Tag Archives: 2019

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 741807.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:05:18 (78.9 KB)

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:23 (69.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919071-REL


Study Guide: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (No. 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

Answer the following questions in two to three sentences each, based on the information in the provided source text.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their respective roles?

2. What specific action taken by Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen initiated the dispute with the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association?

3. What was Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument for why the HOA’s Flag Display Rule was invalid?

4. On what authority did the Carter Ranch HOA claim it had the right to create and enforce its Flag Display Rule?

5. According to the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule,” which specific flags are homeowners permitted to fly?

6. What is the legal standard of proof the petitioner was required to meet in this hearing, and how is it defined in the decision?

7. What protection does Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1808(C) provide for “political signs”?

8. What were the two key failures of the petitioner’s case, as identified in the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law?

9. What was the final ruling, or “Order,” issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

10. What are the next steps for a party wishing to challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s order?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who brought the complaint, and the Respondent, Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, which was defending its actions. Mr. Van Dan Elzen represented himself, while the HOA was represented by its attorney, Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

2. The dispute began on or about May 21, 2019, when the Carter Ranch HOA notified Mr. Van Dan Elzen that he had violated its rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag in his front yard. This notice of violation prompted Mr. Van Dan Elzen to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

3. Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s central argument was that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He contended that because CC&R section 3.14 only defines “SIGNS” and makes no reference to “Flags,” the HOA had no basis in the CC&Rs to regulate his flag.

4. The Carter Ranch HOA asserted its authority based on Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the HOA Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to the health, safety, or welfare of the owners and restrictions on the use of Lots.

5. The HOA’s Flag Display Rule prohibits flying any flag other than the American Flag, an official replica of a U.S. military flag (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard), a POW/MIA flag, an Arizona Indian National flag, the Arizona State flag, and the Gadsden Flag.

6. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision 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.”

7. A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) prevents an HOA from prohibiting the display of political signs on a member’s property, although it allows for regulation. An HOA cannot prohibit political signs earlier than 71 days before an election or later than three days after, and its rules on size and number can be no more restrictive than applicable city or county ordinances.

8. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the Flag Display Rule was improperly adopted or inconsistent with the CC&Rs. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that the petitioner had not actually alleged that Carter Ranch violated the specific statute he cited, A.R.S. § 33-1808.

9. The final Order was that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. The Judge also deemed the Respondent, Carter Ranch HOA, to be the prevailing party in the matter.

10. A party wishing to appeal the order must seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the superior court. This appeal must be filed within thirty-five days from the date the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by state statutes.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Deeper Analysis

The following questions are designed to encourage a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the petitioner’s argument that the Flag Display Rule was invalid because the word “flag” does not appear in the CC&Rs. Why was this argument ultimately unconvincing to the Administrative Law Judge?

2. Explain the legal distinction between a “flag” and a “political sign” as presented in A.R.S. § 33-1808. How might the petitioner’s case have differed if he had argued his “Trump 2020” flag was a “political sign” instead of a flag?

3. Discuss the authority granted to the Carter Ranch HOA Board by Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. How did the HOA use this section to justify its Flag Display Rule, and why was this justification accepted by the court?

4. Evaluate the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner “has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” How can this be true when the petitioner’s initial filing explicitly cited this statute?

5. Based on the provided text of A.R.S. § 33-1808, under what specific circumstances could a homeowner in Carter Ranch successfully challenge the HOA’s rules on outdoor displays?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Velva Moses-Thompson served as the ALJ in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The codified collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The case centered on an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)

The governing legal documents that set up the guidelines for a planned community or subdivision. The Carter Ranch CC&Rs grant the HOA Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Department

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Flag Display Rule

The specific rule created by the Carter Ranch HOA that prohibits flying any flag other than the American, military, POW/MIA, Arizona Indian National, Arizona State, and Gadsden flags.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Carter Ranch Homeowners Association is the Respondent in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal action against another party. In this case, the petitioner is Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen.

Political Sign

Defined by A.R.S. § 33-1808(C) as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.” HOAs are restricted in their ability to prohibit the display of such signs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof required in this proceeding. It is defined as “Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it,” meaning the fact is more probable than not.

Prevailing Party

The party who wins the legal case. The Administrative Law Judge deemed the Respondent (Carter Ranch HOA) to be the prevailing party.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues. This case was decided as a result of a rehearing held on January 10, 2020.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; the party who must respond to the complaint. In this case, the respondent is the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919071-REL


He Fought the HOA Over a Political Flag—And Lost. Here Are 3 Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Pride and the Problem

Imagine this: You want to display a flag on your own property to support a political candidate. It feels like a fundamental right, an expression of free speech on your home turf. But then, a letter arrives from your Homeowners Association (HOA) citing you for a violation. This exact scenario happened to Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, who displayed a “Trump 2020” flag and promptly received a violation notice from the Carter Ranch HOA in Arizona.

Believing the HOA was overstepping its authority, Mr. Van Dan Elzen took them to court. He lost. The outcome might seem counter-intuitive, but the court’s decision reveals crucial lessons for any homeowner living under an HOA. Here are the three surprising legal reasons why the HOA won.

1. The Power of the Fine Print: Why a “Loophole” Wasn’t Enough

Mr. Van Dan Elzen built his case on a clever textual argument. He alleged that the HOA’s rule against his flag was invalid because the section of the master community documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—he believed it was based on only regulated “SIGNS” and made no mention of “FLAGS.” He argued that since the document didn’t explicitly prohibit flags, the rule against his was unenforceable.

This seemingly logical “loophole” argument failed. The HOA countered by pointing to a different, much broader clause in their CC&Rs. Article V, Section 5.3, gave the HOA board expansive power to create new rules.

The Board may, from time to time, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations pertaining to: … (iii) the health, safety or welfare of the owners, Lessees and Residence, or (iv) restrictions on the use of Lots…

This general power to create rules for the “welfare of the owners” was enough to give the HOA the legal authority to regulate flags, even if the word “flag” wasn’t in the specific section the homeowner cited. The broad power to govern trumped the narrow, semantic argument.

2. A Flag Is Not a Sign (At Least, Not According to the Law)

While the homeowner’s flag was political in nature, it did not receive the legal protections granted to “political signs” under Arizona law. This distinction proved fatal to his case.

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808, is highly specific about which flags an HOA is forbidden from prohibiting. The protected list includes: the American flag, official military branch flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, Arizona Indian nations flags, and the Gadsden flag. Critically, the Carter Ranch HOA’s own Flag Display Rule mirrored this state-approved list exactly, demonstrating they had aligned their regulations with the law. A political campaign flag, like “Trump 2020,” is not on this protected list.

The same law does protect political signs, but it defines them very precisely:

“political sign” means a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer or supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for a ballot measure, question or proposition or the recall of a public officer.

The key takeaway is that the law treats a political flag differently from a political sign. Because the “Trump 2020” item was a flag and not on the state’s protected flag list, the HOA was well within its rights to restrict its display based on its own community rules.

3. A Critical Misstep: Arguing the Wrong Point

The most decisive reason for the loss was not a procedural error, but a substantive legal failure. Mr. Van Dan Elzen filed his petition with the state on the grounds that the HOA had violated a specific state law, A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and political signs.

However, his entire case was built on arguing that the HOA’s internal rules were inconsistent with its own CC&Rs—the “sign” versus “flag” argument. This was the wrong legal target. To win, he had to prove that the HOA had violated the state statute. But the statute explicitly allows an HOA to regulate any flag not on the protected list. By regulating his “Trump 2020” flag, the HOA was doing exactly what the state law permitted. His argument about internal documents, even if correct, did not add up to a violation of the state law he sued under.

The Administrative Law Judge recognized this fundamental flaw, concluding that the homeowner hadn’t actually made a case for a statutory violation at all.

Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

This is a crucial lesson: it’s not enough to feel wronged. Your argument must directly prove that the specific law you cite in your complaint has actually been broken. The homeowner’s claim was dismissed because his central argument was irrelevant to the law he needed to prove was violated.

Conclusion: Know Your Rights, and Your Rules

The case of the “Trump 2020” flag is a powerful illustration for homeowners everywhere. It highlights three critical realities of living in an HOA: the broad rule-making power granted by community documents can override perceived loopholes; state laws make very specific and narrow distinctions between protected items like signs and flags; and a sound legal strategy is paramount.

This case is a stark reminder that in an HOA, your property rights are defined not by what you feel is right, but by what is written down. Before you make a stand, are you certain you’re fighting the right battle on the right legal ground?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (attorney)
    Shaw & Lines LLC
    Appeared for Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Dustin Snow (property manager)
    SNOW PROPERTY SERVICES
    Recipient of order transmission

Thomas J Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2020-01-30
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen Counsel —
Respondent Carter Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1808

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's case, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 or improperly adopted its Flag Display Rule.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1808 and failed to prove that the HOA's Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with or improperly adopted under the CC&Rs.

Key Issues & Findings

Flags and Sings

Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen filed a petition arguing that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808 after being notified he violated Association Rules by displaying a “Trump 2020” flag. He argued the HOA's Flag Display Rule was invalid because the CC&Rs only defined SIGNS (DCC&R 3.14) and had no reference to Flags whatsoever, thus the rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

Orders: Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed. Respondent is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990)
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Flag Display, Political Sign, CC&Rs, Rules & Regulations
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1808
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • 4 United States Code sections 4 through 10

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919071-REL Decision – 767071.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-08T07:09:41 (69.0 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919071-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Van Dan Elzen v. Carter Ranch HOA

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen versus the Carter Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA), case number 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on the HOA’s prohibition of a “Trump 2020” flag displayed by Mr. Van Dan Elzen at his property. The petitioner alleged this prohibition violated Arizona state law.

The ALJ ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the Carter Ranch HOA. The decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was inconsistent with its foundational Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or that the rule was improperly adopted. Crucially, the ALJ found that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a direct violation of the relevant state statute, A.R.S. § 33-1808. The ruling effectively upholds the HOA’s authority, granted by its CC&Rs, to regulate the display of flags not explicitly protected by Arizona law.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen, Petitioner, vs. Carter Ranch Homeowners Association, Respondent.

• Case Number: 19F-H1919071-REL-RHG

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

• Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

• Decision Date: January 30, 2020

• Subject of Dispute: The validity of an HOA rule prohibiting the display of a “Trump 2020” political flag, which the petitioner claimed violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

II. Chronology of Key Events

• May 21, 2019: Carter Ranch HOA notifies petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen that his “Trump 2020” flag violates Association Rules.

• June 14, 2019: Mr. Van Dan Elzen files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

• November 18, 2019: The Department of Real Estate issues an order setting the matter for a rehearing.

• January 10, 2020: The rehearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge.

III. Petitioner’s Position (Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen)

Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s case was predicated on the argument that the HOA’s rules regarding flags were inconsistent with its own governing documents, specifically the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

• Core Allegation: The HOA’s enforcement action violated A.R.S. § 33-1808, which governs flags and signs.

• Primary Argument: Mr. Van Dan Elzen contended that the HOA’s “Flag Display Rule” was invalid because the CC&Rs do not explicitly mention the word “flag.” He argued that the relevant section of the governing documents, DCC&R 3.14, only defines “SIGNS.”

• Direct Quotation from Petition: The petition stated the following, highlighting the perceived discrepancy:

IV. Respondent’s Position (Carter Ranch HOA)

The Carter Ranch HOA maintained that its “Flag Display Rule” was valid, properly enacted, and did not violate state law or its own governing documents.

