.6.

We Read an HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To: 3 Shocking Lessons Hidden in the Bylaws

1. Introduction: The Hidden Drama in Your Community’s Fine Print

If you live in a condominium association or a planned community, you’re familiar with the thick packet of governing documents you received at closing—the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Bylaws. For many, these documents are filed away and forgotten, seen as a collection of mundane rules about trash cans and paint colors. But hidden within that legalese is the complete operating manual for your community, and a simple misunderstanding of its contents can have significant consequences.

What happens when a homeowner’s interpretation of the rules clashes with the association’s? In a case from Arizona involving homeowner Tom Pyron and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, the dispute escalated into a formal administrative hearing. The central question was simple: how many board seats were open for election in 2017? But this wasn’t just a procedural disagreement. Court documents reveal that before the hearing, the association offered to re-issue ballots to include all candidates and even “offered to pay Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution.” The homeowner refused.

This decision transforms the case from a simple rules dispute into a cautionary tale about how a deeply held belief can override a pragmatic, no-cost compromise. The official court documents offer a fascinating look at how community governance can go awry, revealing powerful, practical lessons for any homeowner or board member who believes they know what the rules should say.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Beliefs Don’t Overrule the Bylaws

What You Think the Rules Say Doesn’t Matter—Only What They Actually Say

The core of the dispute rested on a belief held by a former board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, who was elected in 2015. She testified that she believed she had been elected to a two-year term. Based on this belief, the petitioner argued that the director appointed to replace her after her resignation should have served until 2017, meaning a two-year position was open for election that year.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, looked not at what anyone believed, but at the “plain language” of the community’s governing documents. The judge’s conclusion was a matter of inescapable logic derived directly from the bylaws:

1. First, Bylaw § 3.02 clearly states that in an election with multiple open seats, “the person receiving the most votes will become the Director with the longest term.”

2. Next, the court record shows that “the parties agreed that… because she got the most votes, Ms. Singer was elected to a three-year term” in the 2015 election.

3. Finally, the judge determined that according to the same bylaw, only the one-year and three-year terms were available in 2015. Since Ms. Singer secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand, by definition, must have been elected to the only other available position: the one-year term.

The lesson is stark and unambiguous: an individual’s interpretation or assumption, however sincere, cannot change the written rules. The bylaws are the ultimate authority. As the judge stated in the final decision, the documents speak for themselves.

The Bylaws do not allow their plain language to be modified or amended by a member’s understanding.

3. Takeaway 2: The Domino Effect of a Single Resignation

A Single Resignation Can Create Years of Confusion

This entire legal conflict was set in motion by a single, routine event: a board member’s resignation. The timeline of events shows how one small action, when combined with a misunderstanding of the rules, can create a ripple effect with long-lasting consequences.

1. On August 3, 2015, the newly elected board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, resigned.

2. The Board then appointed another member, Jeff Oursland, to serve the remainder of her term, as permitted by the bylaws.

3. The critical point of contention became the length of that “remainder.” Was it the rest of a one-year term ending in 2016, or a two-year term ending in 2017?

4. The judge’s determination that Ahlstrand’s original term was only one year (as explained above) meant that Mr. Oursland’s appointed term correctly expired in 2016. He was then properly elected to a new two-year term at the 2016 meeting.

5. This sequence confirmed that the association was correct all along: only one board position (a one-year term) was actually open for election in 2017.

A single resignation created two years of confusion that ultimately required an administrative hearing to resolve. It’s a powerful reminder of how crucial it is for boards to precisely follow their own procedures, especially when handling vacancies and appointments, as one small error can cascade into years of conflict.

4. Takeaway 3: The Hidden Complexity of “Staggered Terms”

“Staggered Terms” Are Designed for Stability, But Can Cause Chaos

Many associations use staggered terms for their board of directors. The concept, outlined in Bylaw § 3.02 for the Cliffs at North Mountain, is simple: instead of all directors being elected at once, they serve terms of varying lengths (in this case, one, two, and three years). This is a common and effective practice designed to ensure leadership continuity and prevent the entire board from turning over in a single election.

However, this case reveals the hidden downside of that system: complexity. The staggered terms created an election cycle where the available term lengths changed every single year. The court documents show that in 2014, the one-year and two-year positions were on the ballot. In 2015, the one-year and three-year terms were available. This rotating schedule was difficult for members—and apparently even some board members—to track accurately.

This built-in complexity was the root cause of the entire disagreement. The system’s lack of intuitive clarity created the exact conditions necessary for a personal belief, like Ms. Ahlstrand’s, to seem plausible even when it was contrary to the bylaws. The very governance structure intended to create stability inadvertently created the fertile ground for confusion, allowing a misunderstanding to grow into a lawsuit.

5. Conclusion: The Power Is in the Paperwork

The overarching theme from this case is that in the world of community associations, the governing documents are the ultimate source of truth. They are not merely suggestions; they are the binding legal framework that dictates how the community must operate. A board’s actions and a homeowner’s rights are all defined within that paperwork.

In the end, the homeowner’s petition was denied, and the judge’s order affirmed the association’s position. The written rules, as found in the bylaws, prevailed over individual beliefs and interpretations. The case stands as a powerful testament to the importance of reading, understanding, and strictly adhering to your community’s foundational documents.