• The “Flag Display Rule”: The HOA’s rules explicitly prohibit flying any flag other than those on an approved list, which includes:

◦ The American Flag

◦ Official flags of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard

◦ A POW/MIA flag

◦ An Arizona Indian National flag

◦ The Arizona State flag

◦ The Gadsden Flag

• Authority to Regulate: The HOA asserted its authority to create this rule stemmed from Article V, Section 5.3 of its CC&Rs. This section grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules pertaining to “the health, safety or welfare of the owners… or restrictions on the use of Lots.” It also specifies that such rules are “enforceable in the same manner” as the CC&Rs themselves.

• Defense Arguments: The HOA contended that the petition should be dismissed because:

1. The Flag Display Rule was not inconsistent with the CC&Rs.

2. The rule was properly adopted under the authority granted in the CC&Rs.

3. The petitioner failed to allege that the HOA had actually violated a specific statute or provision of its governing documents.

V. Analysis of Governing Law: A.R.S. § 33-1808

This Arizona Revised Statute was central to the dispute. It places specific limitations on an HOA’s ability to regulate the display of certain flags and political signs.

Provision

Description of Regulation

Subsection A: Protected Flags

An HOA cannot prohibit the outdoor display of: The American flag (if displayed consistent with federal code), official U.S. military flags, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, an Arizona Indian nations flag, or the Gadsden flag.

Subsection C: Political Signs

An HOA cannot prohibit the display of political signs on a member’s property, but may regulate them. Permissible regulations include:
• Time: Prohibiting display earlier than 71 days before an election and later than 3 days after an election.
• Size & Number: Regulations must be no more restrictive than applicable city/county ordinances. If no such ordinance exists, the HOA cannot limit the number of signs, but can cap the maximum aggregate dimensions at nine square feet.

• Definition of “Political Sign”: The statute defines a political sign as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.”

VI. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof, which is to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. Rule Consistency: The ALJ concluded that the “Petitioner has not established that the Flag Display Rule was inconsistent with the CC&Rs.”

2. Rule Adoption: The ALJ found that the “Petitioner has not established that the Association improperly adopted the Flag Display Rule under its CC&Rs.”

3. Failure to Allege Violation: The judge noted that the “Petitioner has not alleged that Carter Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.” This indicates a failure in the petition’s framing to connect the HOA’s actions to a specific statutory prohibition.

4. Final Determination: Based on these conclusions, the judge determined that “Mr. Van Dan Elzen’s petition should be dismissed and the Respondent be deemed to be the prevailing party in this matter.”

• Dismissal: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Thomas J. Van Dan Elzen’s petition is dismissed.”

• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties as it resulted from a rehearing.

• Appeal Rights: Any appeal must be filed with the superior court within 35 days from the date the order was served.


Dennis J Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919069-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-24
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J Gregory Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Marc Vasquez

Alleged Violations

8.1.7 of CC&Rs; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:21 (85.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL


Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.

The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.

Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.

Case Overview

The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919069-REL

Petitioner

Dennis J Gregory

Respondent

Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Presiding Judge

Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 4, 2019

Decision Date

September 24, 2019

Chronology of Events

• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.

• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.

• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.

• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.

• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:

• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”

• Allegations of Deception:

◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.

◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.

◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.

◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.

• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.

• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.

• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.

Respondent’s Position and Actions

The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.

• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.

• Corrective Measures:

◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.

◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.

◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.

• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.

• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:

◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.

◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.

◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.

◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.

3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919069-REL


Study Guide: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning Dennis J Gregory and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the case decision.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their roles?

2. What was the initial action by the Homeowners Association that triggered the dispute with the Petitioner?

3. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Dennis Gregory, allege in his Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?

4. How did the Respondent discover its error regarding the Petitioner’s palm trees?

5. What two specific actions did the Respondent take to rectify its error before the hearing took place?

6. Why did the Petitioner proceed with the hearing even after the Respondent retracted the violation notice and apologized?

7. Who was Annette McCraw, and what specific actions did the Petitioner accuse her of taking?

8. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and what was its significance in the judge’s decision?

9. According to the judge’s findings, why was the central issue of the dispute considered moot?

10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Dennis J Gregory, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. Marc Vasquez, vice president of Trestle Management Group, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

2. The dispute was triggered when the Respondent, on July 13, 2018, sent the Petitioner a courtesy notice requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard. The notice claimed the trees were a violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated section 8.1.7 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803.

4. After the Petitioner disputed the violation, the Respondent conducted a further review. Through this review, the Respondent discovered that the palm trees on the Petitioner’s property were actually listed on the “Recommended Plant List” and were therefore acceptable.

5. First, the Respondent issued a courtesy letter to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, apologizing for the misunderstanding. Second, the Respondent deemed the original violation notice invalid and had it “removed and expunged” from both its own and the Petitioner’s records to preserve his good standing.

6. The Petitioner proceeded with the hearing because he was upset and believed the Respondent had acted fraudulently. He alleged the Respondent lied about discussing the issue with board members, deceptively changed the CC&Rs, and failed to disclose who made the initial complaint.

7. Annette McCraw was an employee of Trestle Management Group, the Respondent’s management company. The Petitioner accused her of lying about speaking with board members regarding the palm tree issue and threatening him with a lawyer.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof required, defined as evidence convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. Its significance is that the Petitioner bore this burden of proof and ultimately failed to meet it, leading to the denial of his petition.

9. The issue was considered moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology letter and rescinded the violation notice before the hearing occurred. Since the Petitioner was never fined, the palm trees were deemed acceptable, and the notice was expunged, there was no longer an active controversy for the court to resolve.

10. The final Order, issued on September 24, 2019, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Order was binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, drawing evidence and arguments exclusively from the provided legal decision.

1. Analyze the concept of a “moot” issue as it applies to this case. How did the Respondent’s actions before the hearing render the Petitioner’s primary complaint moot in the eyes of the law, despite the Petitioner’s ongoing grievances?

2. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in the document and detail the specific reasons why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dennis Gregory failed to meet this burden.

3. Examine the roles and conduct of the management company, Trestle Management Group, and its employee, Annette McCraw. Based on the testimony presented, what specific actions escalated the conflict even after the initial landscaping error was identified and corrected?

4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial “courtesy notice” of July 13, 2018, to the final Order of September 24, 2019. Identify the key turning points and decisions made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent that influenced the outcome of the case.

5. Although the Petitioner lost the case, he raised several allegations beyond the palm trees, including fraud, deception, and threats. Using only the evidence presented in the decision, construct the argument that Dennis Gregory was attempting to make regarding why these subsequent actions constituted a violation of the planned community statute, even if the original tree issue was resolved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Antara Nath Rivera.

Answer

The Respondent’s formal written response to the Petition, filed in this case on June 28, 2019.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The decision cites A.R.S. § 33-1803, which authorizes HOAs to enforce CC&Rs, and statutes governing the hearing and rehearing process.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party to establish its claims by a required degree of evidence. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents that establish the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of section 8.1.7 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petition was filed and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (Petition)

The formal document filed by a homeowner to initiate a hearing with the Department concerning alleged violations by their homeowners association.

A legal term for a situation where the underlying issue has been resolved, making any ruling on the matter unnecessary. The judge found the case moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology and rescinded the violation notice.

The final and binding decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or hearing. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Dennis J Gregory.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond. In this case, the Respondent was the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association.

Trestle Management Group, LLC

The management company employed by the Respondent HOA to handle its operations.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919069-REL


An HOA Admitted It Was Wrong. The Homeowner Sued Anyway—And Lost. Here Are the Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Familiar Dread of an HOA Letter

For many homeowners, few things cause a spike of anxiety quite like a formal notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). That crisp envelope often contains a violation notice, sparking a frustrating process of proving compliance or making unwanted changes. But what happens when you prove the HOA was completely wrong, they admit their mistake, and issue a full apology? For most, that’s the end of the story—a clear victory.

This, however, is the story of a homeowner who achieved that victory and then decided to take the HOA to a formal hearing anyway. He had been proven right, the violation was erased, and no fines were ever issued. Yet, he pursued the case and ultimately lost.

How could someone who was proven right end up losing their case? The answer reveals a critical distinction between winning an argument and winning in a court of law.

1. You Can Win the Argument, But Still Lose the Case

The initial dispute was straightforward. The homeowner, Dennis Gregory, received a courtesy notice from his HOA requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard, which were alleged to be in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Mr. Gregory disputed the violation. In response, the HOA conducted a further review and made a critical discovery: the palm trees on the property were, in fact, listed on the HOA’s own “Recommended Plant List” and were perfectly acceptable. The HOA had made a mistake. Here, however, the story takes a surprising turn. Mr. Gregory filed his formal petition for a hearing after the HOA had already admitted its error, apologized, and confirmed the issue was resolved.

This sequence of events is the crucial detail of the case. The legal dispute wasn’t about the palm trees—that argument was already won. The case was about the actions taken after the HOA’s error was acknowledged and corrected.

2. A Proactive Apology Can Be a Powerful Legal Shield

Once the HOA realized its mistake, it took several decisive steps to remedy the situation. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the HOA and its management company:

• Sent a formal apology letter to the homeowner.

• Confirmed the original courtesy notice was “deemed invalid.”

• “Removed and expunged” the violation from the homeowner’s records to preserve his good standing.

• Never issued any fines or financial penalties.

• Took action regarding personnel, as the employee who the homeowner accused of making threats was no longer with the management company by the time of the hearing.

These corrective actions had a profound legal impact. The judge found that because the HOA had already reversed its initial notice, apologized, cleared the homeowner’s record, and addressed the personnel issue, there was no longer an active dispute to rule on. The issue was considered “moot.”

This conclusion was emphasized in the judge’s final decision:

Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.

3. The Law Requires Proof, Not Just Principle

The homeowner’s petition wasn’t just about the palm trees. He testified that he proceeded with the case because he felt he had been wronged by an HOA management employee during the dispute. His petition alleged the HOA had “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter,” lied about discussing the issue with board members, and even “threatened him with a lawyer.” He wasn’t just seeking to correct the record on his landscaping; he was fighting on a matter of principle.

To win his case, however, the homeowner had to meet a specific legal standard: proving his claims by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In simple terms, this means showing that his version of events was more likely to be true than not.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner “failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated the CC&Rs.” This outcome highlights a crucial legal reality: tangible, documented evidence—such as a formal apology letter and an expunged record—often carries more evidentiary weight than a homeowner’s testimony about verbal statements, which can be viewed as a ‘he said, she said’ dispute without additional proof. While the homeowner may have genuinely felt wronged, his feelings could not overcome the HOA’s documented resolution.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Homeowners and HOAs

The outcome of this dispute offers a powerful lesson for both homeowners and association boards. It demonstrates three core takeaways: a dispute isn’t over until it’s legally resolved, a swift and comprehensive apology can be an effective legal defense, and a deeply felt principle must still be backed by sufficient evidence to prevail in a formal hearing.

This case serves as a fascinating reminder of the complexities of community disputes, leaving us with a final question: At what point does the fight for principle risk overshadowing a practical victory?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J Gregory (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Marc Vasquez (attorney)
    Trestle Management Group
    Appeared for Respondent; testified as vice president of Trestle
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group, LLC
    Issued letter on behalf of Respondent; no longer with Trestle
  • James A. Baska (management representative)
    Trestle Management Group
    Recipient of decision transmission

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmission of decision

Dennis J Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919069-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-24
Administrative Law Judge Antara Nath Rivera
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis J Gregory Counsel —
Respondent Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association Counsel Marc Vasquez

Alleged Violations

8.1.7 of CC&Rs; A.R.S. § 33-1803

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging violations of the HOA's CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The HOA had acknowledged its error regarding the palm trees, issued an apology, and expunged the record, thereby resolving the substantive dispute and making the remaining allegations moot.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent violated governing documents or statute when the Respondent had already resolved the underlying issue by apology and expungement, and no financial penalties were assessed.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Governing Documents and Planned Community Statute

Petitioner filed a two-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1803 by fraudulently sending a courtesy notice regarding unapproved palm trees and subsequently deceiving Petitioner, despite the underlying tree issue being resolved and expunged.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA dispute, Planned Community Statute, CC&Rs violation, Expungement of record, Mootness
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • Title 33, Chapter 16.1
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • 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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919069-REL Decision – 740332.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:41 (85.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919069-REL


Briefing Document: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA (Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides an analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning a petition filed by homeowner Dennis Gregory against the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association (HOA). The petition was ultimately denied.

The dispute originated from an incorrect violation notice sent by the HOA on July 13, 2018, regarding palm trees on the Petitioner’s property. The HOA subsequently discovered its error, recognizing the trees were on its “Recommended Plant List.” Consequently, the HOA issued a formal apology to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, and expunged the violation notice from all records. No fines or penalties were ever imposed.

Despite the resolution, the Petitioner filed a formal dispute petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate on May 24, 2019. He alleged the initial notice was fraudulent and that an employee of the HOA’s management company had lied and threatened him. The Administrative Law Judge, Antara Nath Rivera, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The Judge determined that the HOA’s prompt corrective actions—issuing an apology, retracting the notice, and imposing no fines—rendered the issue moot.

Case Overview

The hearing addressed a petition filed by Dennis Gregory alleging that the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona state law.

Case Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919069-REL

Petitioner

Dennis J Gregory

Respondent

Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association

Presiding Judge

Antara Nath Rivera, Administrative Law Judge

Hearing Date

September 4, 2019

Decision Date

September 24, 2019

Chronology of Events

• July 13, 2018: The HOA sends a courtesy notice to Dennis Gregory requesting the removal of palm trees, citing a violation of the CC&Rs.

• Post-July 13, 2018: Gregory disputes the violation. Upon review, the HOA discovers the palm trees are on its “Recommended Plant List” and therefore permissible.

• August 16, 2018: The HOA sends Gregory a letter of apology via both email and postal mail, deeming the violation notice invalid.

• May 24, 2019: Gregory files a two-issue Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• June 28, 2019: The HOA files its formal answer to the petition.

• September 4, 2019: An administrative hearing is conducted, with testimony from Gregory and Marc Vasquez, Vice President of the HOA’s management company.

• September 24, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues a decision denying the petition.

Petitioner’s Allegations and Testimony

Dennis Gregory filed the petition after the palm tree issue was resolved because he was upset with the HOA’s handling of the matter. His testimony and allegations included:

• Primary Motivation: He believed the HOA “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter.”

• Allegations of Deception:

◦ The HOA lied about the Board members discussing the palm tree issue prior to sending the notice.

◦ Annette McCraw of Trestle Management Group lied to him about speaking with the board.

◦ The HOA deceptively changed the CC&Rs regarding the names of permitted trees.

◦ The HOA failed to disclose the identity of the individual who falsely claimed his palm trees were poisonous.

• Allegations of Misconduct: He stated that Annette McCraw had threatened him with a lawyer.

• Legal Claim: He opined that these actions constituted a violation of the community’s CC&Rs (specifically 8.1.7) and Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1803.

• Acknowledged Facts: During his testimony, Gregory confirmed that the HOA never imposed any fines and that he received the apology letter issued on August 16, 2018.

Respondent’s Position and Actions

The HOA, represented by Marc Vasquez of Trestle Management Group, maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to rectify its initial error.

• Admission of Error: The Respondent acknowledged that the initial violation notice was sent in error.

• Corrective Measures:

◦ It issued a formal apology letter once the mistake was identified.

◦ The courtesy letter was “removed and expunged” from both the Respondent’s and Petitioner’s records to preserve the Petitioner’s good standing.

◦ Marc Vasquez personally apologized to Gregory at a board meeting.

• No Penalties: The Respondent confirmed that no fines or sanctions were ever imposed on the Petitioner.

• Personnel Status: Vasquez testified that Annette McCraw, the employee accused of misconduct by the Petitioner, was no longer employed by Trestle Management Group.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Order

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving that the HOA violated its CC&Rs and state statutes. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

2. Failure to Meet Burden: The Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this standard. This conclusion was based on several key facts established during the hearing:

◦ The Petitioner himself acknowledged that he was never financially penalized.

◦ The Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the HOA’s apology letter.

◦ Evidence showed the palm trees were, in fact, compliant with HOA rules.

◦ The violation notice was officially “removed and expunged” from all records.

3. Mootness of the Issue: The decision states, “the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.” The HOA’s corrective actions effectively nullified the original dispute before it escalated to the point of requiring legal sanctions.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The decision also included a notice that the order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919069-REL


Study Guide: Gregory v. Four Seasons at the Manor HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case No. 19F-H1919069-REL, concerning Dennis J Gregory and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information found in the case decision.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their roles?

2. What was the initial action by the Homeowners Association that triggered the dispute with the Petitioner?

3. What specific violations did the Petitioner, Dennis Gregory, allege in his Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition?

4. How did the Respondent discover its error regarding the Petitioner’s palm trees?

5. What two specific actions did the Respondent take to rectify its error before the hearing took place?

6. Why did the Petitioner proceed with the hearing even after the Respondent retracted the violation notice and apologized?

7. Who was Annette McCraw, and what specific actions did the Petitioner accuse her of taking?

8. What is the “preponderance of the evidence,” and what was its significance in the judge’s decision?

9. According to the judge’s findings, why was the central issue of the dispute considered moot?

10. What was the final Order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Dennis J Gregory, the homeowner, who served as the Petitioner, and the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association, which was the Respondent. Marc Vasquez, vice president of Trestle Management Group, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

2. The dispute was triggered when the Respondent, on July 13, 2018, sent the Petitioner a courtesy notice requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard. The notice claimed the trees were a violation of the association’s CC&Rs.

3. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated section 8.1.7 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1803.

4. After the Petitioner disputed the violation, the Respondent conducted a further review. Through this review, the Respondent discovered that the palm trees on the Petitioner’s property were actually listed on the “Recommended Plant List” and were therefore acceptable.

5. First, the Respondent issued a courtesy letter to the Petitioner on August 16, 2018, apologizing for the misunderstanding. Second, the Respondent deemed the original violation notice invalid and had it “removed and expunged” from both its own and the Petitioner’s records to preserve his good standing.

6. The Petitioner proceeded with the hearing because he was upset and believed the Respondent had acted fraudulently. He alleged the Respondent lied about discussing the issue with board members, deceptively changed the CC&Rs, and failed to disclose who made the initial complaint.

7. Annette McCraw was an employee of Trestle Management Group, the Respondent’s management company. The Petitioner accused her of lying about speaking with board members regarding the palm tree issue and threatening him with a lawyer.

8. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard of proof required, defined as evidence convincing the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not. Its significance is that the Petitioner bore this burden of proof and ultimately failed to meet it, leading to the denial of his petition.

9. The issue was considered moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology letter and rescinded the violation notice before the hearing occurred. Since the Petitioner was never fined, the palm trees were deemed acceptable, and the notice was expunged, there was no longer an active controversy for the court to resolve.

10. The final Order, issued on September 24, 2019, was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Order was binding unless a rehearing was requested within 30 days.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, drawing evidence and arguments exclusively from the provided legal decision.

1. Analyze the concept of a “moot” issue as it applies to this case. How did the Respondent’s actions before the hearing render the Petitioner’s primary complaint moot in the eyes of the law, despite the Petitioner’s ongoing grievances?

2. Discuss the burden of proof in this administrative hearing. Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in the document and detail the specific reasons why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Dennis Gregory failed to meet this burden.

3. Examine the roles and conduct of the management company, Trestle Management Group, and its employee, Annette McCraw. Based on the testimony presented, what specific actions escalated the conflict even after the initial landscaping error was identified and corrected?

4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial “courtesy notice” of July 13, 2018, to the final Order of September 24, 2019. Identify the key turning points and decisions made by both the Petitioner and the Respondent that influenced the outcome of the case.

5. Although the Petitioner lost the case, he raised several allegations beyond the palm trees, including fraud, deception, and threats. Using only the evidence presented in the decision, construct the argument that Dennis Gregory was attempting to make regarding why these subsequent actions constituted a violation of the planned community statute, even if the original tree issue was resolved.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official who presides over the administrative hearing and issues a decision. In this case, the ALJ was Antara Nath Rivera.

Answer

The Respondent’s formal written response to the Petition, filed in this case on June 28, 2019.

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws for the state of Arizona. The decision cites A.R.S. § 33-1803, which authorizes HOAs to enforce CC&Rs, and statutes governing the hearing and rehearing process.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party to establish its claims by a required degree of evidence. In this hearing, the Petitioner had the burden of proof.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents that establish the rules for a planned community. The Petitioner alleged a violation of section 8.1.7 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency with which the Petition was filed and which has jurisdiction over such disputes.

Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (Petition)

The formal document filed by a homeowner to initiate a hearing with the Department concerning alleged violations by their homeowners association.

A legal term for a situation where the underlying issue has been resolved, making any ruling on the matter unnecessary. The judge found the case moot because the Respondent had already issued an apology and rescinded the violation notice.

The final and binding decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge. In this case, the Order was to deny the Petitioner’s petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or hearing. In this case, the Petitioner was homeowner Dennis J Gregory.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who is required to respond. In this case, the Respondent was the Four Seasons at the Manor Homeowners Association.

Trestle Management Group, LLC

The management company employed by the Respondent HOA to handle its operations.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919069-REL


An HOA Admitted It Was Wrong. The Homeowner Sued Anyway—And Lost. Here Are the Surprising Reasons Why.

Introduction: The Familiar Dread of an HOA Letter

For many homeowners, few things cause a spike of anxiety quite like a formal notice from their Homeowners Association (HOA). That crisp envelope often contains a violation notice, sparking a frustrating process of proving compliance or making unwanted changes. But what happens when you prove the HOA was completely wrong, they admit their mistake, and issue a full apology? For most, that’s the end of the story—a clear victory.

This, however, is the story of a homeowner who achieved that victory and then decided to take the HOA to a formal hearing anyway. He had been proven right, the violation was erased, and no fines were ever issued. Yet, he pursued the case and ultimately lost.

How could someone who was proven right end up losing their case? The answer reveals a critical distinction between winning an argument and winning in a court of law.

1. You Can Win the Argument, But Still Lose the Case

The initial dispute was straightforward. The homeowner, Dennis Gregory, received a courtesy notice from his HOA requesting the removal of palm trees from his front yard, which were alleged to be in violation of the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Mr. Gregory disputed the violation. In response, the HOA conducted a further review and made a critical discovery: the palm trees on the property were, in fact, listed on the HOA’s own “Recommended Plant List” and were perfectly acceptable. The HOA had made a mistake. Here, however, the story takes a surprising turn. Mr. Gregory filed his formal petition for a hearing after the HOA had already admitted its error, apologized, and confirmed the issue was resolved.