This entire conflict stemmed from a few lines in a legal document—when was the last time you read yours?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Tom Pyron (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
  Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
• Cynthia Quillen (property manager)
  Associated Property Management
  Community Manager

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (ADRE commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• Abby Hansen (coordinator)
  HOA Coordinator/Admin Official listed for rehearing requests and transmission

Other Participants

• Anne Fugate (witness)
  Elected to the Board in 2012
• Barbara Ahlstrand (witness)
  Elected to the Board in 2015
• Kevin Downey (witness)
  Candidate for 2017 election
• John Haunschild (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2012
• Ron Cadaret (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2012, re-elected 2013
• Sandra Singer (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2014 and 2015
• Jeff Oursland (board member)
  Appointed to the Board in 2015, elected 2016
• Steve Molever (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2016

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on June 19, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Pyron	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association

Additional Citations:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:38 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:41 (959.2 KB)

• 2016

Study Guide: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative hearing case No. 17F-H1717026-REL between Tom Pyron (Petitioner) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent). It covers the central arguments, key evidence, relevant bylaws, and the final legal decision.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided source documents.

1. What was the single issue at the heart of Tom Pyron’s petition filed on March 16, 2017?

2. According to the Association’s bylaws, how are Board of Director terms structured when the board consists of three members?

3. What was the Petitioner’s argument regarding Jeff Oursland’s term on the Board of Directors?

4. What was the Respondent’s counter-argument regarding Barbara Ahlstrand’s 2015 election and, subsequently, Jeff Oursland’s term?

5. What actions did the Respondent take in an attempt to resolve the dispute with the Petitioner before the hearing?

6. Who was the key witness for the Respondent, and what was their role?

7. Explain the legal standard “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents.

8. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s core legal reasoning for concluding that only one board position was open in 2017?

9. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Recommended Order and adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate?

10. Following the Final Order issued on July 12, 2017, what legal recourse was available to a party dissatisfied with the decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Tom Pyron’s petition alleged that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board position was open for a one-year term in the 2017 election. Pyron contended that two positions—one for a one-year term and another for a two-year term—should have been up for election.

2. Bylaw Article III, § 3.02 specifies that for a three-person board, the directors hold staggered terms of one year, two years, and three years. The bylaw further dictates which terms end at which annual meetings (e.g., the two-year term ends at the second, fourth, sixth, etc., annual meetings).

3. The Petitioner argued that Barbara Ahlstrand was elected to a two-year term in 2015. Therefore, when Jeff Oursland was appointed to fill her vacancy, his term should have expired in 2017, meaning his two-year position should have been on the 2017 ballot.

4. The Respondent argued that under the plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since Sandra Singer received the most votes and secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, meaning Mr. Oursland’s appointed term expired in 2016.

5. In response to the petition, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued ballots to include all candidates who had submitted an application. The Association also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with this resolution.

6. The key witness for the Respondent was Cynthia Quillen. She served as the Community Manager for the Association’s management company, Associated Property Management, and testified about the Board’s composition and her interpretation of the bylaws.

7. “A preponderance of the evidence” is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. It is described as the greater weight of evidence, which is sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of an issue over the other.

8. The Judge’s decision was based on the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02. This bylaw dictated that only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015. Since the parties agreed Ms. Singer won the three-year term, the Judge concluded Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term, making the Respondent’s subsequent actions and election notices correct.

9. The Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. This order was adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate in a Final Order, making it binding on the parties.

10. According to the Final Order, a dissatisfied party could request a rehearing within thirty days by filing a petition setting forth the reasons. The document lists eight specific causes for a rehearing. A party could also appeal the final administrative decision by filing a complaint for judicial review.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive essay-style response for each.

1. Analyze the conflicting interpretations of the 2015 election presented by the Petitioner and the Respondent. How did the Administrative Law Judge use the “plain language” of Bylaw § 3.02 to resolve this conflict, and what does this reveal about the interpretation of governing documents in legal disputes?

2. Trace the chain of events from the 2012 election to the 2017 dispute. Explain how the board composition, terms of office, and specific actions (like Ms. Ahlstrand’s resignation) compounded to create the disagreement at the heart of this case.

3. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Define “preponderance of the evidence” and explain why the Petitioner, Tom Pyron, failed to meet this standard in the view of the Administrative Law Judge.

4. Examine the roles and authorities of the different entities involved: the homeowners’ association Board, the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Administrative Law Judge. How do these bodies interact to resolve disputes within a planned community?

5. Based on the Final Order, outline the legal recourse available to Tom Pyron following the denial of his petition. What specific grounds for a rehearing are mentioned, and what is the process for further appeal?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Acclamation

A form of election where a candidate is declared elected without opposition, as when Sandra Singer’s election was “unanimously passed by acclamation” in 2014.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, draws conclusions of law, and issues a recommended decision. In this case, the ALJ was Diane Mihalsky.

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. The Commissioner of the Department, Judy Lowe, issued the Final Order in this case.

Bylaws

The governing documents of the homeowners’ association that outline its rules and procedures, including the number of directors, terms of office, and process for filling vacancies.

Final Order

The binding decision issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which accepts and adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. This order becomes effective and can only be changed by a successful rehearing or judicial appeal.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department of Real Estate refers petitions for an evidentiary hearing.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Tom Pyron, a homeowner in the association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this hearing, defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioner bore this burden to prove the Respondent violated its bylaws.

Recommended Order

The decision and order issued by the Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. In this case, it recommended that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

Rehearing

A formal request to have a case heard again. The Final Order specifies that a petition for rehearing must be filed within thirty days and may be granted for specific causes, such as newly discovered evidence or an arbitrary decision.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Staggered Terms

A system where not all board members are elected at the same time. As defined in Bylaw § 3.02, the three-person board had terms of one, two, and three years to ensure continuity.

Unexpired Portion of the Prior Director’s Term

The remainder of a board member’s term that an appointee serves after the original member resigns or is removed, as specified in Bylaw § 3.6.

We Read an HOA Lawsuit So You Don’t Have To: 3 Shocking Lessons Hidden in the Bylaws

1. Introduction: The Hidden Drama in Your Community’s Fine Print

If you live in a condominium association or a planned community, you’re familiar with the thick packet of governing documents you received at closing—the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Bylaws. For many, these documents are filed away and forgotten, seen as a collection of mundane rules about trash cans and paint colors. But hidden within that legalese is the complete operating manual for your community, and a simple misunderstanding of its contents can have significant consequences.

What happens when a homeowner’s interpretation of the rules clashes with the association’s? In a case from Arizona involving homeowner Tom Pyron and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, the dispute escalated into a formal administrative hearing. The central question was simple: how many board seats were open for election in 2017? But this wasn’t just a procedural disagreement. Court documents reveal that before the hearing, the association offered to re-issue ballots to include all candidates and even “offered to pay Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution.” The homeowner refused.

This decision transforms the case from a simple rules dispute into a cautionary tale about how a deeply held belief can override a pragmatic, no-cost compromise. The official court documents offer a fascinating look at how community governance can go awry, revealing powerful, practical lessons for any homeowner or board member who believes they know what the rules should say.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Beliefs Don’t Overrule the Bylaws

What You Think the Rules Say Doesn’t Matter—Only What They Actually Say

The core of the dispute rested on a belief held by a former board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, who was elected in 2015. She testified that she believed she had been elected to a two-year term. Based on this belief, the petitioner argued that the director appointed to replace her after her resignation should have served until 2017, meaning a two-year position was open for election that year.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, looked not at what anyone believed, but at the “plain language” of the community’s governing documents. The judge’s conclusion was a matter of inescapable logic derived directly from the bylaws:

1. First, Bylaw § 3.02 clearly states that in an election with multiple open seats, “the person receiving the most votes will become the Director with the longest term.”

2. Next, the court record shows that “the parties agreed that… because she got the most votes, Ms. Singer was elected to a three-year term” in the 2015 election.

3. Finally, the judge determined that according to the same bylaw, only the one-year and three-year terms were available in 2015. Since Ms. Singer secured the three-year term, Ms. Ahlstrand, by definition, must have been elected to the only other available position: the one-year term.

The lesson is stark and unambiguous: an individual’s interpretation or assumption, however sincere, cannot change the written rules. The bylaws are the ultimate authority. As the judge stated in the final decision, the documents speak for themselves.

The Bylaws do not allow their plain language to be modified or amended by a member’s understanding.

3. Takeaway 2: The Domino Effect of a Single Resignation

A Single Resignation Can Create Years of Confusion

This entire legal conflict was set in motion by a single, routine event: a board member’s resignation. The timeline of events shows how one small action, when combined with a misunderstanding of the rules, can create a ripple effect with long-lasting consequences.

1. On August 3, 2015, the newly elected board member, Ms. Ahlstrand, resigned.

2. The Board then appointed another member, Jeff Oursland, to serve the remainder of her term, as permitted by the bylaws.

3. The critical point of contention became the length of that “remainder.” Was it the rest of a one-year term ending in 2016, or a two-year term ending in 2017?

4. The judge’s determination that Ahlstrand’s original term was only one year (as explained above) meant that Mr. Oursland’s appointed term correctly expired in 2016. He was then properly elected to a new two-year term at the 2016 meeting.

5. This sequence confirmed that the association was correct all along: only one board position (a one-year term) was actually open for election in 2017.

A single resignation created two years of confusion that ultimately required an administrative hearing to resolve. It’s a powerful reminder of how crucial it is for boards to precisely follow their own procedures, especially when handling vacancies and appointments, as one small error can cascade into years of conflict.

4. Takeaway 3: The Hidden Complexity of “Staggered Terms”

“Staggered Terms” Are Designed for Stability, But Can Cause Chaos

Many associations use staggered terms for their board of directors. The concept, outlined in Bylaw § 3.02 for the Cliffs at North Mountain, is simple: instead of all directors being elected at once, they serve terms of varying lengths (in this case, one, two, and three years). This is a common and effective practice designed to ensure leadership continuity and prevent the entire board from turning over in a single election.

However, this case reveals the hidden downside of that system: complexity. The staggered terms created an election cycle where the available term lengths changed every single year. The court documents show that in 2014, the one-year and two-year positions were on the ballot. In 2015, the one-year and three-year terms were available. This rotating schedule was difficult for members—and apparently even some board members—to track accurately.

This built-in complexity was the root cause of the entire disagreement. The system’s lack of intuitive clarity created the exact conditions necessary for a personal belief, like Ms. Ahlstrand’s, to seem plausible even when it was contrary to the bylaws. The very governance structure intended to create stability inadvertently created the fertile ground for confusion, allowing a misunderstanding to grow into a lawsuit.