This sequence of events is the crucial detail of the case. The legal dispute wasn’t about the palm trees—that argument was already won. The case was about the actions taken after the HOA’s error was acknowledged and corrected.

2. A Proactive Apology Can Be a Powerful Legal Shield

Once the HOA realized its mistake, it took several decisive steps to remedy the situation. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the HOA and its management company:

• Sent a formal apology letter to the homeowner.

• Confirmed the original courtesy notice was “deemed invalid.”

• “Removed and expunged” the violation from the homeowner’s records to preserve his good standing.

• Never issued any fines or financial penalties.

• Took action regarding personnel, as the employee who the homeowner accused of making threats was no longer with the management company by the time of the hearing.

These corrective actions had a profound legal impact. The judge found that because the HOA had already reversed its initial notice, apologized, cleared the homeowner’s record, and addressed the personnel issue, there was no longer an active dispute to rule on. The issue was considered “moot.”

This conclusion was emphasized in the judge’s final decision:

Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence showed Respondent did not violate any rules or regulations that would facilitate any orders or sanctions once it issued the apology letter, thus making the issue moot.

3. The Law Requires Proof, Not Just Principle

The homeowner’s petition wasn’t just about the palm trees. He testified that he proceeded with the case because he felt he had been wronged by an HOA management employee during the dispute. His petition alleged the HOA had “fraudulently sent the courtesy letter,” lied about discussing the issue with board members, and even “threatened him with a lawyer.” He wasn’t just seeking to correct the record on his landscaping; he was fighting on a matter of principle.

To win his case, however, the homeowner had to meet a specific legal standard: proving his claims by “a preponderance of the evidence.” In simple terms, this means showing that his version of events was more likely to be true than not.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the homeowner “failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated the CC&Rs.” This outcome highlights a crucial legal reality: tangible, documented evidence—such as a formal apology letter and an expunged record—often carries more evidentiary weight than a homeowner’s testimony about verbal statements, which can be viewed as a ‘he said, she said’ dispute without additional proof. While the homeowner may have genuinely felt wronged, his feelings could not overcome the HOA’s documented resolution.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Homeowners and HOAs

The outcome of this dispute offers a powerful lesson for both homeowners and association boards. It demonstrates three core takeaways: a dispute isn’t over until it’s legally resolved, a swift and comprehensive apology can be an effective legal defense, and a deeply felt principle must still be backed by sufficient evidence to prevail in a formal hearing.

This case serves as a fascinating reminder of the complexities of community disputes, leaving us with a final question: At what point does the fight for principle risk overshadowing a practical victory?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dennis J Gregory (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Marc Vasquez (attorney)
    Trestle Management Group
    Appeared for Respondent; testified as vice president of Trestle
  • Annette McCraw (property manager)
    Trestle Management Group, LLC
    Issued letter on behalf of Respondent; no longer with Trestle
  • James A. Baska (management representative)
    Trestle Management Group
    Recipient of decision transmission

Neutral Parties

  • Antara Nath Rivera (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Addressed in transmission of decision

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John H. Kelly Counsel —
Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 21 valid signatures from eligible voters needed to compel the Association to call a special meeting under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243. The petition was consequently denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Association failed to call a special meeting to remove a board member after collecting what Petitioner believed were sufficient signatures (36 collected, 21 required). The Association countered that only 13 of those signatures were valid (excluding non-owners, duplicates, and delinquent members ineligible to vote).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:30 (142.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919060-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Kelly vs. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919060-REL, a dispute between Petitioner John H. Kelly and the Respondent, Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (“the Association”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona state law by refusing to call a special meeting to remove a board member, as demanded by a petition initiated by Mr. Kelly.

The Association’s bylaws require a petition signed by at least 25% of eligible voting members—in this case, 21 of the 84 unit owners—to compel such a meeting. Mr. Kelly submitted a petition with 36 signatures. However, upon review, the Association invalidated 23 signatures for specific reasons: 11 were from non-owner renters, 6 were duplicate signatures from units that had already signed, and 6 were from owners whose voting rights were suspended due to being over 15 days delinquent on payments.

This left only 13 valid signatures, well short of the 21 required. The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the number of valid signatures was insufficient to legally compel the Association to call a special meeting. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Association did not violate Arizona statute § 33-1243 and denied Mr. Kelly’s petition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Details

Petitioner

John H. Kelly

A condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent

Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

The homeowners’ association for the Cortez Canyon condominium development in Phoenix, AZ. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

Witness

Saundra Garcia

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Adjudicator

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Dispute

The central issue adjudicated was whether the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member after receiving a petition from unit owners. The Petitioner alleged that the required number of signatures had been collected, while the Respondent denied this claim, asserting that the petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters.

Legal and Governance Framework

The dispute was governed by Arizona state law and the Association’s own internal documents.

• Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243(H)(4): This statute mandates that an association with 1,000 or fewer members must call a special meeting to remove a board member upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible voters in the association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 2: Mirrors the state statute, stipulating that a special meeting may be called by unit owners holding at least 25% of the votes in the Association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 7: Critically, this section states that a unit owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if they are in arrears on payments (assessments, penalties, etc.) for a period of 15 days. This suspension remains until all payments are brought current.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (John H. Kelly)

Mr. Kelly initiated the petition to recall an Association board member. His position and the evidence he presented are summarized as follows:

• Petition Submission: Mr. Kelly, with assistance from others, collected 36 signatures and submitted them to the Association’s then-property management group, Golden Valley.

• Initial Confirmation: He testified that Golden Valley initially informed him that he had secured enough signatures to compel the special meeting.

• Reversal by New Management: A short time later, after the Association’s contract with Golden Valley expired on June 1, 2019, a new property management company informed him that the petition did not meet the signature threshold.

• Key Admission: Mr. Kelly testified that neither he nor his assistants verified whether the signatories were unit owners eligible to vote prior to submitting the petition.

• Argument at Hearing: Mr. Kelly argued that he had submitted a minimum of 23 valid signatures. This included the signature of Jeffery Law, an owner of six units, which Mr. Kelly contended should be counted six times. However, it was established that Mr. Law’s signature was secured after the initial submission and was never provided to the management company.

• Formal Allegation: In his April 29, 2019, filing with the Department, Mr. Kelly stated: “Cortez Canyon has 84 units and 25% is 21 units. Homeowners have collected more than the required 21 home-owner’s signatures. The Cortez Canyon HOA board has stated that they will not schedule the required special meeting.”

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Cortez Canyon Association)

The Association, represented by its Board President Saundra Garcia, presented a detailed rebuttal based on a thorough review of the submitted petition.

• Receipt of Petition: The Association received the petition with 36 purported unit owner signatures on or about April 19, 2019.

• Signature Verification Process: Upon review, the Association determined that a significant number of signatures were invalid based on the community’s governing documents.

• Disqualification of Signatures: The Association provided a specific breakdown of the 23 signatures it disqualified:

◦ 11 signatures were removed because they were from non-owner renters or occupants.

◦ 6 signatures were removed because they were from units for which another owner’s signature had already been collected (only one vote is permitted per unit).

◦ 6 signatures were removed because the unit owner was ineligible to vote, being more than 15 days delinquent on fines, fees, or dues owed to the Association, as stipulated in the Bylaws.

• Final Tally: After removing the 23 invalid signatures from the 36 submitted, the Association concluded that the petition contained only 13 valid signatures.

• Conclusion: Since 13 signatures is below the required threshold of 21, the Association determined it was not obligated by law or its bylaws to call the special meeting. The signature from the multi-unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not part of the petition received by the Association and was therefore not considered in its count.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, reviewed the evidence and testimony from both parties and issued a decision decisively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The Judge established that the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had violated the statute. A preponderance of evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

• Undisputed Facts: The material facts of the case were not at issue. Both parties agreed that 21 valid signatures were required to compel the special meeting.

• Evidence of Record: The Judge found that the evidence presented demonstrated the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required threshold. The decision states, “While Petitioner is correct that he submitted more than twenty-one signatures to the Association, he is incorrect that all of signatures provided were valid.”

• Final Determination on Signatures: The ruling affirmed the Association’s count, concluding, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner only provided thirteen valid signatures along with his petition to the Association, which was not enough to compel the Association to call a special meeting.”

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to sustain his burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on September 13, 2019:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be denied.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919060-REL


Study Guide: Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919060-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Petitioner John H. Kelly and Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, governing documents, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the specific violation of Arizona law alleged by the Petitioner in his initial petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. How many condominium units are in the Cortez Canyon development, and what number of valid signatures was consequently required to compel a special meeting?

4. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what circumstances would cause a Unit Owner to have their voting rights suspended?

5. List the three categories of invalid signatures that the Association identified in its review of the Petitioner’s submission.

6. Who was Jeffery Law, and why was his signature ultimately not counted by the Association?

7. What was the initial assessment given to the Petitioner by the property management group, Golden Valley, and how did it differ from the Association’s final determination?

8. In this type of legal proceeding, who bears the “burden of proof,” and what standard of proof must be met?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim?

10. What was the final ORDER issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John H. Kelly, the “Petitioner,” who appeared on his own behalf, and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the “Respondent,” which was represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over the hearing. Saundra Garcia, the Association’s Board President, appeared as a witness for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member. He claimed to have collected the required number of signatures from homeowners to compel such a meeting.

3. The Cortez Canyon development has 84 units. Based on the requirement for signatures from 25% of the votes in the Association, a total of 21 valid Unit Owner signatures were required to compel a special meeting.

4. According to Bylaws Article II, Section 7, a Unit Owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if the owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties, or other fees for a period of fifteen days. This suspension remains in effect until all payments are brought current.

5. The Association determined that of the 36 submitted signatures, 23 were invalid. The categories for invalidation were: eleven signatures from non-owner renters or occupants, six signatures from units where another signature had already been collected, and six signatures from Unit Owners who were ineligible to vote due to being delinquent on payments.

6. Jeffery Law was an Association member and owner of six condominium units. His signature was not counted because the Petitioner secured it after submitting the petition to the management company and never provided it to the Association as part of the formal submission.

7. The former property management group, Golden Valley, initially informed the Petitioner that he had secured enough valid signatures to compel a special meeting. However, after the Association directly reviewed the petition, it determined that only 13 of the signatures were valid, far short of the required 21.

8. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means providing evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The credible evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner submitted only thirteen valid signatures, which was insufficient to compel the Association to call a special meeting under its Bylaws and state law.

10. The final ORDER, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. They require a deeper analysis of the case’s themes, legal principles, and procedural elements. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means in this context, who held the burden, and how the failure to meet this standard was the central reason for the judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the critical importance of an association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) in resolving internal disputes. Use specific articles and sections from the Cortez Canyon Bylaws to illustrate how they definitively established the rules for calling a special meeting and determining voter eligibility, leaving little room for interpretation.

3. Evaluate the Petitioner’s strategy and execution in collecting signatures for his petition. Identify the critical errors he and his assistants made in the process, and outline the specific steps he could have taken to verify signatures and ensure his petition was valid before its submission.

4. Explain the legal and practical distinctions between a Unit Owner, an occupant/renter, and an “eligible voter” within the context of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. How did the Petitioner’s failure to understand these distinctions become the central point of failure for his petition?

5. Imagine you are advising the Cortez Canyon Board of Directors following this hearing. Based on the evidence and outcome of the case, what recommendations would you make regarding their procedures for validating petitions and their communication with Unit Owners about voting rights, petition requirements, and the consequences of financial delinquency?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Jenna Clark) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and conclusions.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on May 28, 2019, denying the Petitioner’s allegations.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at issue was § 33-1243.

Association

The Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the governing body for the condominium development, comprised of all unit owners.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group of individuals that oversees the Association, as empowered by the CC&Rs. The petition sought to remove a member of this board.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation on one party in a dispute (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Bylaws

The set of rules adopted by the Association on June 14, 2000, that govern its internal operations, including meetings and voting rights.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing documents for the development, recorded on May 9, 2000, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Eligible Votes

A term defined in the Bylaws as the total number of votes that can be lawfully cast, excluding those from members whose voting rights are suspended.

Findings of Fact

The section of the legal decision that outlines the established, undisputed facts of the case based on the hearing evidence.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

The final, legally binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the Order was to deny the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John H. Kelly.

Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner on April 29, 2019, with the Department to initiate the hearing process against the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, meaning that the evidence must be sufficient to convince the judge that the contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of Association members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The petition sought to compel a special meeting to remove a board member.

Unit Owner

An individual who holds legal title to a condominium within the Cortez Canyon development and is a member of the Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919060-REL


He Gathered 36 Signatures to Oust His HOA Board. Here’s Why Only 13 Counted.

Introduction: The Power and Pitfalls of Community Action

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of trying to enact change within their community, especially when it involves challenging the decisions of a Homeowners Association (HOA) board. It can feel like an uphill battle, but the right to petition and call for special meetings is a cornerstone of community governance.

However, a real-world case involving homeowner John H. Kelly and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association serves as a critical cautionary tale. Mr. Kelly gathered what he believed were more than enough signatures to force a special meeting to remove a board member. Despite his significant effort, his petition failed spectacularly. This article breaks down the key legal and procedural reasons why, offering essential lessons for every homeowner.

1. Not All Signatures Are Created Equal: The Validity Gauntlet

The core of the issue began with a simple numbers game. The Cortez Canyon HOA has 84 units, meaning a petition required signatures from 25%, or 21, of the unit owners to compel a special meeting. Mr. Kelly successfully collected 36 signatures—a number that seemed to guarantee his success.

In a moment of false victory, the association’s property management company at the time, Golden Valley, informed Mr. Kelly that he had indeed secured enough signatures. But this assurance was short-lived. A new management company took over, and after a formal review, the association delivered devastating news: only 13 of the 36 signatures were valid. The petition was dead on arrival.

The association disqualified 23 signatures for specific, documented reasons:

• Non-Owners: Eleven signatures were from renters or other residential occupants who were not the legal owners of the unit.

• Duplicate Units: Six signatures were removed because another signature had already been collected from the same unit, upholding the “one vote per unit” principle.

• Ineligible Owners: Six signatures were from homeowners who were technically owners but were found to be ineligible to vote at the time they signed.

This reveals the petitioner’s first critical, and ultimately fatal, assumption: that the HOA would do the work of verifying his supporters. In reality, the burden of proof was his alone. The legal findings state it plainly: “Neither Petitioner nor his assistants verified if the signatures that were collected belonged to Unit Owners eligible to vote.” From a governance perspective, this initial culling of signatures is where most grassroots community efforts fail.

2. The Fine Print That Disenfranchises: “Good Standing” and Your Right to Vote

Here, we find the kind of boilerplate legal language that is often ignored by homeowners but wielded with immense power by boards. The ineligibility of six homeowners stemmed from a specific clause in the association’s bylaws related to financial standing.

The bylaw states:

“In the event any Unit Owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties or other fees and charges due under the terms of the Condominium Documents for a period of fifteen (15) days, the Unit Owner’s right to vote as a member of the Association shall be automatically suspended…”

This single provision had a profound impact. Six of the signatures Mr. Kelly collected were from homeowners who were more than 15 days late on their dues or fines. Their voting rights were suspended, and their signatures were rendered invalid. This highlights a crucial preparatory step for any petitioner: confidentially requesting a list of members in good standing from the association before collecting signatures, if the governing documents allow, or at minimum, reminding potential signatories to ensure their accounts are current.

3. Process is Paramount: The Signature That Never Was

Facing a losing battle at the administrative hearing, the petitioner made a final argument to salvage his petition. He contended that he had also secured the signature of a member named Jeffrey Law, who owned six separate units. Mr. Kelly argued this single signature should count as six votes, which would have put him over the required threshold.

However, this argument failed due to a simple but fatal procedural error. According to the court’s findings, the signature from Mr. Law was never actually submitted with the petition to the association.

The Administrative Law Judge’s finding was unambiguous: “The signature Petitioner collected from the multiple unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not a part of the petition received by the Association and therefore was not counted.” This procedural error, while seemingly minor, is an absolute bar to success in administrative law. Unlike a casual disagreement, there is no room for “I meant to” or “I thought I had.”

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

Because the petitioner could only provide 13 valid signatures instead of the required 21, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition. The HOA was not required to call the special meeting, and the board member remained in place. Mr. Kelly’s story is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort are not enough to navigate the complexities of community governance. The case provides three clear takeaways for any homeowner:

1. Quality Over Quantity: A short, verified list of eligible voters is infinitely more powerful than a long list of unverified names.

2. Bylaws are Your Battlefield: The governing documents contain the rules of engagement. Ignoring them—especially clauses on voter eligibility—is a unilateral surrender.

3. Documentation is Everything: If it wasn’t formally submitted to the correct party, it legally never happened. Your ability to prove submission is as important as the submission itself.

This case is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort aren’t enough. The real question every homeowner should ask is: Do you truly know the rules that govern your rights in your own community?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John H. Kelly (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Saundra Garcia (board member)
    Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
    Called as a witness and testified as Board President
  • Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Counsel receiving notice of decision

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision transmitted to Commissioner

Other Participants

  • Jeffery Law (owner)
    Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
    Unit owner whose signature Petitioner secured but was not submitted to the Association

John H. Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-13
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John H. Kelly Counsel —
Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243

Outcome Summary

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 21 valid signatures from eligible voters needed to compel the Association to call a special meeting under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243. The petition was consequently denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide the minimum required 21 valid signatures from eligible unit owners (only 13 were valid) as required by the Association's Bylaws and state statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of failure to call a special meeting to remove a board member.

Petitioner filed a petition alleging the Association failed to call a special meeting to remove a board member after collecting what Petitioner believed were sufficient signatures (36 collected, 21 required). The Association countered that only 13 of those signatures were valid (excluding non-owners, duplicates, and delinquent members ineligible to vote).

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Condominium, Special Meeting, Board Member Removal, Petition Signature Validity, Voting Rights, Delinquency
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(H)(4)(c)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919060-REL Decision – 737890.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:17 (142.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1919060-REL


Administrative Hearing Briefing: Kelly vs. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919060-REL, a dispute between Petitioner John H. Kelly and the Respondent, Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (“the Association”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona state law by refusing to call a special meeting to remove a board member, as demanded by a petition initiated by Mr. Kelly.

The Association’s bylaws require a petition signed by at least 25% of eligible voting members—in this case, 21 of the 84 unit owners—to compel such a meeting. Mr. Kelly submitted a petition with 36 signatures. However, upon review, the Association invalidated 23 signatures for specific reasons: 11 were from non-owner renters, 6 were duplicate signatures from units that had already signed, and 6 were from owners whose voting rights were suspended due to being over 15 days delinquent on payments.

This left only 13 valid signatures, well short of the 21 required. The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The evidence clearly demonstrated that the number of valid signatures was insufficient to legally compel the Association to call a special meeting. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Association did not violate Arizona statute § 33-1243 and denied Mr. Kelly’s petition.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Details

Petitioner

John H. Kelly

A condominium owner and member of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. Appeared on his own behalf.

Respondent

Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association

The homeowners’ association for the Cortez Canyon condominium development in Phoenix, AZ. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.

Witness

Saundra Garcia

President of the Association’s Board of Directors.

Adjudicator

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Core Dispute

The central issue adjudicated was whether the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member after receiving a petition from unit owners. The Petitioner alleged that the required number of signatures had been collected, while the Respondent denied this claim, asserting that the petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures from eligible voters.

Legal and Governance Framework

The dispute was governed by Arizona state law and the Association’s own internal documents.

• Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1243(H)(4): This statute mandates that an association with 1,000 or fewer members must call a special meeting to remove a board member upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 25% of the eligible voters in the association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 2: Mirrors the state statute, stipulating that a special meeting may be called by unit owners holding at least 25% of the votes in the Association.

• Association Bylaws, Article II, Section 7: Critically, this section states that a unit owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if they are in arrears on payments (assessments, penalties, etc.) for a period of 15 days. This suspension remains until all payments are brought current.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (John H. Kelly)

Mr. Kelly initiated the petition to recall an Association board member. His position and the evidence he presented are summarized as follows:

• Petition Submission: Mr. Kelly, with assistance from others, collected 36 signatures and submitted them to the Association’s then-property management group, Golden Valley.

• Initial Confirmation: He testified that Golden Valley initially informed him that he had secured enough signatures to compel the special meeting.

• Reversal by New Management: A short time later, after the Association’s contract with Golden Valley expired on June 1, 2019, a new property management company informed him that the petition did not meet the signature threshold.

• Key Admission: Mr. Kelly testified that neither he nor his assistants verified whether the signatories were unit owners eligible to vote prior to submitting the petition.

• Argument at Hearing: Mr. Kelly argued that he had submitted a minimum of 23 valid signatures. This included the signature of Jeffery Law, an owner of six units, which Mr. Kelly contended should be counted six times. However, it was established that Mr. Law’s signature was secured after the initial submission and was never provided to the management company.

• Formal Allegation: In his April 29, 2019, filing with the Department, Mr. Kelly stated: “Cortez Canyon has 84 units and 25% is 21 units. Homeowners have collected more than the required 21 home-owner’s signatures. The Cortez Canyon HOA board has stated that they will not schedule the required special meeting.”

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Cortez Canyon Association)

The Association, represented by its Board President Saundra Garcia, presented a detailed rebuttal based on a thorough review of the submitted petition.

• Receipt of Petition: The Association received the petition with 36 purported unit owner signatures on or about April 19, 2019.

• Signature Verification Process: Upon review, the Association determined that a significant number of signatures were invalid based on the community’s governing documents.

• Disqualification of Signatures: The Association provided a specific breakdown of the 23 signatures it disqualified:

◦ 11 signatures were removed because they were from non-owner renters or occupants.

◦ 6 signatures were removed because they were from units for which another owner’s signature had already been collected (only one vote is permitted per unit).

◦ 6 signatures were removed because the unit owner was ineligible to vote, being more than 15 days delinquent on fines, fees, or dues owed to the Association, as stipulated in the Bylaws.

• Final Tally: After removing the 23 invalid signatures from the 36 submitted, the Association concluded that the petition contained only 13 valid signatures.

• Conclusion: Since 13 signatures is below the required threshold of 21, the Association determined it was not obligated by law or its bylaws to call the special meeting. The signature from the multi-unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not part of the petition received by the Association and was therefore not considered in its count.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Ruling

The Administrative Law Judge, Jenna Clark, reviewed the evidence and testimony from both parties and issued a decision decisively in favor of the Respondent.

Conclusions of Law

• Burden of Proof: The Judge established that the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association had violated the statute. A preponderance of evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

• Undisputed Facts: The material facts of the case were not at issue. Both parties agreed that 21 valid signatures were required to compel the special meeting.

• Evidence of Record: The Judge found that the evidence presented demonstrated the Petitioner’s failure to meet the required threshold. The decision states, “While Petitioner is correct that he submitted more than twenty-one signatures to the Association, he is incorrect that all of signatures provided were valid.”