5. Conclusion: The Power Is in the Paperwork

The overarching theme from this case is that in the world of community associations, the governing documents are the ultimate source of truth. They are not merely suggestions; they are the binding legal framework that dictates how the community must operate. A board’s actions and a homeowner’s rights are all defined within that paperwork.

In the end, the homeowner’s petition was denied, and the judge’s order affirmed the association’s position. The written rules, as found in the bylaws, prevailed over individual beliefs and interpretations. The case stands as a powerful testament to the importance of reading, understanding, and strictly adhering to your community’s foundational documents.

This entire conflict stemmed from a few lines in a legal document—when was the last time you read yours?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Tom Pyron (petitioner)

Respondent Side

• B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
  Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
• Cynthia Quillen (property manager)
  Associated Property Management
  Community Manager

Neutral Parties

• Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (ADRE commissioner)
  Arizona Department of Real Estate
• Abby Hansen (coordinator)
  HOA Coordinator/Admin Official listed for rehearing requests and transmission

Other Participants

• Anne Fugate (witness)
  Elected to the Board in 2012
• Barbara Ahlstrand (witness)
  Elected to the Board in 2015
• Kevin Downey (witness)
  Candidate for 2017 election
• John Haunschild (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2012
• Ron Cadaret (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2012, re-elected 2013
• Sandra Singer (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2014 and 2015
• Jeff Oursland (board member)
  Appointed to the Board in 2015, elected 2016
• Steve Molever (board member)
  Elected to the Board in 2016

Tom Pyron vs Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Posted on June 19, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-19
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom Pyron	Counsel	—
Respondent	Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

Bylaws, Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA correctly identified only one Board position (the one-year term) was up for election in 2017 based on the Bylaws' staggered term provisions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated its Bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Dispute over the number of Board of Director positions available for the 2017 election.

Petitioner alleged Respondent HOA violated Bylaws by stating only one Board position was up for election for a one-year term in 2017, when Petitioner contended two positions (one-year and two-year terms) were open.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Election, Bylaw Violation, Board Term, Staggered Terms, Condominium Association

Additional Citations:

• 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)
• A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
• A.R.S. § 41-1092.08
• R4-28-1310

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 570560.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:37 (120.2 KB)

17F-H1717026-REL Decision – 576045.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:38 (959.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Pyron v. Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between homeowner Tom Pyron (“Petitioner”) and the Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). The central issue was the Petitioner’s allegation that the Respondent violated its bylaws by announcing only one Board of Directors position was open for election in 2017, whereas the Petitioner contended two positions should have been open.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled decisively in favor of the Respondent. The decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the association’s bylaws, specifically Article III, § 3.02, which governs the staggered terms of office for the three-member board. The ALJ found that a board member’s personal understanding of their term length could not amend the plain language of the bylaws. Based on the bylaw’s schedule for staggered terms, the judge concluded that a pivotal 2015 election could only have filled a one-year and a three-year term, which sequentially led to only one position being open in 2017. The Petitioner’s petition was denied, and this decision was subsequently adopted as a Final Order by the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Pyron, a condominium owner and member of the Respondent association.

◦ Respondent: Cliffs at North Mountain Condominium Association, Inc., represented by B. Austin Baillio, Esq., of Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

• Case Numbers: 17F-H1717026-REL; HO 17-17/026

• Adjudicator: Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Final Order By: Judy Lowe, Commissioner, Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• Hearing Date: June 12, 2017.

• Final Order Date: July 12, 2017.

The case was initiated when Tom Pyron filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on March 16, 2017, alleging a violation of the homeowners’ association’s bylaws concerning the 2017 Board of Directors election.

II. Petitioner’s Allegations

The Petitioner’s claim centered on the belief that the Respondent improperly noticed the number of available Board positions for the 2017 election.

• Core Allegation: The Respondent violated its Bylaws (Article III, §§ 3.02 and 3.06, and Article IV, § 4.06) by informing members that only one Board position for a one-year term was available for the 2017 election.

• Petitioner’s Contention: Two positions—one for a one-year term and one for a two-year term—should have been up for election in 2017.

• Basis of Argument: The Petitioner’s argument was built upon the 2015 election of Barbara Ahlstrand. He contended, supported by Ahlstrand’s testimony, that she was elected to a two-year term. Following this logic:

1. Ahlstrand’s term would run from 2015 to 2017.

2. When she resigned in August 2015, her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was appointed to serve the remainder of that two-year term, which would expire in 2017.

3. Therefore, Jeff Oursland should not have been on the ballot for the 2016 election, and his two-year position should have been one of the two seats open for election in 2017.

III. Respondent’s Position and Pre-Hearing Actions

The Respondent denied any violation of its bylaws and maintained that its actions were consistent with the governing documents.

• Pre-Hearing Resolution Attempts: In response to the Petitioner’s concerns, the Respondent twice rescheduled the 2017 annual meeting and re-issued election ballots. The Respondent also offered to pay the Petitioner’s $500 single-issue filing fee if he was satisfied with the proposed resolution, an offer the Petitioner did not accept.

• Core Defense: The Respondent’s position was based on a direct interpretation of Bylaw § 3.02, which dictates the schedule of staggered terms.

• Basis of Argument: The Respondent argued that according to the bylaw’s prescribed cycle, only the one-year and three-year positions were up for election in 2015.