• Final Determination on Signatures: The ruling affirmed the Association’s count, concluding, “What the evidence of record reflects is that Petitioner only provided thirteen valid signatures along with his petition to the Association, which was not enough to compel the Association to call a special meeting.”

Final Order

Based on the failure of the Petitioner to sustain his burden of proof, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on September 13, 2019:

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition be denied.






Study Guide – 19F-H1919060-REL


Study Guide: Kelly v. Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1919060-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the matter between Petitioner John H. Kelly and Respondent Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, governing documents, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following ten questions in two to three complete sentences, based solely on the information provided in the case document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this hearing, and what were their respective roles?

2. What was the specific violation of Arizona law alleged by the Petitioner in his initial petition to the Department of Real Estate?

3. How many condominium units are in the Cortez Canyon development, and what number of valid signatures was consequently required to compel a special meeting?

4. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what circumstances would cause a Unit Owner to have their voting rights suspended?

5. List the three categories of invalid signatures that the Association identified in its review of the Petitioner’s submission.

6. Who was Jeffery Law, and why was his signature ultimately not counted by the Association?

7. What was the initial assessment given to the Petitioner by the property management group, Golden Valley, and how did it differ from the Association’s final determination?

8. In this type of legal proceeding, who bears the “burden of proof,” and what standard of proof must be met?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim?

10. What was the final ORDER issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The primary parties were John H. Kelly, the “Petitioner,” who appeared on his own behalf, and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the “Respondent,” which was represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark presided over the hearing. Saundra Garcia, the Association’s Board President, appeared as a witness for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243 by failing to call a special meeting for the purpose of removing a board member. He claimed to have collected the required number of signatures from homeowners to compel such a meeting.

3. The Cortez Canyon development has 84 units. Based on the requirement for signatures from 25% of the votes in the Association, a total of 21 valid Unit Owner signatures were required to compel a special meeting.

4. According to Bylaws Article II, Section 7, a Unit Owner’s right to vote is automatically suspended if the owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties, or other fees for a period of fifteen days. This suspension remains in effect until all payments are brought current.

5. The Association determined that of the 36 submitted signatures, 23 were invalid. The categories for invalidation were: eleven signatures from non-owner renters or occupants, six signatures from units where another signature had already been collected, and six signatures from Unit Owners who were ineligible to vote due to being delinquent on payments.

6. Jeffery Law was an Association member and owner of six condominium units. His signature was not counted because the Petitioner secured it after submitting the petition to the management company and never provided it to the Association as part of the formal submission.

7. The former property management group, Golden Valley, initially informed the Petitioner that he had secured enough valid signatures to compel a special meeting. However, after the Association directly reviewed the petition, it determined that only 13 of the signatures were valid, far short of the required 21.

8. In this proceeding, the Petitioner, John H. Kelly, bore the burden of proof. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means providing evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight than the evidence presented by the opposing side.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The credible evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner submitted only thirteen valid signatures, which was insufficient to compel the Association to call a special meeting under its Bylaws and state law.

10. The final ORDER, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, was that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-style responses. They require a deeper analysis of the case’s themes, legal principles, and procedural elements. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” as it applies to this case. Explain what “preponderance of the evidence” means in this context, who held the burden, and how the failure to meet this standard was the central reason for the judge’s final decision.

2. Discuss the critical importance of an association’s governing documents (CC&Rs and Bylaws) in resolving internal disputes. Use specific articles and sections from the Cortez Canyon Bylaws to illustrate how they definitively established the rules for calling a special meeting and determining voter eligibility, leaving little room for interpretation.

3. Evaluate the Petitioner’s strategy and execution in collecting signatures for his petition. Identify the critical errors he and his assistants made in the process, and outline the specific steps he could have taken to verify signatures and ensure his petition was valid before its submission.

4. Explain the legal and practical distinctions between a Unit Owner, an occupant/renter, and an “eligible voter” within the context of the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association. How did the Petitioner’s failure to understand these distinctions become the central point of failure for his petition?

5. Imagine you are advising the Cortez Canyon Board of Directors following this hearing. Based on the evidence and outcome of the case, what recommendations would you make regarding their procedures for validating petitions and their communication with Unit Owners about voting rights, petition requirements, and the consequences of financial delinquency?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official (Jenna Clark) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, reviews evidence, and makes legal findings and conclusions.

Answer

The formal written response filed by the Respondent (the Association) on May 28, 2019, denying the Petitioner’s allegations.

ARIZ. REV. STAT.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona. The specific statute at issue was § 33-1243.

Association

The Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association, the governing body for the condominium development, comprised of all unit owners.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group of individuals that oversees the Association, as empowered by the CC&Rs. The petition sought to remove a member of this board.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation on one party in a dispute (in this case, the Petitioner) to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

Bylaws

The set of rules adopted by the Association on June 14, 2000, that govern its internal operations, including meetings and voting rights.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The primary governing documents for the development, recorded on May 9, 2000, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from members of homeowners’ associations.

Eligible Votes

A term defined in the Bylaws as the total number of votes that can be lawfully cast, excluding those from members whose voting rights are suspended.

Findings of Fact

The section of the legal decision that outlines the established, undisputed facts of the case based on the hearing evidence.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

The final, legally binding command issued by the judge at the conclusion of the decision. In this case, the Order was to deny the petition.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action by filing a petition. In this case, John H. Kelly.

Petition

The formal document filed by the Petitioner on April 29, 2019, with the Department to initiate the hearing process against the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, meaning that the evidence must be sufficient to convince the judge that the contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed and who must respond to the allegations. In this case, the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association.

Special Meeting

A meeting of Association members called for a specific purpose outside of the regularly scheduled meetings. The petition sought to compel a special meeting to remove a board member.

Unit Owner

An individual who holds legal title to a condominium within the Cortez Canyon development and is a member of the Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1919060-REL


He Gathered 36 Signatures to Oust His HOA Board. Here’s Why Only 13 Counted.

Introduction: The Power and Pitfalls of Community Action

Many homeowners have felt the frustration of trying to enact change within their community, especially when it involves challenging the decisions of a Homeowners Association (HOA) board. It can feel like an uphill battle, but the right to petition and call for special meetings is a cornerstone of community governance.

However, a real-world case involving homeowner John H. Kelly and the Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association serves as a critical cautionary tale. Mr. Kelly gathered what he believed were more than enough signatures to force a special meeting to remove a board member. Despite his significant effort, his petition failed spectacularly. This article breaks down the key legal and procedural reasons why, offering essential lessons for every homeowner.

1. Not All Signatures Are Created Equal: The Validity Gauntlet

The core of the issue began with a simple numbers game. The Cortez Canyon HOA has 84 units, meaning a petition required signatures from 25%, or 21, of the unit owners to compel a special meeting. Mr. Kelly successfully collected 36 signatures—a number that seemed to guarantee his success.

In a moment of false victory, the association’s property management company at the time, Golden Valley, informed Mr. Kelly that he had indeed secured enough signatures. But this assurance was short-lived. A new management company took over, and after a formal review, the association delivered devastating news: only 13 of the 36 signatures were valid. The petition was dead on arrival.

The association disqualified 23 signatures for specific, documented reasons:

• Non-Owners: Eleven signatures were from renters or other residential occupants who were not the legal owners of the unit.

• Duplicate Units: Six signatures were removed because another signature had already been collected from the same unit, upholding the “one vote per unit” principle.

• Ineligible Owners: Six signatures were from homeowners who were technically owners but were found to be ineligible to vote at the time they signed.

This reveals the petitioner’s first critical, and ultimately fatal, assumption: that the HOA would do the work of verifying his supporters. In reality, the burden of proof was his alone. The legal findings state it plainly: “Neither Petitioner nor his assistants verified if the signatures that were collected belonged to Unit Owners eligible to vote.” From a governance perspective, this initial culling of signatures is where most grassroots community efforts fail.

2. The Fine Print That Disenfranchises: “Good Standing” and Your Right to Vote

Here, we find the kind of boilerplate legal language that is often ignored by homeowners but wielded with immense power by boards. The ineligibility of six homeowners stemmed from a specific clause in the association’s bylaws related to financial standing.

The bylaw states:

“In the event any Unit Owner is in arrears in the payment of any Assessment, monetary penalties or other fees and charges due under the terms of the Condominium Documents for a period of fifteen (15) days, the Unit Owner’s right to vote as a member of the Association shall be automatically suspended…”

This single provision had a profound impact. Six of the signatures Mr. Kelly collected were from homeowners who were more than 15 days late on their dues or fines. Their voting rights were suspended, and their signatures were rendered invalid. This highlights a crucial preparatory step for any petitioner: confidentially requesting a list of members in good standing from the association before collecting signatures, if the governing documents allow, or at minimum, reminding potential signatories to ensure their accounts are current.

3. Process is Paramount: The Signature That Never Was

Facing a losing battle at the administrative hearing, the petitioner made a final argument to salvage his petition. He contended that he had also secured the signature of a member named Jeffrey Law, who owned six separate units. Mr. Kelly argued this single signature should count as six votes, which would have put him over the required threshold.

However, this argument failed due to a simple but fatal procedural error. According to the court’s findings, the signature from Mr. Law was never actually submitted with the petition to the association.

The Administrative Law Judge’s finding was unambiguous: “The signature Petitioner collected from the multiple unit owner, Jeffrey Law, was not a part of the petition received by the Association and therefore was not counted.” This procedural error, while seemingly minor, is an absolute bar to success in administrative law. Unlike a casual disagreement, there is no room for “I meant to” or “I thought I had.”

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power in an HOA

Because the petitioner could only provide 13 valid signatures instead of the required 21, the Administrative Law Judge denied his petition. The HOA was not required to call the special meeting, and the board member remained in place. Mr. Kelly’s story is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort are not enough to navigate the complexities of community governance. The case provides three clear takeaways for any homeowner:

1. Quality Over Quantity: A short, verified list of eligible voters is infinitely more powerful than a long list of unverified names.

2. Bylaws are Your Battlefield: The governing documents contain the rules of engagement. Ignoring them—especially clauses on voter eligibility—is a unilateral surrender.

3. Documentation is Everything: If it wasn’t formally submitted to the correct party, it legally never happened. Your ability to prove submission is as important as the submission itself.

This case is a powerful reminder that enthusiasm and effort aren’t enough. The real question every homeowner should ask is: Do you truly know the rules that govern your rights in your own community?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John H. Kelly (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Saundra Garcia (board member)
    Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
    Called as a witness and testified as Board President
  • Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Counsel receiving notice of decision

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Decision transmitted to Commissioner

Other Participants

  • Jeffery Law (owner)
    Cortez Canyon Unit Owners Association
    Unit owner whose signature Petitioner secured but was not submitted to the Association

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Tom Barrs' records request. The petition was granted, requiring the Association to reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Why this result: The Association failed to provide the full requested documentation (EDC actions, written requests, and approvals) within the deadline, providing only a summary table,. The Association's justification for non-compliance based on improper submission was rejected because the Petitioner had been directed by the Association to send requests to the EDC Chairman.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

Petitioner requested EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) for October 2017 through October 2018 on November 1, 2018,. The Association responded with only a summary table on November 18, 2018, which did not include the totality of the communications requested. The ALJ concluded that the Association's summary table provided was a violation of the statute,, especially since the Petitioner was not required to send the request to all Board members due to previous instructions.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was granted. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A),.

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, A.R.S. § 33-1805 violation, Records disclosure, Filing fee reimbursement, Civil penalty
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:33:57 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918037-REL/700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:51:30 (149.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Individuals

Tom Barrs

Petitioner, Homeowner

Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.

Respondent, HOA

Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

Brian Schoeffler

Witness for Respondent

Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

Catherine Overby

Association President

Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.

Lori Loch-Lee

VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)

Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.

Core Legal Issue

The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.

Timeline of Key Events

July 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.

November 1, 2018

Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.

November 18, 2018

The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.

December 17, 2018

Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

March 6, 2019

Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.

March 11, 2019

Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.

March 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

April 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.

June 10, 2019

Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.

August 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

September 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

——————————————————————————–

Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)

• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”

• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.

• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.

• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)

• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.

• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.

• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.

• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.

Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)

• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.

• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.

——————————————————————————–

Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)

Basis for Rehearing

The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.

New Evidence and Revised Testimony

• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.

• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.

• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)

• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

• Final Order:

1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Judicial Quotes

On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”

On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”






Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

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

2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?

3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?

4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?

5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?

7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?

8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?

9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?

10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.

2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.

4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.

5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.

7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.

8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.

9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.

10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?

2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.

3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?

4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.

5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.

1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System

Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.

2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word

The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.

Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon

Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.

The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”

This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.

4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”

Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.

This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.

But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.

5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance

The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:

• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.

• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.

6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact

The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.

How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner/witness)
    Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
  • Jonathan Dessaules (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (respondent)
  • Brian Schoeffler (EDC chairman/witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
  • Catherine Overby (HOA president)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Association President; records request recipient
  • Lori Loch-Lee (VP Client Services)
    Associated Asset Management (AAM)
    Management company contact; records request recipient
  • Amanda Shaw (property manager rep)
    AAM LLC
    Contact for Respondent c/o AAM LLC
  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Other Participants

  • G. Mangiero (observer)
    Observed initial hearing
  • Peter Ashkin (observer)
  • Stephen Banks (observer)
  • Noah Banks (observer)
  • Gerard Manieri (observer)
    Observed rehearing
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing
  • Abraham Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Tom Barrs Counsel Jonathan A. Dessaules
Respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association Counsel B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the HOA violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by failing to provide the full requested documentation relating to EDC actions and communications. The Petitioner's request for relief was granted, resulting in the reimbursement of the $500 filing fee and the imposition of a $500 civil penalty against the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent) violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request.

The Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fully comply with Petitioner's specific request for EDC records (submissions, requests, and approvals) by providing only a summary table instead of the totality of requested communications within the statutory deadline.

Orders: Petitioner's petition granted. Respondent ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01) and tender a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)).

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

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Violation, Civil Penalty, Filing Fee Reimbursement
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-243
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-107
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:11 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL-RHG Decision – ../19F-H1918037-REL/700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:13 (149.3 KB)





Briefing Doc – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Briefing on Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing synthesizes the legal proceedings and outcomes of case number 19F-H1918037-REL, a dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (“Petitioner”) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was the Association’s alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 for failing to completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner on November 1, 2018.

An initial hearing on March 21, 2019, resulted in a decision in favor of the Association. Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark found that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board, and therefore the Association’s provision of a summary table did not constitute a statutory violation.

Following an appeal by the Petitioner, a rehearing was held on August 27, 2019. New evidence was introduced demonstrating that the Petitioner had previously been expressly instructed by the Association’s President to direct records requests specifically to the Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Chairman, Brian Schoeffler, a directive the Petitioner followed. Consequently, Judge Clark reversed the initial decision, concluding that the request was properly submitted and the Association’s failure to provide the full records—offering only a summary table—was a clear violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805. The final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, ordered the reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied a $500 civil penalty against the Association.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name/Entity

Key Individuals

Tom Barrs

Petitioner, Homeowner

Represented himself initially; later by Jonathan Dessaules, Esq.

Desert Ranch Homeowners Assoc.

Respondent, HOA

Governed by CC&Rs and a Board of Directors.

Brian Schoeffler

Witness for Respondent

Chairman of the Environmental Design Committee (EDC).

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Presided over both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

Catherine Overby

Association President

Appointed Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.

Lori Loch-Lee

VP, Associated Asset Management (AAM)

Recipient of records request; AAM acted as the Association’s accounting firm.

Core Legal Issue

The central question adjudicated was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request. This statute requires that an association’s records be made “reasonably available for examination” and that a request for copies be fulfilled within ten business days.

Timeline of Key Events

July 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints EDC Director Brian Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records contact.

November 1, 2018

Petitioner emails a records request to Schoeffler, Overby, and Lori Loch-Lee.

November 18, 2018

The Association provides a summary table of EDC actions, not the full records requested.

December 17, 2018

Petitioner files a formal petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

March 6, 2019

Petitioner follows up via email, specifying the exact communications and documents he is seeking.

March 11, 2019

Schoeffler responds, asserting the request was fulfilled and directing Petitioner to submit a new one.

March 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

April 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the petition.

June 10, 2019

Petitioner submits a successful appeal to the Department.

August 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

September 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the prior decision and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

——————————————————————————–

Initial Hearing and Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Petitioner’s Position (Tom Barrs)

• On November 1, 2018, Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.”

• The Association’s response on November 18, 2018, was a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions,” which did not include the totality of communications requested.

• Barrs argued the Association willfully failed to comply, citing a similar previous dispute that required OAH adjudication.

• The dispute was clarified to be about the completeness of the response, not its timeliness.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Ranch HOA)

• Represented by Brian Schoeffler, the HOA argued it had fully, though untimelily, complied with the request.

• The core of the defense was that the request was improperly submitted because Barrs only sent it to two of the four Board members.

• Schoeffler reasoned that the Association’s response was guided by a prior OAH decision in a similar case that had been returned in the Association’s favor.

• Schoeffler also stated that fulfilling the more detailed request from March 6, 2019, could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt,” which is why he asked for a new request.

Initial Findings and Order (April 10, 2019)

• Key Finding: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to all members of the Association’s Board.

• Legal Conclusion: “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for providing him with a summary table on November 18, 2018.”

• Order: The Petitioner’s petition was denied. His request for a civil penalty and reimbursement of his filing fee was also denied.

——————————————————————————–

Rehearing and Final Decision (No. 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG)

Basis for Rehearing

The Petitioner successfully appealed the initial decision, leading the Department of Real Estate to refer the matter back to the OAH for a new evidentiary hearing on the same issue.

New Evidence and Revised Testimony

• Petitioner’s New Evidence: Crucially, the Petitioner introduced evidence (Petitioner Exhibit 11) showing that on July 19, 2017, Association President Catherine Overby had appointed Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact.

• Respondent’s Concession: The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require all Board members to be copied on records requests. It also conceded that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for records requests were not adhered to or enforced.

• Persistent Failure to Comply: It was established that as of the date of the rehearing (August 27, 2019), the Petitioner had still not received all of the documentation requested on November 1, 2018.

Final Findings and Order (September 12, 2019)

• Revised Key Finding: The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s request was not required to be sent to all Board members. Instead, the Petitioner had “expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

• Final Legal Conclusion: “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

• Final Order:

1. The Petitioner’s petition was granted.

2. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

3. A civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Judicial Quotes

On the Improper Submission Argument (First Decision): “Because the credible evidence of record reflects that Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request to the Board, Petitioner has failed established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805…”

On the Proper Submission Argument (Final Decision): “Petitioner’s November 01, 2018, records request was not required to be sent to all members of the Association’s Board, as Petitioner had expressly been instructed to only send his records requests to the Association’s EDC Chairman, Mr. Schoeffler, which he did.”

On the Violation (Final Decision): “Petitioner is correct that the Association did not fully comply with his specific request, and has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the summary table provided by the Association was a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”






Study Guide – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, Docket No. 19F-H1918037-REL. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments, the relevant statutes, and the final outcome of the dispute. The case centers on a homeowner’s records request and the association’s legal obligations under Arizona state law.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences, drawing all information from the provided case documents.

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

2. What was the central legal issue presented for adjudication at the Office of Administrative Hearings?

3. What specific records did the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, request from the Association on November 1, 2018?

4. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s records request, and when was it provided?

5. What was the outcome of the first hearing on March 21, 2019, as detailed in the decision issued on April 10, 2019?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge initially rule in favor of the Respondent?

7. What new evidence presented at the rehearing on August 27, 2019, proved critical to reversing the initial decision?

8. According to Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, what is the time frame for an association to fulfill a request for examination or copies of records?

9. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as ordered on September 12, 2019?

10. What specific penalties and reimbursements were levied against the Respondent in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner is Tom Barrs, a property owner in the Desert Ranch subdivision and a member of its homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”), the governing body for the subdivision.

2. The central issue was whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by failing to properly and completely fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner requested a copy of all Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. He later clarified this included communications like letters, emails, and application forms related to specific EDC decisions.

4. On November 18, 2018, the Association provided the Petitioner with a summary table listing some EDC actions. This response did not include the full scope of communications and underlying documents that the Petitioner had requested.

5. Following the first hearing, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The judge ruled that the Association’s conduct did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1805, denied the request for a civil penalty, and ordered that the Association did not have to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee.

6. The judge initially ruled for the Respondent because the evidence suggested the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error was seen as the reason the Association’s response (the summary table) was not a violation of the statute.

7. At the rehearing, evidence was introduced showing that on July 19, 2017, the Association’s President had explicitly appointed Brian Schoeffler, the EDC Chairman, as the Petitioner’s primary records request contact. This demonstrated that the Petitioner was not required to send his request to all Board members and had followed prior instructions correctly.

8. A.R.S. § 33-1805 states that an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records. It also specifies that the association has ten business days to provide copies of requested records upon request.

9. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Petitioner’s petition. The judge concluded that the Association’s conduct did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary table instead of the full records requested.

10. In the final order, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Respondent, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a detailed response for each, synthesizing facts and arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Compare and contrast the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the first hearing (April 10, 2019 decision) with those from the rehearing (September 12, 2019 decision). What specific evidence or legal reasoning led to the reversal of the initial order?

2. Analyze the arguments presented by both the Petitioner, Tom Barrs, and the Respondent’s representative, Brian Schoeffler. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s position across both hearings.

3. Explain the role and significance of Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 in this case. How did the interpretation of the Association’s obligations under this statute differ between the initial ruling and the final ruling?

4. Trace the timeline of events from the initial records request on November 1, 2018, to the final order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the key communications and procedural steps that influenced the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.

5. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined in the case documents. How did the Petitioner successfully meet this burden of proof in the rehearing after failing to do so in the initial hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues orders. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs the rights of homeowners’ association members to access association records. It mandates that records be made “reasonably available for examination” and establishes a ten-business-day deadline for associations to fulfill such requests.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the Association’s accounting firm. Petitioner was at one point instructed to direct requests to an AAM representative.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. The dispute involved questions about whether a records request needed to be sent to all members of the Board.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, chaired by Brian Schoeffler. The records requested by the Petitioner pertained to the actions and decisions of this committee.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings for disputes referred by other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Tom Barrs.

Preponderance of the evidence

The burden of proof in this case. It is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the “greater weight of the evidence.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.






Blog Post – 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG


He Fought His HOA Over Public Records and Lost. Then One Old Email Changed Everything.