1. As it was agreed that Sandra Singer received the most votes and was elected to the three-year term, Barbara Ahlstrand must have been elected to the available one-year term.

2. Therefore, Ahlstrand’s term was set to expire in 2016.

3. Her replacement, Jeff Oursland, was correctly appointed to serve only until the 2016 election.

4. Consequently, Oursland was properly elected to a new two-year term in 2016 (expiring in 2018), and the only seat open in 2017 was the one-year term completed by Steve Molever.

IV. Chronology of Board Elections and Appointments

The dispute originated from differing interpretations of election outcomes from 2014 onward. The Board of Directors has consistently been comprised of three members.

Election Year

Agreed Facts & Election Results

Petitioner’s Interpretation/Contention

Respondent’s Interpretation/Position

Anne Fugate elected to a 3-year term.
John Haunschild elected to a 2-year term.
Ron Cadaret elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Ron Cadaret re-elected to a 1-year term.

N/A (Agreed)

N/A (Agreed)

Minutes state “the election of Sandra Singer was unanimously passed by acclamation.”

Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term. No other officers were elected.

Based on bylaw § 3.02 and the 2015 Board composition, John Haunschild must have been re-elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2016), and Sandra Singer was elected to a 1-year term (expiring 2015).

Sandra Singer and Barbara Ahlstrand were elected. Singer received the most votes and was elected to a 3-year term. Ahlstrand resigned 8/3/2015.

Ahlstrand believed she was elected to a 2-year term (expiring 2017).

Per bylaw § 3.02, only the 1-year and 3-year terms were open. Since Singer got the 3-year term, Ahlstrand must have been elected to the 1-year term (expiring 2016).

Appointment

The Board appointed Jeff Oursland to serve the remainder of Ahlstrand’s term.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2017.

Oursland was appointed to a term expiring in 2016.

Jeff Oursland was elected to a 2-year term.
Steve Molever was elected to a 1-year term.

Oursland should not have been on the ballot, as his term was not set to expire until 2017.

Oursland’s appointed term expired, so he was properly elected to a new 2-year term (expiring 2018).

No election had been held due to the pending petition.

Two positions should be open for election: the 2-year term (Ahlstrand/Oursland’s) and the 1-year term (Molever’s).

Only one position is open for election: the 1-year term completed by Molever.

V. Analysis and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” and a strict textual interpretation of the association’s bylaws. The Petitioner bore the burden of proof to establish a violation.

• Primacy of Bylaw Language: The judge’s central legal conclusion was that the bylaws must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. Key quotes from the decision include:

• Key Legal Finding: The pivotal determination concerned the 2015 election. The ALJ found that under the “plain language of Bylaw § 3.02, only the one-year and three-year terms were up for election in 2015.”

◦ Because the parties agreed that Ms. Singer was elected to the three-year term, the judge concluded that “Ms. Ahlstrand must have been elected to the one-year term.”

◦ This finding invalidated the Petitioner’s core premise that Ahlstrand had begun a two-year term.

• Consequential Logic: This central finding created a direct logical chain that affirmed the Respondent’s actions:

1. Ms. Ahlstrand’s term was for one year, expiring in 2016.

2. When she resigned, the Board appointed Mr. Oursland to serve the remainder of her term, which correctly ended at the 2016 election.

3. Mr. Oursland was therefore “properly elected to a two-year term at that time [2016], which will expire in 2018.”

VI. Final Disposition

Based on the analysis of the bylaws and the sequence of elections, the ALJ ruled against the Petitioner.

• Recommended Order (June 19, 2017): The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the “Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Final Order (July 12, 2017): The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate accepted and adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Final Order states, “The Commissioner accepts the ALJ decision that Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied.”

• Binding Nature: The Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted. The document outlines eight potential causes for which a rehearing or review may be granted, including procedural irregularities, misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or a finding of fact that is arbitrary or contrary to law.

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:00 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:02:00 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:31 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:31:31 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

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

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Linda Haderli (petitioner)
• Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
• Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

• Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
• Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
• Mary Candelaria (general manager)
  Respondent's General Manager; testified
• Barb Putnam (employee)
  Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
  Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
• Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

• Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
  Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Video Overview

https://youtu.be/Cq8AgIpY6YI

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:19:59 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:20:04 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.

Study Guide: Haderli v. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case documents.

1. Who are the primary parties in this legal dispute, and what are their respective roles?

2. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, in her petition?

3. What specific disciplinary action did the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. impose on Linda Haderli?

4. List the three reasons the Association provided to justify its disciplinary action against the Petitioner.

5. How did Linda Haderli explain her interaction with the Association employee, Barb Putnam, which the Association characterized as harassment?

6. What was the Petitioner’s explanation for contacting the City of Mesa and SRP regarding the Pickleball Club’s building project?

7. According to the Association’s governing documents (CC&R’s), what specific remedies are available for non-monetary infractions and “Other Violations”?

8. What is the legal standard of proof that the Petitioner was required to meet in this case, and how is it defined in the document?

9. What was the final conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the Association’s authority to impose its chosen discipline?

10. What were the three components of the Recommended Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge, which was later adopted as the Final Order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Haderli, the Petitioner, and Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner is the individual homeowner who filed the dispute, while the Respondent is the homeowners association (HOA) that took disciplinary action against her.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent did not have the authority under its own governing documents to take the disciplinary action it imposed. Specifically, she challenged her removal as President of the Pickleball Club and the subsequent ban from holding any officer position.

3. The Association removed Linda Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club. Additionally, it precluded her from serving as any officer of the Pickleball Club for a period of 24 months.

4. The Association cited three reasons: (1) harassing Association employees and circumventing policies; (2) improperly permitting Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor,” a non-existent officer position; and (3) representing herself to the City of Mesa and SRP as having authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association.

5. Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, attributing her loud voice to hearing loss which can be misinterpreted. She stated she was simply trying to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that the employee was not being cooperative in providing information.

6. The Petitioner testified that she approached the City of Mesa and SRP merely to gather background information to be more informed about the building project. She denied ever representing herself as having authority to act for the Association and was initially hesitant to even provide her name for fear of creating that impression.

7. For “Other Violations,” Section 15.2B of the CC&R’s allows for a monetary assessment up to $500.00. For non-monetary infractions, Section 12.2 allows the Association to suspend an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights until the infraction is cured.

8. The Petitioner was required to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The document defines this as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Board’s decision to remove the Petitioner as Pickleball Club President and ban her from holding office for 24 months was in excess of its authority. The judge found that this specific penalty was not a remedy available to the Association under its governing documents.

10. The Order dictated that (1) the Petitioner be deemed the prevailing party in the matter, (2) the Respondent’s imposed discipline against the Petitioner be quashed (nullified), and (3) the Respondent pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: Consider the following prompts for longer, essay-style responses. Use evidence and specific details from the case documents to construct your arguments.

1. Analyze the discrepancy between the disciplinary penalties available to the Association under its CC&R’s (Sections 12.2 and 15.2B) and the penalty it actually imposed on Linda Haderli. Explain why this discrepancy was the pivotal factor in the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the three allegations made by the Association against Linda Haderli. For each allegation, present the evidence and testimony offered by the Association (via Mary Candelaria) and the counter-evidence or explanation provided by the Petitioner.

3. Trace the procedural timeline of this case, starting from the filing of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition. Describe each key step, including the date of filing, the Notice of Hearing, the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge Decision, and the final adoption of that decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate.

4. The Respondent stated that the discipline was against Linda Haderli in her capacity as a resident, not as a representative of the Pickleball Club. Evaluate this argument in the context of the specific penalties imposed. Did the nature of the discipline align with the Association’s claim?

5. Explain the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, successfully meet the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association acted outside its authority?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judicial officer, Tammy L. Eigenheer, who presided over the administrative hearing, evaluated evidence, and issued a decision and recommended order.

Answer

The formal response filed by the Respondent (Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.) denying the violation alleged in the Petitioner’s petition.

CC&R’s

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are part of the Association’s governing documents that outline the rules for residents and the remedies available to the Association for violations.

Commissioner

The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Judy Lowe, who has the authority to adopt the ALJ’s decision, making it a Final Order.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between homeowners and homeowners associations.

Final Order

The official, binding order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate that adopts the ALJ’s decision. This order becomes effective immediately and is appealable through judicial review.

Governing Documents

The collection of rules, bylaws, and CC&R’s that legally govern the operation of the Homeowners Association and the conduct of its members.

Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Process Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner (Linda Haderli) with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on or about March 28, 2017, to initiate the legal dispute against the Association.

Petitioner

The party who filed the petition initiating the legal action. In this case, homeowner Linda Haderli.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win the case. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Prevailing Party

The party that wins the legal dispute. The Administrative Law Judge’s order deemed the Petitioner, Linda Haderli, to be the prevailing party.

Quashed

A legal term meaning to nullify, void, or set aside. The Judge’s order quashed the disciplinary action that the Respondent had imposed on the Petitioner.

Respondent

The party against whom the petition is filed and who is responding to the allegations. In this case, Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

She Fought Her HOA Over Pickleball—And Won on a Technicality. Here Are 4 Surprising Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath of Neighborhood Disputes

For many homeowners, a dispute with their Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like an unwinnable battle. The board holds what seems like absolute power, leaving residents feeling powerless. However, a recent administrative hearing in Arizona offers a powerful counter-narrative and a series of crucial lessons for anyone living in a planned community. The case involved Linda Haderli, the President of a community Pickleball Club, and her HOA, the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. What started as a disagreement over her conduct escalated into a formal disciplinary action that was ultimately overturned. The story of her victory reveals surprising truths about the limits of an HOA’s authority.

Takeaway 1: Your HOA’s Power Isn’t Unlimited—It’s Written in Black and White

An HOA Board Can’t Invent Punishments.

The core of the dispute was the punishment the HOA Board imposed on Linda Haderli. In response to alleged rule violations, the Board removed her from her elected position as President of the Pickleball Club and banned her from holding any club office for 24 months.

However, a close look at the Association’s own governing documents—the CC&Rs—revealed a critical flaw in the Board’s action. The documents specified exactly which remedies were available for violations. These included a monetary assessment not to exceed $500, or the suspension of an owner’s voting rights and their right to use common areas.

The punishment the Board chose—removal from an elected position and a ban from future office—was simply not on that list. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was unequivocal on this point:

Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that the Board’s decision to remove Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and to preclude her from holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months was in excess of its authority under the Association’s governing documents.

Ultimately, the HOA was bound by the rules it had created. Its failure to adhere to its own documents was the key to its defeat.

Takeaway 2: It Might Not Matter Who Was “Right”

The Case Can Hinge on Procedure, Not on the Facts of the Dispute.

The HOA levied three main accusations against Haderli: harassing an Association employee during a contentious interaction, improperly allowing an “Advisor” to participate in the club, and misrepresenting herself to the City of Mesa while researching a project. For her part, Haderli explained that her hearing loss can cause her to speak loudly, that the advisor had served in that capacity previously, and that she was only gathering information from the city and never claimed to have authority.

Here is the counter-intuitive twist: the judge never ruled on whether Haderli was actually guilty of any of these actions. The final decision did not weigh the evidence to determine who was “right” or “wrong” about the incidents. The entire case was decided on the grounds that the punishment itself was invalid because it was not authorized by the HOA’s governing documents, regardless of the alleged offenses that prompted it.

This procedural victory underscores the first lesson: it didn’t matter if the Board’s accusations were 100% true, because they attempted to enforce their judgment with a punishment they had no authority to invent. This is a crucial lesson. In an HOA dispute, winning isn’t always about proving your innocence regarding an incident. It can be about proving the board failed to follow its own established rules and procedures for discipline.

Takeaway 3: You May Have to Prove the HOA is Wrong

The Burden of Proof Can Fall on the Homeowner.

Many might assume that an HOA, as the governing body imposing discipline, would be required to prove it had the authority to do so. In this case, however, the legal burden was reversed. The administrative ruling states that the homeowner, referred to as the “Petitioner,” had the “burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA acted without authority. This is not unusual; in an administrative hearing, the person who files the petition is the one bringing the complaint, and it is standard procedure for them to carry the burden of proving their claim.

The court defined “preponderance of the evidence” as:

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

This is a significant hurdle. It meant that Haderli couldn’t just question the Board’s power; she had to affirmatively prove, with more convincing evidence, that they didn’t have the authority they claimed. Despite this challenge, she successfully met that burden.

Takeaway 4: Victory Can Be Found in the Fine Print

Knowing Your Governing Documents is Your Greatest Weapon.

This case was not won through complex legal maneuvering or emotional arguments about who was to blame. Victory was found in a straightforward reading of the HOA’s own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

The judge’s decision specifically cited Sections 14.2, 15.2B, and 12.2 of the CC&Rs as the foundation for what constituted authorized punishments—namely, fines and the suspension of privileges. By pointing out that the Board’s chosen discipline was absent from these sections, Haderli demonstrated that the Board had overstepped.

This reinforces the central lesson for every homeowner. The most powerful tool you have in a dispute with your association is a copy of your own governing documents. The answer to whether a board is overstepping its authority is often written right there in the text. Homeowners should treat their CC&Rs not as a dusty rulebook, but as a binding contract that holds their Board accountable.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

In the end, Linda Haderli was officially deemed the “prevailing party.” The judge ordered that the HOA’s imposed discipline be “quashed” and that her $500 filing fee be returned. This victory was possible for one primary reason: the HOA board exceeded the specific authority granted to it by its own rules. The case serves as a powerful reminder that an HOA’s power is not absolute; it is defined and limited by its documents.

The Board’s power ended where their documents said it did. Do you know where that line is drawn in your community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

• Linda Haderli (petitioner)
• Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
• Ashley C. Hill (attorney)

Respondent Side

• Samuel E. Arrowsmith (attorney)
• Ryan J. McCarthy (attorney)
• Mary Candelaria (general manager)
  Respondent's General Manager; testified
• Barb Putnam (employee)
  Association employee allegedly harassed by Petitioner

Neutral Parties

• Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
• Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
  Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate
• Abby Hansen (HOA Coordinator)

Other Participants

• Joyce Wooton (involved individual)
  Individual associated with the Pickleball Club, subject of allegation

Linda Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.

Posted on June 18, 2017 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	17F-H1717029-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2017-06-18
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	total
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Haderli	Counsel	Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent	Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc.	Counsel	Samuel E. Arrowsmith

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party. The HOA (Respondent) was found to have acted beyond the scope of its authority under its governing documents by removing the Petitioner as the Pickleball Club President and banning her from holding office for 24 months. The imposed discipline was quashed, and the HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA lacked authority to impose discipline (removal as club president and 24-month ban on holding office) under governing documents.

Petitioner alleged Respondent lacked authority pursuant to governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and preclude her from serving as any officer for 24 months as purported discipline. The Tribunal concluded the Board’s decision was in excess of its authority because Respondent did not establish that removal and the prohibition on holding office were remedies available under the governing documents.

Orders: Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party; Respondent's imposed discipline was quashed; Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: discipline, governing documents, authority, club officer removal, homeowner vs HOA

Additional Citations:

• A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
• A.A.C. R2-19-119
• CC&R’s Section 14.2
• CC&R’s Section 15.2B
• CC&R’s Section 12.2

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 570378.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:46 (84.2 KB)

17F-H1717029-REL Decision – 575026.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T06:57:47 (700.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Haderli vs. Carriage Manor RV Resort Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings and legal conclusions from an administrative hearing concerning a dispute between resident Linda Haderli (Petitioner) and the Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s decision to remove Ms. Haderli from her position as President of the Pickleball Club and to bar her from holding any club office for 24 months as a disciplinary measure.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Haderli. The central finding was that the disciplinary action imposed by the Association was in excess of the authority granted by its own governing documents (CC&Rs). While the Association’s rules allowed for remedies such as financial assessments up to $500 or the suspension of common area use rights for violations, they did not provide for the removal of a resident from an elected club office. Consequently, the ALJ ordered that Ms. Haderli be deemed the prevailing party, the Association’s disciplinary action be quashed, and the Association reimburse Ms. Haderli’s $500 filing fee. This decision was formally adopted by the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, making it a final administrative order.

Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Linda Haderli

◦ Respondent: Carriage Manor RV Resort Association, Inc., a homeowners association in Mesa, Arizona.

• Legal Venue: The Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 17F-H1717029-REL

• Hearing Date: May 30, 2017

• Core Issue: On March 28, 2017, Ms. Haderli filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. She alleged that the Association lacked the authority under its governing documents to remove her as President of the Pickleball Club and to prohibit her from serving in any club officer position for two years as a form of discipline.

The Association’s Disciplinary Action and Justification

The Association took disciplinary action against Ms. Haderli and provided three specific reasons for its decision in a formal letter:

1. Challenging Board Policies: The letter accused Ms. Haderli of harassing Association employees and circumventing established systems designed to implement Association policies.

2. Improper Officer Representation: The Association stated that Ms. Haderli had permitted Ms. Joyce Wooton to represent herself as an “Advisor” to the Pickleball Club, a position not recognized as an official Officer position in the Pickleball By-Laws.

3. Unauthorized Representation to External Entities: The Association claimed Ms. Haderli had represented herself to the City of Mesa and SRP (Salt River Project) as having the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Association, which had not been granted by the Board of Directors.

Analysis of Allegations and Testimony

During the May 30, 2017 hearing, testimony was presented by both parties regarding the three justifications for the disciplinary action.

Allegation 1: Harassment of an Association Employee

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria testified that on January 4, 2017, Ms. Haderli had a “contentious interaction” with an employee, Barb Putnam. According to some observers, Ms. Haderli was yelling. The following day, Ms. Putnam was hospitalized with a hemorrhage in her eye. Ms. Candelaria “theorized” that the stress from the encounter caused the medical issue. She collected written statements from observers but did not speak with Ms. Haderli about the incident, citing confidentiality concerns.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied yelling at Ms. Putnam, explaining that her hearing loss sometimes causes her to speak louder than intended, which can be misinterpreted as yelling. She stated she was attempting to reserve dates for Pickleball Club fundraising events and that Ms. Putnam was uncooperative. Ms. Haderli testified she was unaware of the harassment accusation until reviewing exhibits for the hearing with her attorney.

Allegation 2: Improper Officer Representation (Joyce Wooton)

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli testified that Ms. Wooton was already serving as an advisor to the Pickleball Club when Ms. Haderli was elected Vice President, a full year before she became President on March 1, 2016.

Allegation 3: Unauthorized Representation to External Entities

• Respondent’s Testimony (Mary Candelaria, General Manager): Ms. Candelaria stated that while the Pickleball Club was exploring a project to build a small structure, Ms. Haderli contacted the City of Mesa and SRP directly, representing herself as acting on behalf of the Association. This continued even after Ms. Haderli was advised to work through the project’s architect for technical questions.

• Petitioner’s Testimony (Linda Haderli): Ms. Haderli denied representing herself as having authority to act for the Association. She testified that her intent was merely to gather background information to be better informed about the project. She initially did not want to provide her name or address to the entities for fear of appearing to act in an official capacity, only providing the address when required because regulations differ by city area.

Governing Documents and Permitted Remedies

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision hinged on the specific remedies available to the Association as outlined in its governing documents, the CC&Rs. The Association clarified that the discipline was imposed on Ms. Haderli in her capacity as a resident who violated community rules, not as a disciplinary action against the Pickleball Club itself.

The following sections of the CC&Rs were cited as relevant:

CC&R Section

Description

Authorized Remedy

Section 14.2

Employee Abuse: Prohibits physical or verbal harassment of employees by residents.

Enforcement as an “Other Violation” under Section 15.2B.

Section 15.2B

Other Violations: Stipulates that such violations are subject to a financial penalty.

An assessment set by the Board of Directors, not to exceed $500.00.

Section 12.2

Suspension of Rights: Grants the Association the right to suspend an Owner’s rights for infractions.

Suspension of an Owner’s voting rights and Common Areas use rights.

Legal Conclusions and Final Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge reached several key conclusions of law that led to the final order.

• Burden of Proof: The petitioner, Linda Haderli, bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association acted without the authority granted by its governing documents.

• Excess of Authority: The Respondent (the Association) “did not establish that removal as the Pickleball Club President and/or a prohibition of holding any other officer position for a period of 24 months is a remedy available under the governing documents.”

• Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Directors’ decision to impose this specific discipline was in excess of its authority.

Recommended and Final Order

Based on these conclusions, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer issued a recommended order on June 18, 2017:

1. Petitioner Deemed Prevailing Party: Linda Haderli was declared the prevailing party in the matter.

2. Discipline Quashed: The disciplinary action imposed by the Association against Ms. Haderli was ordered to be quashed.

3. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to pay Ms. Haderli her $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

On June 21, 2017, Judy Lowe, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate, issued a Final Order adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety. This order became a final administrative action, effective immediately.