1.0 Introduction: The Familiar Frustration of Fighting the System

Almost everyone has a story about the maddening frustration of dealing with a bureaucratic organization. The rules can seem arbitrary, the answers vague, and the entire process engineered to make you give up. For homeowners, that organization is often their Homeowners Association (HOA). This was precisely the situation for Tom Barrs, a homeowner in Scottsdale, Arizona, when he made what seemed like a simple request for records from his HOA, the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. His straightforward request ignited a surprising legal battle, where an initial, demoralizing defeat in court was ultimately overturned by a single, crucial piece of evidence exhumed from the past.

2.0 Takeaway 1: The First Verdict Isn’t Always the Final Word

The dispute began with a formal records request. In November 2018, Tom Barrs asked to see documents related to the HOA’s Environmental Design Committee (EDC). His request was clear, specific, and cited the relevant state law:

“Pursuant to ARS 33-1805, I am requesting a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018. Soft copies via return email are preferable; otherwise, please let me know when hard copies are available for pickup.”

The HOA refused to provide the records, and the case went before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark on March 21, 2019. The judge denied Mr. Barrs’s petition. The ruling was based on what seemed to be a fatal procedural error: the judge concluded that Mr. Barrs had failed to properly submit his request because he did not email it to all members of the Association’s Board.

Adding a potent dose of irony, the HOA’s representative at the hearing—Brian Schoeffler, the very EDC Chairman to whom Barrs had sent the request—successfully argued that a prior case meant Barrs “knew or should have known the requirements.” For many people, this initial loss, buttressed by the HOA weaponizing their past behavior against them, would have been the end of the road. But for Mr. Barrs, it was only the first chapter.

3.0 Takeaway 2: The Paper Trail is Your Most Powerful Weapon

Unwilling to accept the verdict, Mr. Barrs appealed and was granted a rehearing. The case was heard again before the very same judge, Jenna Clark. This time, however, Mr. Barrs had a new piece of evidence—a single, forgotten email that would force the judge to re-evaluate her own initial conclusion.

The case hinged on a communication from sixteen months prior. In July 2017, the Association’s President, Catherine Overby, had sent an email specifically appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as Mr. Barrs’s “primary records request contact.”

This single document completely dismantled the HOA’s central argument. It proved that a specific, documented protocol existed that superseded any unwritten procedure the HOA later tried to enforce. Based on this prior instruction, Judge Clark’s new conclusion was decisive: Mr. Barrs was not required to send his request to the entire board. He had, in fact, followed the HOA’s own explicit directive perfectly. The HOA’s argument, built on chastising Mr. Barrs for not knowing the rules, crumbled under the weight of a rule they themselves had established and forgotten.

4.0 Takeaway 3: A “Summary” Isn’t the Same as “The Records”

Another key issue was the HOA’s attempt to control the information it released. Instead of providing the actual letters, emails, and applications Mr. Barrs had asked for, the HOA sent him a “summary table” of the EDC’s actions.

This defense initially worked. In the first ruling, Judge Clark concluded that because the request itself was improperly submitted, the summary table was not a violation of the statute. The HOA’s failure to provide the actual records was excused on a technicality.

But once the old email proved the request was valid, that technicality vanished and the summary table argument collapsed. In her final ruling, Judge Clark determined that providing a summary was a clear violation of Arizona law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805). The statute is unambiguous: records must be made “reasonably available for examination,” and copies must be provided upon request. The HOA’s attempt to substitute its interpretation of the records for the records themselves was not just unhelpful—it was illegal.

5.0 Takeaway 4: Resistance Can Be More Costly Than Compliance

The final, reversed decision was issued on September 12, 2019. Mr. Barrs’s petition was granted, and the HOA faced direct financial consequences for its stonewalling. The Desert Ranch HOA was ordered to:

• Reimburse Mr. Barrs’s $500.00 filing fee.

• Pay a separate $500.00 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

For the price of a few photocopies, the HOA chose instead to pay for a protracted legal battle, a public loss, and $1,000 in fees and penalties—a steep cost for refusing transparency. The outcome is a stark reminder that an organization’s attempt to obstruct access to information can be far more damaging to its finances and reputation than simple compliance.

6.0 Conclusion: The Power of a Single Fact

The story of Tom Barrs’s dispute offers powerful, practical lessons for anyone facing a similar challenge. It highlights the importance of persistence, the legal weight of true transparency, and, above all, the critical power of documentation. One old email—one documented fact—was enough to level the playing field, force a judge to reverse her own decision, and ensure the rules were applied fairly. It leaves us with a compelling question to consider.

How might meticulous record-keeping change the outcome of a dispute in your own life?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tom Barrs (petitioner/witness)
    Appeared on his own behalf initially; appeared as witness at rehearing
  • Jonathan Dessaules (attorney)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Appeared on behalf of Petitioner at rehearing

Respondent Side

  • Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (respondent)
  • Brian Schoeffler (EDC chairman/witness)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent; Chairman of the Association’s EDC
  • Catherine Overby (HOA president)
    Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
    Association President; records request recipient
  • Lori Loch-Lee (VP Client Services)
    Associated Asset Management (AAM)
    Management company contact; records request recipient
  • Amanda Shaw (property manager rep)
    AAM LLC
    Contact for Respondent c/o AAM LLC
  • B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
  • Dan Gardner (HOA Coordinator)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)

Other Participants

  • G. Mangiero (observer)
    Observed initial hearing
  • Peter Ashkin (observer)
  • Stephen Banks (observer)
  • Noah Banks (observer)
  • Gerard Manieri (observer)
    Observed rehearing
  • Stephen Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing
  • Abraham Barrs (observer)
    Observed rehearing

Michael J Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919068-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-04
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association Counsel Nicole Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&R 4.3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found the HOA violated CC&R 4.3 regarding the timing of budget delivery. While the Petitioner prevailed on the violation and was awarded the $500 filing fee, the ALJ denied the request to rescind the dues increase and denied civil penalties.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to deliver budget 15 days prior to meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R 4.3 by failing to deliver the budget 15 days before the meeting. The HOA mailed the budget exactly 15 days prior (Jan 2 for Jan 17 meeting), but the ALJ ruled the contract required delivery, not just mailing, 15 days prior.

Orders: Respondent must pay to Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Decision Documents

19F-H1919068-REL Decision – 735330.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:17:02 (80.1 KB)

**Case Summary: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association**
**Case Number:** 19F-H1919068-REL
**Date of Decision:** September 4, 2019
**Administrative Law Judge:** Thomas Shedden

**Proceedings and Main Issue**
This matter was heard before the Arizona Department of Real Estate on August 21, 2019. Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg initially alleged multiple violations of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). However, the proceedings were limited to a single issue: whether the Respondent, Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, violated CC&R section 4.3 by failing to deliver the 2019 budget to unit owners at least fifteen days prior to the annual meeting,.

**Key Facts**
* **The Requirement:** CC&R section 4.3 requires the Board to deliver a copy of the budget and assessment amounts to unit owners at least fifteen days before the meeting at which they are presented,.
* **The Meeting:** The Association conducted its annual meeting on January 17, 2019, at which time monthly dues were increased by 10%.
* **The Delivery:** Evidence showed the Association postmarked the budget on January 2, 2019. The Petitioner testified he did not receive the budget fifteen days prior to the meeting.
* **Petitioner's Request:** The Petitioner requested that the dues increase be rescinded and a civil penalty be issued against the Association.

**Legal Analysis**
The Administrative Law Judge emphasized that CC&Rs constitute a contract between the parties, and the tribunal must enforce clear and unambiguous terms,. The Judge found that CC&R section 4.3 explicitly requires the budget be "delivered"—not just mailed—at least fifteen days before the meeting. Although the Association mailed the document exactly fifteen days prior (January 2), the preponderance of the evidence established that it was not *delivered* to the Petitioner by the required deadline.

**Outcome and Order**
The Judge ruled in favor of the Petitioner, deeming him the prevailing party. The final order stipulated:
1. **Violation:** The Association violated CC&R section 4.3 regarding the timely delivery of the budget.
2. **Remedies:** The Petitioner’s requests to rescind the dues increase and impose civil penalties were denied, as he did not demonstrate these measures were appropriate.
3. **Fees:** The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee within thirty days.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Michael J. Stoltenberg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Diana Crites (witness)
    Crites Property Management
    Testified for the Association
  • Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Listed in transmission block

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmitted order
  • F. Del Sol (clerk/staff)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Signed the transmission of the order

Marc D Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 19F-H1919063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2019-09-03
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc D. Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nichols C. Hogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent (HOA) and dismissed the petition. The HOA's rejection of the flat roof design was found to be reasonable and consistent with the architectural rules requiring pitched roofs to predominate and designs to be harmonious with surrounding structures.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute; the evidence showed the HOA's decision was based on valid architectural rules.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Petitioner sought approval for a garage addition with a flat roof. The Board denied final approval because the design was not harmonious with surrounding structures (pitched roofs) and did not meet the exception for hidden flat roofs.

Orders: The petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

19F-H1919063-REL Decision – 733775.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:16:55 (86.0 KB)

**Case Summary: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.**
**Case No.** 19F-H1919063-REL
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)
**Date of Decision:** September 3, 2019

**Background and Facts**
Petitioner Marc D. Archer, a member of the PMPE Community Association in Glendale, Arizona, submitted plans in September 2017 to construct a garage addition. Although the Board initially issued preliminary approval, it withheld final approval upon learning that Archer intended to build a flat roof enclosed on all sides that would exceed the height of the adjoining 9-foot wall.

Archer's existing garage featured an arched (pitched) roof, but he wished to avoid a pitched roof on the addition. The Association Board notified Archer that he could construct a flat roof only if it was lower than the adjacent wall—and thus not "Visible From Neighboring Property"—pursuant to Article 1.34 of the community’s CC&Rs.

**Legal Issue**
Archer filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), alleging that the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)** by unreasonably withholding approval of his construction plans. The matter was referred for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the Board's denial was unreasonable,.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner (Archer):** Archer argued that his design was harmonious with surrounding structures, noting that another side of his home featured a flat-top patio. He further alleged that the Association’s enforcement was arbitrary and discriminatory, claiming they had allowed other non-harmonious patios and failed to enforce rules against a neighbor who kept a kitchen countertop in their front yard for a year,.
* **Respondent (Association):** The Association denied the allegations of arbitrary enforcement. They argued that the denial was based on Section 4.4 of the Architectural Rules, which states that "pitched roofs predominate" as they are an important part of the visual environment. They maintained that requiring a pitched roof was reasonable to ensure the addition remained harmonious with Archer's existing pitched-roof garage.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson presided over the hearing. The decision was based on the following legal principles and findings:
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden was on the Petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated state law.
* **Contractual Obligations:** CC&Rs are treated as a contract between the parties, and their unambiguous terms must be enforced to effectuate the parties' intent.
* **Reasonableness:** While an association cannot unreasonably withhold approval, the evidence showed that PMPE's Architectural Rules explicitly encourage pitched roofs. The ALJ found that Archer’s plan for a visible flat roof was not harmonious with the surrounding structures, specifically his own existing garage.

The Judge determined that the Board reasonably concluded the plans were inconsistent with the CC&Rs and Architectural Rules. Consequently, Archer failed to prove that the Association acted unreasonably.

**Final Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be **dismissed**. The Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., was deemed the prevailing party.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marc D. Archer (petitioner)
    PMPE Community Association, Inc. (Member)
    Appeared on behalf of himself; testified

Respondent Side

  • Nichols C. Hogami (respondent attorney)
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Keith Scott Kauffman (witness)
    PMPE Board of Directors
    Member of the PMPE Board of Directors; testified

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmitted order