Vicky Glover v. Foothills Community Association

Posted on May 30, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919046-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-30
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding both the DRC's restriction on speaking during specific deliberations and the use of email communications for non-regularly scheduled committee business.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Vicky Glover	Counsel	—
Respondent	Foothills Community Association	Counsel	B. Austin Baillio

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 regarding both the DRC's restriction on speaking during specific deliberations and the use of email communications for non-regularly scheduled committee business.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804, specifically because the DRC's restrictions on speaking were deemed reasonable, and email communications were not considered 'regularly scheduled committee meetings' requiring public access.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings and Member Right to Speak (DRC and Email Meetings)

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by denying her the ability to speak at DRC meetings on other members’ requests, and by conducting deliberations and making decisions via email outside of regularly scheduled meetings.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Sections 33-1801 to 33-1818

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Design Review Committee, Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Email Meetings, A.R.S. 33-1804

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919046-REL Decision – 712028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:00 (94.0 KB)

19F-H1919046-REL Decision – 712028.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:53 (94.0 KB)

Briefing Document: Glover v. Foothills Community Association (Case No. 19F-H1919046-REL)

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Vicky Glover versus the Foothills Community Association (FCA), where the petitioner’s claims were denied. The petitioner alleged that the FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) violated Arizona’s open meeting laws (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on two fronts: first, by conducting unannounced “email meetings” to vote on non-emergency matters, and second, by preventing members from speaking at appropriate times during regularly scheduled DRC meetings.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Tammy L. Eigenheer, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove any statutory violation. The decision rested on a strict textual interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. Regarding speaking rights, the ALJ determined that while members have a right to speak at an “appropriate time” in committee meetings, the more specific right to speak on an agenda item before a formal vote applies exclusively to Board of Directors meetings, not committee meetings. The judge found it was reasonable for the DRC to rule that a member speaking on another member’s application was not an “appropriate time.”

Concerning the email communications, the ALJ ruled that they do not constitute “regularly scheduled committee meetings” as defined by the statute. Because the email discussions and decisions did not occur at a set weekly, monthly, or quarterly time, they are not subject to the open meeting requirements. The general state policy favoring open meetings was found to be subordinate to the specific statutory language. The petition was therefore denied in its entirety.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

This case involved a dispute between a homeowner and a homeowners association regarding the application of Arizona’s open meeting laws to a committee of the association.

Name / Entity

Representation / Title

Petitioner

Vicky Glover

Appeared on her own behalf

Respondent

Foothills Community Association (FCA)

B. Austin Baillio (Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.)

Adjudicator

Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings

Phoenix, Arizona

Case Timeline

• December 13, 2018 & January 9, 2019: Petitioner attends and records DRC meetings where the alleged violations occurred.

• January 23, 2019: Vicky Glover files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• January 28, 2019: The Department issues a notice to the FCA regarding the petition.

• May 10, 2019: An administrative hearing is held.

• May 30, 2019: The Administrative Law Judge issues the final decision.

——————————————————————————–

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner, Vicky Glover, alleged that the Foothills Community Association violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 in two specific ways:

1. Improper Email Meetings: The FCA’s Design Review Committee (DRC) held unannounced meetings via email to vote on non-emergency matters, which should have been handled in open, public meetings.

2. Denial of Speaking Rights: The DRC refused to allow community members, including the petitioner, to speak at an appropriate time during its regularly scheduled meetings, specifically when she wished to speak on other members’ pending requests.

Key Factual Findings

The facts underlying the petition were not in dispute by the parties during the hearing. The key findings of fact established were:

• Organizational Structure:

◦ The FCA Board of Directors is comprised of seven members and meets on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m.

◦ The Design Review Committee (DRC) is appointed by the Board, is comprised of five members (two of whom are also on the Board), and meets on the second Wednesday of the month at 2:00 p.m.

• Events at DRC Meetings:

◦ On December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, Vicky Glover attended and recorded DRC meetings.

◦ During these meetings, she was not permitted to speak on issues being discussed related to other members’ pending requests.

• Use of Email by the DRC:

◦ During meetings, DRC members mentioned that additional information for certain requests would be shared via email after the meeting.

◦ Based on this emailed information, DRC members would approve or deny the request.

◦ Decisions made via email between meetings were formally “ratified” at the subsequent DRC meeting.

◦ FCA Manager Pat Wontor testified, denying that the DRC took initial action via email, asserting instead that emails were only used to gather additional information on matters that had already been discussed in an open meeting.

• DRC Policies: A request submitted to the DRC is deemed approved if it is not denied within 60 days.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Judge’s Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision centered on a strict interpretation of the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The petitioner bore the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence and failed to do so on both counts.

I. Member Speaking Rights at Committee Meetings

The judge analyzed the petitioner’s claim that she was wrongfully denied the right to speak at DRC meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) states that at “any regularly scheduled committee meetings… all members… shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge found a critical distinction within the statute’s text. A later clause specifies that “the board… shall permit a member… to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item.”

• Conclusion: The judge ruled that this specific right to speak on an item before a vote applies only to meetings of the Board of Directors, not to committee meetings. For committee meetings, the standard is the more general “appropriate time.” The ALJ concluded it was reasonable for the DRC to determine that having one member speak on another member’s private application was not an “appropriate time.” Therefore, the DRC’s refusal to allow the petitioner to speak did not violate the statute.

II. Email Deliberations and “Meetings”

The judge next addressed the claim that email communications constituted illegal, non-public meetings.

• Governing Statute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) mandates that open meeting rules apply to “regularly scheduled committee meetings.”

• ALJ’s Interpretation: The judge concluded that the email discussions, deliberations, and decisions among DRC members did not meet the definition of “regularly scheduled.” These communications did not occur at a set time on a recurring basis (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly). While they could be considered a form of meeting, they were not regularly scheduled ones.

• Effect of State Policy: The judge acknowledged the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which expresses a legislative preference for open meetings. However, the judge ruled that this general policy “does not override the specific provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that only ‘regularly scheduled’ committee meetings must be open to the members.”

• Conclusion: Because the email communications were not regularly scheduled, they did not fall under the open meeting requirements of the statute, and no violation occurred.

Final Order and Implications

Based on the legal analysis, the Administrative Law Judge found that the petitioner did not establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

• Final Order: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”

• Next Steps: The decision is binding on the parties. A party may file a request for a rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04 and § 41-1092.09.

Study Guide: Glover v. Foothills Community Association (No. 19F-H1919046-REL)

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case between Vicky Glover (Petitioner) and the Foothills Community Association (Respondent). It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms as defined and used within the source document.

Quiz: Short-Answer Questions

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on the provided legal decision. Each answer should be two to three sentences long.

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

2. What were the two specific violations of state statutes that the Petitioner alleged?

3. Describe the composition and meeting schedules of the Board of Directors and the Design Review Committee (DRC).

4. What specific action did the Petitioner take during the DRC meetings on December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019?

5. According to the decision, what was the DRC’s practice regarding decisions made via email between meetings?

6. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and how does the decision define it?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge interpret the statutory phrase “an appropriate time” for a member to speak during a committee meeting?

8. Why did the Judge conclude that the DRC’s email communications did not violate the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804?

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

10. What recourse did the parties have if they disagreed with the Judge’s order?

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Vicky Glover, the Petitioner who filed the complaint, and the Foothills Community Association (FCA), the Respondent homeowners association. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated state statutes by holding unannounced email meetings to vote on non-emergency matters. She also alleged that the Respondent would not allow community members to speak at appropriate times during Design Review Committee (DRC) meetings.

3. The Board of Directors has seven members and meets at 6:00 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of the month. The Design Review Committee (DRC) is appointed by the Board, has five members (two of whom are also on the Board), and meets at 2:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of the month.

4. During the DRC meetings on December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, the Petitioner attended and recorded the proceedings. She was not allowed to speak on other members’ pending requests during these meetings.

5. The DRC would gather additional information via email after a meeting and members would then approve or deny the request via email. Any decisions made via email between DRC meetings were then “ratified” at the next formal DRC meeting.

6. The Petitioner had the burden of proving her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The decision defines this as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

7. The Judge determined that the statute does not define what constitutes “an appropriate time” to speak at a committee meeting. Therefore, it was reasonable for the DRC to decide that the deliberation regarding a different member’s request was not an appropriate time for the Petitioner to speak.

8. The Judge concluded that email communications are not “regularly scheduled committee meetings” because they do not occur at a set time on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Since A.R.S. § 33-1804 only requires regularly scheduled committee meetings to be open, the email discussions were not a violation.

9. The final Order was that the Petitioner’s petition is denied. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner did not establish any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

10. Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), the order is binding unless a rehearing is granted. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer-form essay responses to encourage a deeper synthesis of the case details and legal reasoning. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the Administrative Law Judge’s statutory construction of A.R.S. § 33-1804. How does the judge distinguish between the open meeting requirements for Board of Directors meetings versus committee meetings, and what role does the “plain language” of the statute play in this interpretation?

2. Discuss the two central allegations made by Vicky Glover. For each allegation, detail the undisputed facts of the events and explain the specific legal reasoning the judge used to conclude that no statutory violation occurred.

3. Examine the conflict between the state’s declared policy in favor of open meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)) and the specific statutory language governing committee meetings (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). How did the judge resolve this apparent conflict in her final decision?

4. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” describe the operational procedures of the Design Review Committee, including its use of email for decision-making and subsequent ratification. How did these procedures become central to the legal dispute?

5. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” as it applied in this case. How did the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” shape the proceedings, and why was the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Petitioner “did not establish” a violation critical to the final order?

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge

Tammy L. Eigenheer, the judge who presided over the hearing and issued the decision in this case.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

The Arizona Revised Statute that the Petitioner alleged was violated. It governs open meetings for planned communities, including member associations, boards of directors, and regularly scheduled committees.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency with which the Petitioner filed her petition and which has jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations.

Board of Directors

The governing body of the Foothills Community Association, comprised of seven members. It appoints the Design Review Committee.

Design Review Committee (DRC)

A five-member committee appointed by the Board of Directors. Two of its members are also on the Board. The DRC’s meetings were the subject of the Petitioner’s complaint.

Foothills Community Association (FCA)

The Respondent in the case. An association of homeowners located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Petitioner

Vicky Glover, who filed a petition on January 23, 2019, with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Foothills Community Association.

Preponderance of the evidence

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

Ratified

The term used to describe the process where decisions made by the DRC via email between meetings were formally approved at the next DRC meeting.

Regularly scheduled committee meetings

The specific type of meeting subject to the open meeting requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The Judge concluded that email communications do not meet this definition as they do not occur at a set time.

Respondent

The Foothills Community Association (FCA), against which the petition was filed. Represented in the hearing by B. Austin Baillio.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting a statute. The primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, first by looking at the plain text of the statute.

3 Shocking Loopholes in HOA ‘Open Meeting’ Laws This Homeowner Discovered the Hard Way

Introduction: The Illusion of Transparency

For anyone living in a homeowner’s association (HOA), there’s a fundamental expectation: the business of the community is conducted in the open. We assume that as members, we have a right to attend meetings, understand the decisions being made, and voice our opinions before our board takes action.

But a startling court decision from an Arizona Administrative Law Judge throws a wrench in that assumption. One homeowner’s legal challenge against her association didn’t just fail—it inadvertently created a roadmap for how HOAs can legally operate behind closed doors, affecting millions of residents in planned communities.

This article will break down the three most counter-intuitive takeaways from this legal battle, revealing how the specific wording of the law can create major gaps in transparency and challenge everything you thought you knew about your rights as a homeowner.

1. Your Right to Speak is Weaker Than You Think—Especially in Committee Meetings

Most homeowners believe they have a protected right to speak on any agenda item at any official HOA meeting. The case of petitioner Vicky Glover shows this is a dangerous assumption.

On December 13, 2018, and January 9, 2019, Ms. Glover attended meetings of her community’s Design Review Committee (DRC) and was not permitted to speak about other members’ pending architectural requests. She argued this violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), however, pointed out a critical distinction in the law’s text. The statute explicitly guarantees a member the right “to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action.” This specific right, the ALJ concluded, applies only to meetings of the Board of Directors.

For committee meetings, the law sets a much vaguer standard, requiring only that members “be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.” The ALJ found it was reasonable for the DRC to decide that having Ms. Glover speak on another member’s application was not an “appropriate time.”

This is a crucial distinction because committees—like architectural, design, or finance committees—often make the decisions that most directly impact homeowners’ property and daily lives. Yet, this ruling clarifies that the guaranteed right to be heard before a vote is taken is significantly weaker in those very forums.

2. “Email Meetings” Can Be a Legal Way to Sidestep Open Meeting Rules

The common understanding of open meeting laws is that they exist to prevent boards and committees from deliberating and making decisions in private. But what if the meeting doesn’t happen in a room, but in an email chain?

Ms. Glover’s second claim was that the DRC was conducting business and making decisions via email between its official meetings. Evidence showed that after a meeting, additional information would be shared with committee members who could then “approve or deny the request… via email.” The association’s manager, Pat Wontor, denied this, claiming emails were only used to gather information on matters already discussed in a meeting.

The ALJ’s conclusion on this matter was stunning and sidestepped the conflicting testimony entirely. The Arizona open meeting law in question only applies to “regularly scheduled committee meetings.” Because email exchanges do not occur at a set, scheduled time—like the second Wednesday of the month—the judge ruled they do not fall under the open meeting requirements of the statute, regardless of their content.

The implication of this loophole is profound. It allows a committee to conduct significant deliberation and decision-making entirely outside of public view. This practice can turn the open meeting into a hollow formality. A committee can present a “done deal” for public ratification, rendering the member’s right to observe and speak effectively meaningless. The public meeting becomes a theatrical rubber stamp for a decision already made in secret.

3. The “Spirit of the Law” Doesn’t Beat the Letter of the Law

Many laws contain a policy statement that outlines their overarching goal—the “spirit of the law.” Arizona’s statute on HOA meetings has an exceptionally strong one, stating that all meetings should be open and that the law should be interpreted to favor transparency. The text explicitly declares:

“It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly… and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.” (from A.R.S. § 33-1804(F))

Ms. Glover and many homeowners would read this and assume it guarantees broad transparency. The ALJ, however, ruled that this powerful policy statement “does not override the specific provisions” of the law.

In other words, the literal, specific text—like the distinction between “board” and “committee” meetings, or the “regularly scheduled” requirement—takes precedence over the law’s general intent.

This is perhaps the most important lesson for all homeowners. Relying on the assumed purpose or “spirit” of a rule is not enough. In a legal dispute, the precise, technical wording is what matters most. It highlights the critical importance for homeowners to read and understand the exact text of state statutes and their own governing documents, because the loopholes are often found in the fine print.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Your Best Defense

While Vicky Glover lost her petition, her case provides an invaluable education for every member of a community association. It is a stark warning that transparency in an HOA is not a guaranteed principle but a legal standard with specific, and at times counter-intuitive, boundaries that can be exploited.

The loopholes her case exposed reveal a sobering reality: your right to speak is conditional, “meetings” can legally occur out of sight in an email chain, and the stated “spirit” of the law can be rendered toothless by its literal text. HOA governance is not guided by general principles of fairness, but by very specific legal language.

Given these loopholes, it’s worth asking: How many of the most important decisions in your community are happening in an inbox instead of the boardroom?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Vicky Glover (petitioner)

Respondent Side

B. Austin Baillio (respondent attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Pat Wontor (manager)
Manager for DRC/Foothills Community Association

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Del Sol (staff/clerk)
Transmitting staff

David & Brenda Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on May 28, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919051-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-28
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	David and Brenda Norman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Lago Community Association	Counsel	Ashley N. Moscarello

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) / Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against Rancho Del Lago Community Association, finding that the Department of Real Estate did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it was essentially a conflict between neighboring owners (Petitioners and Hendersons) regarding a wall.

Why this result: The Department lacked jurisdiction over the dispute among or between owners, per A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation by HOA approving a block wall built by neighbors (Hendersons)

Petitioners alleged that Respondent HOA violated CC&Rs § 3.11(D)(1) by approving a block wall built by their next-door neighbors, the Hendersons, and requested the Department require the Hendersons to permit Petitioners to connect to the wall or require the Hendersons to tear the wall down.

Orders: The petition was dismissed because the Department lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily among or between owners to which the association is not a party, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
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)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Jurisdiction, HOA Governance, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Party Wall, Neighbor Dispute, CC&Rs

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
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)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 737050.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:28 (40.9 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:32 (150.0 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:19:36 (149.9 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 710478.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:06 (150.0 KB)

19F-H1919051-REL Decision – 711115.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:29:10 (149.9 KB)

Case Briefing: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document provides a comprehensive analysis of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1919051-REL, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman (Petitioners) and the Rancho Del Lago Community Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute centers on the Petitioners’ allegation that the Respondent’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violated community guidelines by approving a wall built by the Petitioners’ neighbors, the Hendersons.

The Petitioners claimed the Henderson’s wall, constructed 6 inches inside the property line, created a situation where any wall they might build on their property would be a “closely parallel wall,” which is prohibited by the community’s Common Project Guidelines § 3.11(D)(1). They requested that the Respondent either force the Hendersons to allow the Petitioners to connect to their wall, effectively making it a shared “party wall,” or compel the Hendersons to demolish it.

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition entirely. The primary legal basis for the dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction; under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate cannot hear disputes solely between homeowners in which the association is not a party. The judge concluded this was fundamentally a neighbor-versus-neighbor conflict. Furthermore, the judge characterized the wall the Petitioners sought to build as an “archetypical spite fence” and noted that the Petitioners had failed to prove the Respondent had violated any community documents.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Entities

Name/Entity

Description

Petitioners

David and Brenda Norman

Homeowners in the Rancho Del Lago Community.

Respondent

Rancho Del Lago Community Association

The homeowners’ association (HOA) for the community.

Neighbors

The Hendersons

The Petitioners’ next-door neighbors who built the disputed wall.

Management Co.

Management Solutions

The company managing the Respondent HOA.

Witness (Respondent)

Spencer Brod

Employee of Management Solutions overseeing the Respondent’s affairs.

Administrative Law Judge

Diane Mihalsky

Presiding judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Regulating Body

Arizona Department of Real Estate

State agency authorized to hear certain HOA disputes.

Adjudicating Body

Office of Administrative Hearings

Independent state agency that conducted the evidentiary hearing.

Procedural Details

Detail

Information

Case Number

19F-H1919051-REL

Petition Filed

On or about February 28, 2019

Hearing Date

May 8, 2019

Amended Decision Date

May 28, 2019

Timeline of Key Events

• December 2003: The Respondent’s ARC adopts the Common Project Guidelines, which govern all exterior improvements.

• March 8, 2017: The Hendersons submit an Architectural Variance Request (AVR) to extend the common wall between their property and the Petitioners’. Mrs. Norman signs the request, giving consent. The ARC approves this request.

• April 27, 2017: The Hendersons submit a new AVR to build a wall extension 6 inches inside their property line, making it a private wall rather than a shared party wall. The record suggests Mrs. Norman may have rescinded her earlier approval for the common wall.

• May 10, 2017: The ARC approves the Hendersons’ request to build the wall 6 inches inside their property line.

• September 5, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway. The ARC denies the request.

• Post-September 5, 2017: Despite the denial, the Petitioners construct the 11-foot wide driveway and are subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the Respondent.

• September 7, 2017: The Petitioners submit an AVR to build a wall extension on their property, positioned at least 3 feet away from the Hendersons’ wall.

• October 13, 2017: The ARC approves the Petitioners’ wall extension request.

• Post-October 13, 2017: The Petitioners decide not to build the approved wall, stating their contractor advised them against “giving up” the 3 feet of property that would lie between the two walls.

• By November 2017: The Hendersons’ wall appears to have been constructed.

• February 28, 2019: The Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Respondent violated community rules.

• March 27, 2019: The Petitioners file a new AVR to build a wall directly on the property line. This request did not include the Hendersons’ required consent and was still pending at the time of the hearing.

Governing Documents and Key Provisions

The dispute and subsequent legal decision referenced several specific articles from the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Common Project Guidelines.

Document

Provision

Description

Article I § (p)

Defines “Party Walls” built on a property line, establishing equal right of use, joint responsibility for maintenance and repair, and a process for the Board to resolve disputes over construction or cost-sharing.

Article II § 2(a)

Requires prior written approval from the ARC for any improvements that alter the exterior appearance of a property.

Article XII § 1

Establishes the ARC, noting that its decisions are “sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it.”

Common Project Guidelines

Section 3.11(D)(1)

States that “Closely parallel walls shall be disapproved.” The term “closely parallel” is not defined in the guidelines. This provision was the central focus of the Petitioners’ complaint.

Common Project Guidelines

Section 4.21

Grants the ARC the right “to waive, vary, or otherwise modify any of the standards or procedures set forth herein at its discretion, for good cause shown.”

Summary of Testimony and Evidence

Testimony of Brenda Norman (Petitioner)

• Motivation for Wall: Stated that she and her husband are in law enforcement and want to enclose their side yard to protect utility meters from potential vandalism.

• Reason for Not Building Approved Wall: Explained that their contractor advised them it was “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would be inaccessible between their proposed wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

• Relationship with Neighbors: Acknowledged that the Petitioners “do not get along very well with the Hendersons” and therefore never asked for their consent for a wall on the property line.

• Belief Regarding Parallel Walls: Believes that if she submitted a plan for a wall just inside her property line, it would be denied under the “close parallel wall” rule.

• Requested Action: Opined that the Respondent should force the Hendersons to tear down their wall because it is not uniformly 6 inches from the property line.

Testimony of Spencer Brod (for Respondent)

• HOA Policy: Testified that the HOA “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors” and that it is the homeowner’s responsibility to obtain neighbor consent for common wall projects.

• Party vs. Private Walls: Explained that neighbor consent is required only for “party walls” on the property line due to shared maintenance liability. The Hendersons’ wall was approved because it was on their own property and therefore not a party wall.

• Enforcement and Inspection: Admitted that the Hendersons’ wall may not be uniformly 6 inches from the line but stated the Respondent has no one to perform a “thorough inspection” and had not sent a violation letter.

• “Closely Parallel Walls” Interpretation: Testified that while the term is undefined, the ARC’s approval of the Petitioners’ plan for a wall 3 feet away indicates that “closely parallel” means a distance of less than 3 feet.

• Petitioners’ Unauthorized Construction: Confirmed that the Respondent sent the Petitioners a Notice of Violation for building a driveway that the ARC had explicitly denied.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law

The judge’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, governing documents, and relevant state law.

1. Jurisdictional Failure: The primary reason for dismissal was a lack of jurisdiction. The judge cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), which explicitly states, “The department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.” The judge determined this was a quintessential neighbor dispute, not a dispute with the HOA.

2. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated its own rules. The judge found they failed to do so.

3. Characterization as a “Spite Fence”: The decision describes the wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.”

4. HOA’s Limited Role: The judge affirmed that neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines compel the HOA to mediate or resolve disputes between neighbors by taking a side.

5. Distinction of Wall Types: The analysis distinguished between a party wall on a property line, which requires neighbor consent, and a private wall built entirely on one owner’s property, which does not. The Hendersons’ wall was approved as the latter.

6. Hypothetical Outcome: A concluding footnote in the decision states that even if the Department had jurisdiction, the Petitioners had not established that Guideline 3.11(D)(1) would authorize or require the Respondent to grant the relief they requested.

Final Order

IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed by David and Brenda Norman against the Respondent, Rancho Del Lago Community Association, is dismissed. The dismissal is based on the finding that the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear their dispute with the Hendersons.

Study Guide: Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

This guide is designed to review the administrative legal case between homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their homeowners’ association, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, concerning a dispute over a neighbor’s wall.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, drawing only from the information provided in the case documents.

1. What was the central violation of the homeowners’ association rules alleged by the Petitioners in their February 28, 2019, petition?

2. Identify the three main groups of individuals or entities involved in the dispute: the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the neighbors.

3. According to the Respondent’s CC&Rs, what is a “Party Wall” and what primary responsibility does it create for adjacent homeowners?

4. Describe the two separate wall-related Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by the Hendersons in March and April of 2017.

5. Why did the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) initially deny the Petitioners’ request to build a new driveway, and what was the outcome of this denial?

6. What is the role of the “Declarant” within the Rancho Del Lago Community Association, and what influence do they hold over the board and the ARC?

7. The ARC approved a wall proposal for the Petitioners on October 13, 2017. Why did the Petitioners choose not to build this approved wall?

8. According to the CC&Rs, what is the ultimate authority of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in rendering its decisions?

9. On what legal grounds did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately dismiss the Petitioners’ case?

10. Who bore the “burden of proof” in this hearing, and what does this legal standard require?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent (the homeowners’ association) violated Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines. This section states that “closely parallel walls shall be disapproved,” and the Petitioners argued that the association violated this rule by approving the wall built by their neighbors, the Hendersons.

2. The Petitioners were homeowners David and Brenda Norman. The Respondent was the Rancho Del Lago Community Association. The neighbors, who were central to the dispute but not a party to the case, were the Hendersons.

3. A “Party Wall” is a wall situated on the property line between two or more contiguous lots. It creates a shared right of use and a joint obligation for all adjoining owners to rebuild and repair the wall at their shared expense.

4. The Hendersons first submitted an AVR on March 8, 2017, to extend the existing common party wall, for which Mrs. Norman gave consent. On April 27, 2017, they submitted a different AVR to build a new wall located entirely on their property, 6 inches inside the property line, which did not require the Normans’ consent.

5. The ARC denied the Petitioners’ September 5, 2017, request for an 11-foot wide driveway because a driveway already existed on the opposite side of the house where the garage was located. Despite the denial, the Petitioners built the driveway anyway, which resulted in the Respondent issuing them a Notice of Violation.

6. The “Declarant” is the original developer that built the subdivision. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent association was still under the control of the Declarant, who appointed all three directors of the board and was also a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC).

7. The Petitioners did not build the approved wall because the plan required it to be built at least 3 feet inside their property line to avoid being a party wall. Their contractor advised them they would be “crazy to give up the 3’ of property” that would lie between their new wall and the Hendersons’ wall.

8. According to Article XII, § 1 of the CC&Rs, “the decision of the [ARC] shall be sole, absolute and final on all matters submitted to it pursuant to this Declaration and/or the Design Guidelines.”

9. The judge dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. According to Arizona statute A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1), the Arizona Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between owners to which the association is not a party. The judge framed the issue as a private dispute between the Normans and the Hendersons.

10. The Petitioners (the Normans) bore the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the community rules. This standard, known as a “preponderance of the evidence,” requires presenting evidence that is more convincing and more likely true than not.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to test a deeper, more analytical understanding of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, citing specific facts and rules from the case documents to support your arguments.

1. Analyze the concept of a “Party Wall” versus a privately-owned wall within the context of this case. How did the distinction between these two types of walls become the central point of contention and influence the decisions made by the Hendersons, the Normans, and the ARC?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of the Rancho Del Lago Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC) as outlined in the CC&Rs and Common Project Guidelines. How did the ARC’s discretionary authority, particularly under Section 4.21 of the guidelines, impact the events of this dispute?

3. Trace the timeline of Architectural Variance Requests (AVRs) submitted by both the Normans and the Hendersons. Evaluate how the sequence of approvals, denials, and unbuilt projects contributed to the escalation of the dispute and ultimately led to the legal hearing.

4. Explain the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s final decision. Why was the concept of “jurisdiction” more critical to the outcome than the merits of the Normans’ claim regarding “closely parallel walls”? Refer to the specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) cited in the decision.

5. The judge described the potential wall the Petitioners wish to build as an “archetypical spite fence.” Based on the testimony and evidence presented in the case, argue for or against this characterization.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Diane Mihalsky, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and renders decisions on disputes involving state agencies.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee established by the Declarant and governed by the CC&Rs, responsible for reviewing and approving or denying any proposed improvements that alter the exterior appearance of properties within the community. Its decisions are described as “sole, absolute and final.”

Architectural Variance Request (AVR)

The formal application submitted by a homeowner to the ARC to request approval for an exterior improvement or modification to their property.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (the Department)

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations regarding violations of community documents.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The legal documents that establish the rules, regulations, and obligations for homeowners within a planned community like Rancho Del Lago.

Closely Parallel Walls

A term from Section 3.11(D)(1) of the Common Project Guidelines that are to be disapproved. The term is not explicitly defined, but testimony suggests a wall 3 feet from another would be approved, making the threshold for “close” less than that.

Common Project Guidelines

A set of rules adopted by the ARC in December 2003 that govern all exterior improvements and provide standards for the Design Review Process. These guidelines supplement the CC&Rs.

Declarant

The original developer that built the subdivision. In this case, the Declarant still controlled the association’s Board of Directors and the ARC.

Jurisdiction

The legal authority of a court or agency to hear and decide a case. The petition was dismissed because the Department was found to lack jurisdiction over disputes solely between homeowners.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings, like the one in this case, are conducted by an Administrative Law Judge.

Party Wall

As defined in the CC&Rs, a wall on the property line between contiguous lots. Owners have equal rights to use it and share joint financial responsibility for its repair and maintenance.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, homeowners David and Brenda Norman.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this civil administrative hearing. It means the evidence presented must be sufficient to convince the judge that a claim is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Lago Community Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document (like a CC&R) that limits the use of the property. Arizona law holds that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

The Six-Inch Wall That Ignited a Legal Battle: 4 Shocking Lessons from a Brutal HOA War

1.0 Introduction: The Neighbor Next Door

Living next to someone is a universal experience, and it’s remarkable how quickly a small disagreement over a fence or a property line can spiral into a full-blown conflict. For two families in an Arizona HOA, what started as a plan for a backyard wall ended in a formal administrative law hearing, providing a stark case study in property law, association rules, and human nature.

This dispute, involving homeowners David and Brenda Norman and their neighbors, the Hendersons, dissects four critical lessons that challenge common assumptions about homeowner rights and association duties. Their story is a powerful cautionary tale about property lines, HOA authority, and the high cost of a neighborhood war.

2.0 Takeaway 1: The Six-Inch Difference That Changes Everything

1. A Wall on the Property Line Isn’t the Same as a Wall Near It

In property law, inches are everything. The community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) defined a “Party Wall” as a structure sitting directly on the property line between two lots. By this definition, these walls are a shared responsibility, requiring mutual consent from both homeowners for construction and shared costs for maintenance.

This distinction became the pivot on which the entire case turned. Initially, the Hendersons submitted plans to build a shared Party Wall, and the Normans gave their required consent. But then the plan changed. The Hendersons withdrew that request and submitted a new one: to build a wall located just six inches inside their own property line. The record doesn’t state definitively why the Hendersons changed their plan, though testimony suggested the Normans may have rescinded their initial consent.

This was a masterstroke of procedural navigation; by sacrificing a mere six inches of their yard, the Hendersons effectively bought the legal right to build without their neighbors’ consent, turning a potential year-long dispute into a matter of a simple ARC approval. By moving the structure entirely onto their own lot, it was no longer a “Party Wall” but their private property. While the Hendersons had successfully navigated the HOA’s rules, the Normans’ next step was to try and force the HOA to intervene directly—a move that would expose a common misunderstanding about the limits of an association’s power.

3.0 Takeaway 2: Your HOA Isn’t the Neighborhood Referee

2. The HOA’s Power to Intervene Has Surprising Limits

A common assumption among homeowners is that the HOA must mediate any and all disputes between residents. This case proves that assumption is fundamentally incorrect.

When the conflict escalated, the HOA’s position was unwavering. Spencer Brod, an employee of the association’s management company, testified that the association “never gets involved in disputes between neighbors.” Its role is to enforce community rules as they relate to the association, not to take sides in personal conflicts between homeowners.

The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the case reinforced this legal reality, citing Arizona law to clarify the limits of both the HOA’s and the state’s jurisdiction. The judge’s finding was unequivocal:

Neither the CC&Rs nor the Common Project Guidelines require Respondent [the HOA] to mediate or resolve a dispute between neighbors by taking one side or the other. A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)(1) provides that ‘[t]he department does not have jurisdiction to hear [a]ny dispute among or between owners to which the association is not a party.’

This finding is a crucial lesson: while an HOA enforces its governing documents, it is not a neighborhood court and cannot be compelled to referee personal disagreements.

4.0 Takeaway 3: You Can’t Demand a Neighbor Play by the Rules If You Don’t

3. Coming to the Table with Clean Hands Matters

The case contained a powerful element of irony that proved fatal to the Normans’ petition. The judge’s official Findings of Fact reveal that while demanding the HOA enforce its rules against the Hendersons, the Normans had a significant compliance issue of their own.

In September 2017, the Normans submitted a request to build an 11-foot wide concrete driveway “to provide a solid walking surface because Mrs. Norman was disabled and had difficulty walking.” While the motivation was sympathetic, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) denied the request. Despite the denial, the Normans built the driveway anyway and were subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by the HOA.

Critically, the Normans’ own rule-breaking occurred after the Hendersons’ wall was approved. In the very midst of their dispute, while formulating a case against their neighbors, they chose to defy the ARC themselves. This is a classic illustration of the “unclean hands” doctrine. In any legal or administrative forum, one’s credibility is paramount. The Normans were asking the HOA to be a strict enforcer of rules they themselves had flagrantly violated, a position that is almost always untenable.

5.0 Takeaway 4: When a Judge Calls It a “Spite Fence”

4. The Court May Look Past the Rules and See Your Intent

Even in a hearing focused on the technicalities of CC&Rs, the underlying human motivations of the conflict did not go unnoticed. The HOA’s ARC had previously approved a plan for the Normans to build their own wall, provided it was located three feet inside their property line. They refused. Brenda Norman testified that their contractor told them they were “crazy to give up the 3’ of property.” Mrs. Norman also argued that a wall on her property would be denied as a prohibited “closely parallel wall,” but this claim was directly contradicted by the ARC’s own actions—they had already approved her wall at the three-foot distance.

The judge’s “spite fence” comment wasn’t just an observation; it was the legal culmination of the Normans’ entire pattern of behavior. Their refusal to accept an approved wall on their own property (losing 3 feet) while demanding their neighbor tear down a wall built on theirs (losing 0 feet) painted a clear picture of animosity, not a genuine need for property protection. The judge saw through the legal arguments to the core of the issue:

The wall that Petitioners testified that they must build to protect their property appears to be an archetypical spite fence between neighbors who cannot agree to mutually work for the improvement of their adjacent properties.

A “spite fence” is a legal term for a structure erected with malicious intent, where the primary purpose is not to improve one’s own property but to annoy, inconvenience, or harm a neighbor. The judge’s use of this term was a powerful signal that, in the court’s view, the dispute was no longer about property rights, but about personal animus.

6.0 Conclusion: A Wall Is a Wall, But a Neighbor Is Forever

This case is a cautionary tale written in concrete and legal filings. It shows how a dispute over six inches of soil can metastasize, fueled by a misunderstanding of HOA rules and an unwillingness to compromise, ultimately costing both parties time, money, and peace of mind. From the critical importance of a few inches of land to the defined limits of an HOA’s authority, the details matter.

Ultimately, the story of the Normans and the Hendersons serves as a powerful reminder that navigating HOA living requires a clear-eyed understanding of the actual rules, not just a sense of what seems “fair.” It leaves us with a critical question to consider.

When it comes to our homes and neighbors, is it more important to be right, or to find a way to live in peace?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

David Norman (petitioner)
Appeared telephonically on own behalf
Brenda Norman (petitioner)
Testified on Petitioners' behalf

Respondent Side

Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Represented Rancho Del Lago Community Association
Spencer Brod (property manager/witness)
Management Solutions
Employee of Respondent's management company; testified

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

Other Participants

Anthony Henderson (homeowner/neighbor)
Next-door neighbor who built the wall in dispute
Mabel Gummere (property manager predecessor)
Predecessor to Spencer Brod

Pointe Tapatio Community Association vs. Lanye C. and Devin E. Wilkey

Posted on May 7, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1919044-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-07
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Pointe Tapatio Community Association	Counsel	Lauren Vie
Respondent	Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey	Counsel	Joseph Velez

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 3, section 3.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ found that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs by operating a business that created traffic and parking. The Respondents were ordered to cease business operations and pay a $500.00 civil penalty. The Petitioner's request for a refund of its filing fee was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied because they cited no authority showing that the refund was within the tribunal’s authority.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of Residential Use covenant prohibiting traffic/parking generation by business

The Petitioner HOA alleged that the Respondents, co-owners of the unit, violated CC&Rs Article 3, section 3.1 by operating a payroll processing company out of the unit. The ALJ found that the business required two employees to drive to the unit daily, thereby creating traffic and parking, which clearly and unambiguously violates the CC&R provision prohibiting non-residential use that creates traffic or parking.

Orders: Respondents were ordered to cease business operations at the unit (720 E. North Lane, Unit 1) within thirty-five days to comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1, and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty days. The Petitioner's request for refund of the filing fee was denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Business Use, Home Business, Parking, Traffic, Civil Penalty

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 213 Ariz. 83, 138 P.3d 1210 (App. 2006)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/19F-H1919044-REL-RHG/733509.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:44:04 (38.6 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/19F-H1919044-REL/706518.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:44:08 (36.5 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – /home/jeremy/azhoa/repos/azoah_decisions/portal_documents/19F-H1919044-REL/706560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-17T05:44:11 (108.8 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706518.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:45 (36.5 KB)

19F-H1919044-REL Decision – 706560.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:49 (108.8 KB)

Administrative Hearing Briefing: Pointe Tapatio Community Association vs. Wilkey

Executive Summary

This document details the findings and decision of an administrative law judge in the case of Pointe Tapatio Community Association versus residents Layne C. and Devin E. Wilkey. The core issue was the operation of a payroll processing company, Devau Human Resources, from the Wilkeys’ residential unit. The Association alleged this violated community CC&Rs, which prohibit non-residential uses that create traffic or parking. The Wilkeys admitted that two employees commuted to the unit daily but argued they had received permission from a former property manager.

The judge found in favor of the Association, concluding that the daily commute of two employees constituted the creation of “traffic and parking,” a direct and unambiguous violation of the CC&Rs. The judge deemed the residents’ claims of verbal permission to be unsubstantiated and irrelevant, as the covenant’s language was clear. Consequently, the judge ordered the Wilkeys to cease all business operations at the unit within 35 days and imposed a civil penalty of $500.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Name

Pointe Tapatio Community Association, Petitioner, vs. Lanye C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey, Respondent.

Case Number

19F-H1919044-REL

Jurisdiction

Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona Department of Real Estate)

Hearing Date

April 26, 2019

Decision Date

May 7, 2019

Administrative Law Judge

Thomas Shedden

Petitioner’s Counsel

Lauren Vie, Esq.

Respondent’s Counsel

Joseph Velez, Esq.

——————————————————————————–

Central Allegation and Governing Covenant

The Pointe Tapatio Community Association (Petitioner) alleged that Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey (Respondents) violated the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by using their residential unit as an office for their business.

The specific provision at issue is Article 3, Section 3.1 of the CC&Rs, which states:

“Residential. Each Residence shall be used, improved, and devoted exclusively to first class residential use, and no gainful occupation, profession, trade, business, religion, or other non-residential use which creates traffic [or] parking … shall be conducted from any Residence [or part thereof.]”

——————————————————————————–

Key Findings of Fact

The Business Operation

• Respondents: Layne C. Wilkey (mother) and Devin E. Wilkey (son) are co-owners of the unit at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1 (Lot 50).

• Company: They own and operate Devau Human Resources, a payroll processing company, from this unit. The business also operates from a second, commercial site in Tempe.

• History: The business was moved into the residential unit from a commercial location in late 2009.

• Public Presence: Devau’s website and Google Maps both list the 720 E. North Lane address as an office location, with stated office hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The website notes it is a “mailing address only.”

• Admission: Ms. Wilkey acknowledged during testimony that they consider the unit to be an office.

Employee Activity and Impact

• The Wilkeys acknowledged that two Devau employees commute to the unit to work.

• One employee works from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday.

• A second employee works from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

• These employees at times park their vehicles on the community’s streets.

• The business does not have clients or customers who visit the unit.

The Dispute Over Permission

• Respondents’ Claim: The Wilkeys asserted they had permission to operate the business from Howard Flisser, a former property manager. They admitted they had no written confirmation and had never spoken to Mr. Flisser directly about it.

◦ Ms. Wilkey testified that in 2009, she asked her husband, who asked a salesperson, who then allegedly asked Mr. Flisser and relayed that it was permissible.

◦ Mr. Wilkey testified that his now-deceased father would not have taken the risk of moving the business without permission.

• Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Board member Paula Duistermars testified that Mr. Flisser stated a few days before the hearing that he could not recall giving permission and, on two occasions during the conversation, volunteered that he had never given permission.

• Authority: Ms. Duistermars also testified that Mr. Flisser lacked the authority to grant such permission; only the Board of Directors could do so.

Association’s Stance and Actions

• Notification: Through a letter dated August 8, 2018, the Association informed the Wilkeys of the violation and required compliance by August 31, 2018.

• Petition: The Association filed the petition that initiated the hearing on or about January 17, 2019.

• Other Businesses: The Association permits certain home-based businesses that do not generate traffic or parking, such as telecommuting and online teaching, without requiring Board permission.

• Complaints: Ms. Duistermars acknowledged she was unaware of any specific complaints regarding traffic, parking, or noise from the Wilkeys’ unit. However, she testified that the Board was first made aware of the business operation when another resident brought the issue to its attention.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Analysis and Conclusions

• Standard of Proof: The judge determined all issues based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” defined as evidence with the most convincing force.

• CC&Rs as Contract: The CC&Rs are a legally binding contract between the Association and the residents.

• Unambiguous Language: The judge found the language in CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1 to be clear and unambiguous. Such covenants must be enforced to give effect to the parties’ original intent.

• Direct Violation: The judge concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly showed the Wilkeys were operating a business from their unit. The admission that two employees drive to the unit and park on the street proves that the business creates both traffic and parking.

• Violation Trigger: The creation of any traffic or parking by the business is sufficient to constitute a violation. The CC&R does not require that the traffic or parking cause a secondary violation or generate resident complaints. Therefore, the lack of other complaints was deemed to have little probative value.

• Final Conclusion: Based on the facts, the Wilkeys are in clear violation of CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1.

——————————————————————————–

Final Order and Penalties

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:

1. Compliance Order: Respondent Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey must cease all business operations at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1 (Lot 50) within thirty-five (35) days of the Order’s effective date.

2. Civil Penalty: The Respondents must pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within sixty (60) days of the Order’s effective date. Payment must be made by cashier’s check or money order.

3. Filing Fee: The Petitioner’s request for a refund of its filing fee was denied, as the judge found no legal authority to grant it.

The Order is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of service.

Study Guide:Pointe Tapatio Community Association v. Wilkey

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative law case Pointe Tapatio Community Association v. Wilkey, Case No. 19F-H1919044-REL, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It details the central conflict, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal standards applied, and the final judgment.

Case Summary

The Pointe Tapatio Community Association (Petitioner) filed a complaint against homeowners Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey (Respondent), alleging that they were violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by operating a business, Devau Human Resources, from their residential unit. The Association argued that the business, which employed two individuals who commuted to the property, generated traffic and parking, explicitly prohibited by the CC&Rs for non-residential activities. The Wilkeys contended they had received verbal permission years prior and that the business was not disruptive. The Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the Association, ruling that the Wilkeys were in clear violation of the community’s governing documents.

Key Parties & Entities

Name / Entity

Key Actions & Involvement

Pointe Tapatio Community Association

Petitioner

The homeowners’ association that filed the petition alleging a CC&R violation. Represented by Lauren Vie, Esq.

Layne C. Wilkey & Devin E. Wilkey

Respondent

Mother and son, co-owners of the unit at 720 E. North Lane, Unit 1. Operators of Devau Human Resources. Represented by Joseph Velez, Esq.

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Presided over the hearing, made findings of fact, drew conclusions of law, and issued the final order.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Regulatory Body

Issued the initial Notice of Hearing and has legal authority over such disputes under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11.

Paula Duistermars

Board Member, Pointe Tapatio

Testified on behalf of the Association, detailing the Board’s position and interactions regarding the violation.

Howard Flisser

Property Manager (Former or Current)

Named by the Wilkeys as the source of verbal permission to operate their business; Flisser denied recalling this.

Devau Human Resources

Business Entity

A payroll processing company owned by the Wilkeys, operating out of the residential unit and a commercial site in Tempe.

Office of Administrative Hearings

Adjudicative Body

The venue for the hearing, located at 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level, in Phoenix, Arizona.

Case Timeline

• Late 2009: The Wilkeys move their business, Devau Human Resources, from a commercial location into their unit at Pointe Tapatio.

• August 8, 2018: Pointe Tapatio sends a letter informing the Wilkeys they are out of compliance with the CC&Rs and must comply by August 31, 2018.

• January 17, 2019 (approx.): Pointe Tapatio files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• February 28, 2019: The Arizona Department of Real Estate issues a Notice of Hearing.

• April 26, 2019: The administrative hearing is held before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

• May 7, 2019: ALJ Thomas Shedden issues the final decision and order.

Central Conflict: CC&R Article 3, Section 3.1

The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of a specific restrictive covenant within the community’s governing documents.

• The Allegation: Pointe Tapatio alleged that the Wilkeys were using their unit as an office for a “gainful occupation,” which is not a “first class residential use.”

• The Specific Provision: Article 3, Section 3.1 of the CC&Rs states:

• The Triggering Condition: The prohibition is not absolute. It applies specifically to non-residential uses that create traffic or parking.

Arguments and Evidence

Arguments & Evidence Presented

Petitioner (Pointe Tapatio)

Employee Activity: The Wilkeys acknowledged two employees drive to the unit to work Monday through Friday, creating traffic and parking on community streets.
Public Information: Devau’s website and Google Maps listed the residential unit as an office address with set business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
Owner Admission: Ms. Wilkey acknowledged during testimony that they consider the unit to be an office.
Lack of Authority: Board member Paula Duistermars testified that property manager Howard Flisser did not have the authority to grant permission for a business; only the Board could. She also testified that Flisser could not recall giving permission and had volunteered that he never did.

Respondent (The Wilkeys)

Verbal Permission: The Wilkeys claimed they received verbal permission from property manager Howard Flisser in 2009. They admitted they never spoke to him directly and had nothing in writing.
Implied Permission: Mr. Wilkey argued his father would not have taken the risk of moving the payroll business without permission, implying it must have been granted.
No Direct Complaints: It was acknowledged that the Association was not aware of specific complaints filed against the Wilkeys for traffic, parking, or noise issues.
Residential Use: Mr. Wilkey testified that he considers the unit one of his two primary residences, though he did not provide a responsive answer when asked how often he stayed there.

The Judge’s Decision & Legal Reasoning

ALJ Thomas Shedden concluded that the Wilkeys were in violation of the CC&Rs based on a “preponderance of the evidence.”

• The Wilkeys operate Devau Human Resources, a payroll processing company, from the unit.

• Two employees commute to the unit for work and sometimes park on community streets.

• The business is publicly listed at the residential address.

• The Wilkeys’ claim of verbal permission from Howard Flisser was not substantiated. Testimony from Paula Duistermars indicated Flisser could not recall, and in fact denied, giving such permission.

• The Association does permit some home businesses (e.g., telecommuting, online teaching) that do not create traffic or parking and do not require Board permission.

1. CC&Rs as a Contract: The CC&Rs constitute a binding contract between the homeowners and the Association.

2. Unambiguous Language: The language in Article 3, section 3.1 is clear and unambiguous. It prohibits businesses that create traffic or parking.

3. Violation Proven: The evidence clearly showed the Wilkeys’ business created both traffic and parking due to its two commuting employees. This is a direct violation of the unambiguous terms of the CC&R.

4. No Other Violation Needed: The fact that no other rules (e.g., specific parking ordinances) were broken is irrelevant. The creation of any traffic or parking by the business is sufficient to trigger the violation as written.

1. Cease Operations: The Wilkeys were ordered to comply with CC&R Article 3, section 3.1 by ceasing business operations at the unit within 35 days.

2. Civil Penalty: The Wilkeys were ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

3. Filing Fee Request Denied: The Association’s request to have its filing fee refunded was denied because it cited no legal authority showing the judge had the power to grant it.

——————————————————————————–

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the information in the case file.

1. Who were the petitioner and the respondents in this case, and what was their relationship?

2. What specific activity led the petitioner to claim the respondents were violating the CC&Rs?

3. According to Article 3, section 3.1, what condition makes a non-residential use of a property a violation?

4. What was the respondents’ primary defense for operating their business from the unit?

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find the respondents’ primary defense unconvincing?

6. What two specific pieces of evidence demonstrated that the business created traffic and parking?

7. What is the legal standard of proof required in this type of administrative hearing, and what does it mean?

8. What two penalties were imposed on the Wilkeys in the final order?

9. Does the Pointe Tapatio Community Association prohibit all home-based businesses? Explain.

10. Who was Howard Flisser, and what was his significance to the respondents’ case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was the Pointe Tapatio Community Association. The respondents were Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey, who were homeowners within the community and co-owners of the unit in question.

2. The Wilkeys were operating their payroll processing company, Devau Human Resources, out of their residential unit. This included having two employees commute to the property to work during business hours.

3. A non-residential use becomes a violation if it “creates traffic [or] parking.” The rule does not require a certain amount of traffic or parking, only that it is created by the business activity.

4. The respondents’ primary defense was that they had received verbal permission to operate the business from the community’s property manager, Howard Flisser, back in 2009.

5. The judge found the defense unconvincing because the Wilkeys had no written proof, had not spoken to Mr. Flisser directly, and testimony from a board member indicated Mr. Flisser could not recall—and later denied—ever giving such permission. Furthermore, the property manager likely lacked the authority to grant it.

6. The evidence was the Wilkeys’ own acknowledgement that two of their employees drive to the unit to work on a weekly basis. This commuting by non-resident employees necessarily creates traffic and, at times, requires them to park on community streets.

7. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” This means the greater weight of the evidence must be sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue over the other, even if it does not remove all reasonable doubt.

8. The Wilkeys were ordered to cease all business operations at the unit within 35 days. They were also ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department of Real Estate within 60 days.

9. No, the association does not prohibit all home-based businesses. It allows for activities like telecommuting and teaching online classes, which do not require board permission because they do not create traffic or parking.

10. Howard Flisser was the property manager whom the Wilkeys claimed gave them verbal permission to run their business. His significance was central to their defense, but his alleged permission was unsubstantiated and contradicted by later testimony.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as applied in this case. How did the evidence presented by Pointe Tapatio meet this standard, while the Wilkeys’ evidence did not?

2. Discuss the legal principle that CC&Rs are treated as contracts. Explain how Judge Shedden applied contract law principles, particularly regarding “unambiguous” language, to reach his conclusion.

3. Evaluate the Wilkeys’ defense strategy, focusing on their claim of verbal permission from Howard Flisser. Why was this argument legally insufficient? What kind of evidence would have been necessary to make it successful?

4. Examine the distinction the Pointe Tapatio Community Association makes between permissible home-based businesses (like telecommuting) and impermissible ones (like Devau Human Resources). What is the key factor in this distinction according to the CC&Rs, and how does it relate to the core purpose of residential covenants?

5. Based on the judge’s order, discuss the remedies available to a homeowner’s association in Arizona when a CC&R violation is proven. What penalties were imposed, and what penalty was requested but denied?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge and trier of fact who presides over administrative hearings, such as disputes handled by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ renders decisions, called orders, based on evidence and legal arguments.

• CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions): The governing legal documents that set out the rules for a planned community or subdivision. In this case, they are treated as a legally binding contract between the association and the homeowners.

• Civil Penalty: A monetary fine levied by a government agency or administrative court for a violation of a statute or rule. In this case, a $500 penalty was imposed on the Wilkeys for violating the community documents.

• Conclusions of Law: The section of a judicial decision where the judge applies legal principles and statutes to the established facts of the case to reach a judgment.

• Findings of Fact: The section of a judicial decision that formally lists the factual determinations made by the judge based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

• Order: The final ruling or judgment issued by an Administrative Law Judge that directs the parties on what actions they must take.

• Petitioner: The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition seeking a legal remedy. In this case, the Pointe Tapatio Community Association.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the trier of fact to believe that it is more likely than not that a claim is true, based on the evidence presented.

• Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, Layne C. Wilkey and Devin E. Wilkey.

4 Surprising Lessons from an HOA Lawsuit That Shut Down a 10-Year-Old Home Business

Introduction: The Rise of the Home Office and the Rules You Didn’t Know Existed

In an age where the line between the living room and the corner office has all but vanished, millions of us have embraced working from home. But as we settle into our home-based routines, a critical question often goes unasked: Are you truly familiar with your homeowner’s association (HOA) rules regarding home-based businesses?

For the Wilkey family, owners of Devau Human Resources, the answer to that question proved to be a costly one. After operating their payroll processing company from their home for nearly a decade without a single complaint, they found themselves in a legal battle that ultimately shut them down. Their case serves as a powerful cautionary tale about what can happen when long-standing home businesses collide with the fine print of HOA rules.

1. It’s Not About Complaints, It’s About the Contract

One of the most chilling lessons from the Wilkey case is that the HOA’s action wasn’t triggered by angry neighbors complaining about noise or traffic. In fact, Board member Paula Duistermars testified that she was unaware of any such complaints. The issue arose simply because “a resident brought the issue to [the Board’s] attention.”

This reveals a crucial legal reality: your business’s existence, not its impact, can be the sole trigger for enforcement. It doesn’t take a chorus of angry neighbors—just one person notifying the Board of a potential rule violation is enough. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are a legally binding contract, and the court’s decision was not based on whether the business was a nuisance, but simply whether it complied with the contract’s terms. Your takeaway: You must operate as if the rulebook will be enforced literally, because it can be.

2. The Deciding Factor: A Single Clause About “Traffic and Parking”

The entire legal dispute hinged on the precise wording of one specific rule. The HOA wasn’t enforcing a vague, blanket ban on all home businesses; its power came from a single, carefully worded clause in the CC&Rs.

The relevant section, Article 3, section 3.1, stated:

“Each Residence shall be used, improved, and devoted exclusively to first class residential use, and no gainful occupation, profession, trade, business, religion, or other non-residential use which creates traffic [or] parking … shall be conducted from any Residence [or part thereof.]”

As a legal analyst, I can tell you why this clause was so powerful: its focus on a tangible impact (“creates traffic [or] parking”) made it highly defensible. A blanket prohibition on “all businesses” might be open to challenge, but this specific, impact-based rule was nearly impossible to argue against once the facts were established. The Wilkeys’ business was found in violation specifically because it created traffic and parking, which is also why the HOA permitted other home businesses, like telecommuting, that did not.

3. Your Two-Person TeamIsa Traffic Problem

Many homeowners assume that business traffic rules are meant to prevent a steady stream of clients visiting a residential property. The Wilkeys had no clients come to their unit. However, this did not protect them.

The undisputed fact that proved decisive was that two of the company’s employees commuted to the home to work—one from Monday to Thursday and the other from Monday to Friday. The judge concluded that this daily employee commute constituted the creation of “traffic and parking” as prohibited by the CC&Rs. The employees at times parking on the community’s common streets provided concrete, undeniable evidence of this. This case sets a precedent that a micro-business with just one or two employees commuting to the home can be deemed in violation—a scenario many entrepreneurs wouldn’t even consider a “traffic” issue.

4. “He Said We Could” Is Not a Legal Defense

The Wilkeys asserted that they had received verbal permission to operate their business from the property manager back in 2009. This defense completely fell apart under legal scrutiny.

Courts prioritize written agreements and official board actions over “he said/she said” accounts, especially when they involve multi-level hearsay (in this case, a husband asking a salesperson who asked the manager). The defense failed for several clear reasons: the Wilkeys had no written proof, the manager denied recalling or ever giving such permission, and most importantly, a Board member testified that the manager lacked the authority to grant this permission anyway. Only the Board could.

The takeaway is unambiguous: Never rely on verbal assurances. Get all permissions from your HOA Board in writing, or they do not legally exist.

Conclusion: Know Your Rules Before You Unpack Your Desk

The story of the Wilkey family is a stark reminder that HOA documents are not mere suggestions; they are legally binding contracts where every word matters. The Wilkeys’ experience is a costly lesson for every home-based professional. Proactive compliance is your only true protection. The final outcome was an order for them to cease all business operations from their home within 35 days and pay a $500 civil penalty.

You might have been working from home for years without a problem, but have you ever read the fine print on what your community actually allows?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lauren Vie (HOA attorney)
Attorney for Petitioner
Paula Duistermars (board member)
Pointe Tapatio Community Association
Presented testimony for Petitioner
Beth Mulchay (HOA attorney)
Mulchay Law Firm, P.C.
Listed on transmission list

Respondent Side

Layne C. Wilkey (respondent)
Devin E. Wilkey (respondent)
Joseph A Velez (respondent attorney)
For Respondent

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Howard Flisser (property manager)
Statements regarding alleged business permission were discussed
Felicia Del Sol (unknown)

Tom J Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on April 26, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918022-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-05-10
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tom J Martin	Counsel	—
Respondent	SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn B. Goldschmidt

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A); ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the dismissal of the petition on rehearing, ruling that the HOA's website and policy manual are not 'community documents' as defined by statute, and therefore the Department has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding them. Additionally, the requested financial relief was outside the ALJ's authority.

Why this result: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or rules of the planned community.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of HOA website and Policy Manual (Policy BC-3) regarding pickleball courts

Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its website and policy manual by failing to provide pickleball courts as marketed. The Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing these documents are not community documents. The ALJ affirmed the dismissal, finding that policies and website statements do not fall under the statutory definition of community documents in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), thus the Department lacked jurisdiction.

Orders: Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: jurisdiction, community documents, policy manual, pickleball courts, dismissal, rehearing

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 1-213
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904
Walker v. Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (App. 1989)
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG Decision – 704322.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:27:17 (89.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (Case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin versus SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner’s case. The decision, issued on May 10, 2019, centered on a critical jurisdictional question: whether an HOA’s website content and internal policy manual constitute “community documents” under Arizona state law.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded they do not. The petitioner’s claim, which alleged the HOA failed to provide pickleball courts as promised on its website and in its “Policy Number BC-3,” was dismissed because it did not allege a violation of a legally recognized “community document.” According to Arizona Revised Statutes, such documents are strictly defined as the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, and formally adopted rules. As the petitioner’s initial filing cited only the website and a policy not adopted as a rule, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked the statutory jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that the petitioner’s requested relief—a financial award of $463,112 or the construction of eight new courts—was beyond the scope of the tribunal’s authority.

Case Overview

Case Name

Tom J. Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Case Number

19F-H1918022-REL-RHG

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Petitioner

Tom J. Martin

Respondent

SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden

Date of Decision

May 10, 2019

Petitioner’s Core Allegations and Requested Relief

The petition filed by Tom J. Martin on September 28, 2018, was founded on the central allegation that the SaddleBrooke HOA violated its own website content and its internal policy manual, specifically “Policy Number BC-3.”

• Primary Allegation: The HOA failed to fulfill its advertised and marketed promise to provide pickleball courts.

• Cited Violations: In the initial petition, Martin explicitly alleged violations of the HOA’s website and policy manual. While he checked boxes on the petition form indicating violations of the CC&Rs and Bylaws, he failed to identify any specific provisions from those documents.

• Requested Relief: The petitioner sought a significant remedy from the HOA, requesting one of the following:

1. Financial support in the amount of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

2. The provision of eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year.

3. A commitment from the HOA to be financially responsible for the maintenance of pickleball courts in an amount equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

Procedural History and Key Arguments

The case progressed through several key stages, culminating in a rehearing and a final dismissal.

1. Initial Petition (September 28, 2018): Mr. Martin filed his single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (November 30, 2018): The HOA argued that the Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Its core argument was that hearings under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01 are limited to violations of “community documents,” and that a website and an internal policy do not meet the legal definition of such documents. The HOA also contended the requested relief was outside the tribunal’s authority.

3. Petitioner’s Response (December 4, 2018): In his response, Mr. Martin argued that a “policy” should be interpreted as a “rule” under its ordinary meaning. He further asserted that another HOA policy (CE-3) defined “governing documents” to include “Rules and Regulations,” and therefore Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

4. Initial Dismissal (December 12, 2018): The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that it had not alleged a violation meeting the statutory requirements.

5. Request for Rehearing (December 31, 2018): Mr. Martin requested a rehearing, reasserting that a “policy” is a “rule.” In this request, he newly alleged that the HOA had violated specific provisions: Bylaws article 4, section 6(3) and Articles of Incorporation Article XII, by failing to implement policy BC-3.

6. Rehearing (April 16, 2019): A rehearing was conducted where both parties presented their cases. The respondent renewed its argument regarding lack of jurisdiction.

Central Legal Dispute: The Definition of “Community Documents”

The determinative issue of the case was the precise legal definition of “community documents” and whether the petitioner’s claims fell within that scope.

• Statutory Definition: The court’s decision was anchored in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(2), which defines community documents as:

◦ The declaration (CC&Rs)

◦ Bylaws

◦ Articles of incorporation, if any

◦ Rules, if any

• The Court’s Finding: The ALJ concluded that this legislative definition is exclusive and does not include “a planned community’s statements of policy, statements on its website, or advertising and marketing material.”

• Petitioner’s Argument Rejected: Mr. Martin’s argument that Policy BC-3 should be considered a rule was found to be “not persuasive.” A critical finding of fact was that the “Respondent has not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule” under the authority granted in its CC&Rs (section 4.5). The tribunal must follow the legislature’s explicit definition.

Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions and Final Order

The ALJ’s conclusions of law led directly to the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Because Mr. Martin’s original petition only alleged that the respondent violated its website and policy manual—neither of which are “community documents” under Arizona law—the petition failed to meet the foundational requirements for a hearing under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A).

• Improper Relief Requested: The ALJ also concluded that the relief Mr. Martin sought was not within the tribunal’s authority. Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02, an ALJ may order a party to abide by statutes or community documents and may levy civil penalties. The statute does not grant the authority to order large financial payments for construction or to mandate specific capital improvement projects.

• Final Order: Based on these conclusions, the petition was dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Tom J. Martin’s petition is dismissed.

The decision, having been issued as the result of a rehearing, is binding on the parties. Any appeal must be filed for judicial review with the superior court within thirty-five days from the date of the order’s service.

Study Guide: Martin v. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Tom J. Martin vs. SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc. (No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG). It is designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final outcome.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the source document.

1. Who were the Petitioner and Respondent in case No. 19F-H1918022-REL-RHG?

2. What was the central allegation made by the Petitioner in his initial petition filed on or about September 28, 2018?

3. Describe the two alternative forms of relief the Petitioner requested in his petition.

4. On what primary legal grounds did the Respondent file its Motion to Dismiss?

5. According to Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2), what are the four types of documents that constitute “community documents”?

6. Explain the two main arguments the Petitioner made in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss for why Policy BC-3 should be considered a governing document.

7. What new violation did the Petitioner allege in his request for a rehearing on December 31, 2019?

8. According to the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, what was the final outcome of the Petitioner’s petition and the primary reason for this decision?

9. According to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, what powers does an administrative law judge have if a violation of community documents is found?

10. What is the process and time frame for a party wishing to appeal this Administrative Law Judge order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was Tom J. Martin, who appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc., which was represented by Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

2. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin’s single-issue allegation was that the Respondent violated its website and its policy manual, specifically Policy Number BC-3. He included printouts from the website and a copy of the policy with his petition.

3. The Petitioner requested financial support in the sum of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon. Alternatively, he requested that the Respondent provide eight pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, and be financially responsible for their maintenance at a level equal to its spending on eight tennis courts.

4. The Respondent argued that the Arizona Department of Real Estate lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This was because hearings are limited to disputes over “community documents,” and neither the website nor Policy BC-3 qualified as such under the definition provided in ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1802(2).

5. Arizona Revised Statute section 33-1802(2) defines “community documents” as “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.”

6. First, Mr. Martin argued that based on A.R.S. § 1-213, the word “policy” should be given its ordinary meaning, which is a rule. Second, he asserted that because the Respondent’s own policy CE-3 defines “governing documents” to include Rules and Regulations, then BC-3 must be a governing document.

7. In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Martin alleged for the first time that the Respondent had violated its bylaws, specifically article 4, section 6(3), by failing to implement policy BC-3. He also alleged a violation of Articles of Incorporation Article XII.

8. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that Mr. Martin’s petition be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petition did not meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) because it alleged violations of a website and a policy manual, which are not legally defined as “community documents.”

9. If a violation is found, an administrative law judge may order any party to abide by the statute or document at issue. The judge may also levy a civil penalty for each violation and, if the petitioner prevails, order the respondent to pay the petitioner’s filing fee.

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 a copy of the order was served upon the parties, as prescribed by A.R.S. section 12-904(A).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each question based on the facts and legal principles presented in the decision.

1. Analyze the concept of jurisdiction as it applies to this case. Why was the distinction between “community documents” and other materials like websites or policy manuals the central factor in the judge’s jurisdictional decision?

2. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Martin’s initial petition to the final order of dismissal. Identify the key filings, arguments, and decisions at each stage of the process.

3. Evaluate the legal arguments presented by Mr. Martin. Explain his reasoning for equating a “policy” with a “rule” and why the Administrative Law Judge ultimately found this argument unpersuasive, citing relevant statutes and case law mentioned in the decision.

4. Discuss the limitations on the relief an Administrative Law Judge can grant in disputes involving planned communities, as outlined in A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. How did Mr. Martin’s requested relief fall outside the scope of the judge’s authority?

5. Explain the legal principle that when a legislature defines a word or term, a tribunal must follow that definition. How did this principle, as cited in Walker v. Scottsdale, directly influence the outcome of Mr. Martin’s petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. (A.R.S.)

The abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the State of Arizona.

Articles of Incorporation

A set of formal documents filed with a government body to legally document the creation of a corporation. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, such as an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Defined in A.R.S. § 33-1802(2) as one of the “community documents.”

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

Rules governing the use of land within a particular planned community. Section 4.5 of the Respondent’s CC&Rs sets out its authority to adopt rules.

Community Documents

As defined by A.R.S. § 33-1802(2), these are “the declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, if any, and rules, if any.” The central legal issue of the case was whether the Respondent’s website and policy manual qualified as community documents.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent argued, and the ALJ agreed, that the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have jurisdiction because the alleged violations did not involve “community documents.”

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request by a party for a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2018, arguing a lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal case. In this matter, the Petitioner was Tom J. Martin.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and arguments, granted in this instance after the initial dismissal. The rehearing was conducted on April 16, 2019.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the Respondent was SaddleBrooke Home Owners Association #1, Inc.

Regulations adopted by a planned community association. The decision notes that while the Respondent has the authority to adopt rules, it had not adopted policy BC-3 as a rule.

4 Harsh Lessons from a Homeowner’s Failed Lawsuit Against His HOA

Introduction: The Promise vs. The Paperwork

Imagine finding the perfect community. Its website advertises fantastic amenities, including the pickleball courts you’ve been dreaming of. The association’s own policy manual seems to confirm this commitment. But what happens when the courts are never built and the homeowner association (HOA) doesn’t deliver on these perceived promises?

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s the central conflict in the case of Tom J. Martin versus the SaddleBrooke HOA in Arizona. Mr. Martin believed his HOA was legally obligated to provide pickleball courts based on its policies and marketing materials. His subsequent lawsuit, however, failed spectacularly, revealing some surprising truths about HOA disputes. This case provides several critical, counter-intuitive lessons for any current or future homeowner about the difference between a promise and a legally enforceable contract.

——————————————————————————–

1. A “Policy” Isn’t Always a Legally Binding “Rule”

Mr. Martin’s argument was straightforward: he believed the HOA violated its own “policy manual,” specifically a section referred to as Policy BC-3, by not providing pickleball courts. He contended that, in the ordinary sense of the word, a “policy” is a rule that must be followed.

The judge, however, dismissed the case based on a harsh legal reality. According to Arizona law, the court’s jurisdiction in this type of hearing is limited to violations of official “community documents.” The judge was bound by the statute’s specific definition of what constitutes these documents.

Based on Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1802(2), “community documents” are strictly defined as:

• The declaration (often called CC&Rs)

• Bylaws

• Articles of incorporation

• Rules

Crucially, the HOA’s own CC&Rs specified the exact procedure for how to adopt an enforceable rule, and the association had never subjected Policy BC-3 to that formal process. It wasn’t just a legal technicality; the HOA was following its own governing documents about how to create—or not create—a binding rule. Because the pickleball policy had not been formally adopted, it was legally unenforceable in this hearing.

Key Takeaway Analysis: In a legal dispute, the common-sense meaning of a word can be overruled by a specific statutory definition. It’s not enough to read an HOA’s policy manual. As a homeowner, you must cross-reference that policy with the CC&Rs or Bylaws to confirm the HOA has followed its own stated procedure for adopting it as a formal, legally binding rule.

——————————————————————————–

2. Marketing Materials Are Not Governing Documents

To support his case, Mr. Martin presented printouts from the HOA’s website. He felt these materials advertised and marketed the availability of pickleball courts, stating in a legal filing that “the Association is in violation for not providing pickleball courts as advertised and marketed….”

The judge’s conclusion was unequivocal: advertising and marketing materials, just like the internal policy manual, do not qualify as “community documents.” The legal definition is exclusive, and an HOA’s website is not on the list. Therefore, promises or suggestions made on a website carry no legal weight in a dispute over violations of governing documents.

Key Takeaway Analysis: There is a significant gap between marketing promises and legally enforceable obligations. For potential buyers, this is a critical warning. The glossy brochure, the community website, and the sales pitch might paint a picture of community life, but that picture is not guaranteed by the legally binding documents you sign at closing.

——————————————————————————–

3. You Must Allege a Violation of theRightDocument

The case also reveals a crucial lesson in legal procedure. In his initial petition, Mr. Martin only alleged violations of the HOA’s website and its policy manual. While his petition form indicated alleged violations of the “CC&Rs and Bylaws,” he failed to identify any specific provisions within those official documents that the HOA had actually violated.

It was only after his case was first dismissed that he attempted to specify violations of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation in his request for a rehearing. By then, it was too late. The initial petition failed to allege a violation of a legitimate community document.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Precision is paramount. To successfully challenge an HOA in an administrative hearing, a homeowner cannot just have a general grievance. You must be able to pinpoint the exact article, section, and provision of an official “community document” (like the CC&Rs or Bylaws) that was violated and state it clearly in your initial complaint.

——————————————————————————–

4. The Court May Not Have the Power to Grant Your Request

Mr. Martin was clear about what he wanted the court to do. He requested one of two specific forms of relief:

• Provide financial support of $463,112.00 for the expansion of pickleball courts in Bobcat Canyon.

• Alternatively, construct eight new pickleball courts within a two-mile radius of the community within one year, with the HOA being financially responsible for their maintenance.

The judge noted a final, critical problem with the case: the requested relief was “not within the scope of the Administrative Law Judge’s authority.” The law governing these hearings simply did not give the judge the power to order an HOA to undertake a massive, six-figure construction project.

Key Takeaway Analysis: Even if you have a valid case and prove the HOA violated a rule, the court or tribunal you are in has limits. An administrative hearing might only be empowered to levy a civil penalty or issue an order for the HOA to abide by an existing rule. It likely cannot force the HOA to build new facilities or make large capital expenditures. This highlights the need to research the legal venue before you file to ensure it has the authority to grant the specific outcome you are seeking.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Read Before You Litigate

The outcome of Mr. Martin’s lawsuit underscores the critical difference between a homeowner’s reasonable expectations and an HOA’s legally enforceable covenants. For homeowners, disputes are won or lost based on the precise wording of official governing documents—the CC&Rs, bylaws, and formal rules.

Before you challenge your HOA, have you read the fine print to see if their promise is written in the one place that truly matters?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom J. Martin (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (respondent attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Michael S. Shupe (attorney)
Goldschmidt, Shupe, PLLC
Recipient of transmittal

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal (Identified by email handle portion)

Other Participants

JS (Unknown staff)
Transmittal initials

Tom Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

Posted on April 10, 2019 by [email protected]

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 Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:18 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-28T10:46:31 (149.3 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 737525.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:19 (176.7 KB)

19F-H1918037-REL Decision – 700566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:22 (149.3 KB)

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes two Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions concerning a records request dispute between homeowner Tom Barrs (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Respondent). The core of the dispute was the Association’s failure to fully comply with a request for records under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805.

The case is notable for its complete reversal upon rehearing. An initial ruling on April 10, 2019, favored the Association, finding that the Petitioner had failed to properly submit his request by not emailing all Board members. However, this decision was overturned in a final, binding order on September 12, 2019. In the rehearing, the Petitioner presented new evidence demonstrating he was following the Association’s own prior written instructions for submitting such requests.

The ALJ ultimately concluded that the Association did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by providing only a summary document instead of making the full records available for examination. Consequently, the final order granted the Petitioner’s petition, mandated the full reimbursement of his $500 filing fee, and levied an additional $500 civil penalty against the Association. The case underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the weight of documented instructions in governing interactions between homeowners and their associations.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Mr. Schoeffler responds on behalf of the Association, providing a summary table of EDC actions but not the full records. He also advises the Petitioner that all Board members must be copied on future requests.

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

“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.”

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

The Association did not provide the requested documents (e.g., letters, emails, applications). Instead, it provided a “summary table listing of some, not all, EDC actions.” As of the August 27, 2019, rehearing, the Petitioner had still not received the full documentation he originally requested.

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Petitioner sent a detailed follow-up email outlining the specific missing records by referencing the line items in the Association’s own summary table. This demonstrated that his request was not for a vague “list of actions” but for the underlying correspondence. This included requests for:

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Reasoning: The ALJ concluded that because the request was improperly submitted, the Association was not obligated to fulfill it under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Therefore, its failure to provide the full records did not constitute a violation. The decision noted, “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…”

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Reasoning: The ALJ found this evidence dispositive, stating, “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.” With the submission deemed proper, the focus shifted to the response. The ALJ concluded that providing a summary table was not compliant with the statute’s requirement to make records “reasonably available for examination.”

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Study Guide: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal case between petitioner Tom Barrs and respondent Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, covering the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. It includes a quiz to test factual recall, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute was the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association accused of violating, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the exact nature of the records request Tom Barrs submitted on November 1, 2018?

4. In the initial hearing, what was the key reason the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Association?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to Barrs’ records request, and why did Barrs consider it incomplete?

6. Upon what grounds was a rehearing of the case granted?

7. What crucial new evidence presented at the rehearing changed the outcome of the case?

8. How did the Association’s own bylaws and concessions during the rehearing weaken its defense?

9. What was the final ruling in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision after the rehearing?

10. What financial penalties were imposed on the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association in the final order?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Tom Barrs, the Petitioner, and the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association, the Respondent. Barrs, a homeowner and member of the Association, filed a petition alleging the Association failed to comply with a records request. The Association, represented in the hearings by Brian Schoeffler, defended its actions against this claim.

2. The Association was accused of violating A.R.S. § 33-1805. This statute requires a homeowners’ association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request. It also allows the association to charge a fee of not more than fifteen cents per page for copies.

3. On November 1, 2018, Tom Barrs requested “a copy of all EDC actions, written requests, and written approvals from October 2017 through October 2018.” He specified that electronic copies were preferable but that he was also willing to pick up hard copies.

4. In the initial hearing, the judge ruled for the Association because the evidence indicated Barrs had failed to properly submit his request to all members of the Association’s Board. This procedural error meant Barrs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was in violation of the statute.

5. The Association responded on November 18, 2018, by providing Barrs with a summary table of Environmental Design Committee (EDC) actions. Barrs considered this incomplete because his request was for the underlying communications, including all written requests and approvals, not just a summary list of actions.

6. A rehearing was granted after Petitioner Tom Barrs submitted an appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate on June 10, 2019. The Department granted the appeal and referred the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a new evidentiary hearing.

7. The crucial new evidence showed that the Association’s President had previously appointed Brian Schoeffler as Barrs’ primary contact for records requests. This evidence demonstrated that Barrs had, in fact, followed the specific instructions given to him and was not required to send his request to all board members, directly contradicting the basis for the initial ruling.

8. The Association conceded that its governing documents do not require members to copy all Board members on records requests. It also admitted that its own bylaws regarding the submission of forms for such requests were not adhered to or enforced, which undermined its argument that Barrs had failed to follow proper procedure.

9. The final ruling, issued September 12, 2019, granted the Petitioner’s petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association’s conduct violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 because it did not fully comply with Barrs’ specific and properly submitted request.

10. The Association was ordered to reimburse Petitioner Tom Barrs’ $500.00 filing fee. Additionally, a civil penalty of $500.00 was levied against the Association, payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, essay-format answers that require critical thinking and synthesis of information from the case documents. Answers are not provided.

1. Compare and contrast the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the initial decision (April 10, 2019) with those in the rehearing decision (September 12, 2019). Analyze how specific factual clarifications led to a complete reversal of the legal conclusion.

2. Explain the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the decisions. Detail why the petitioner initially failed to meet this burden and what specific evidence allowed him to successfully meet it in the rehearing.

3. Analyze the testimony and arguments presented by Brian Schoeffler on behalf of the Association across both hearings. Discuss the consistency of his defense, his reasoning based on prior OAH decisions, and his stated fear that providing more documents could be interpreted as an “admission of guilt.”

4. Trace the complete procedural timeline of case No. 19F-H1918037-REL, from the filing of the initial petition on December 17, 2018, to the final, binding order on September 12, 2019. Highlight the roles of the Arizona Department of Real Estate and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

5. Using the details of this case, write an analysis of the function and importance of A.R.S. § 33-1805 in regulating the relationship between a homeowner and a homeowners’ association. Discuss the statute’s requirements for both parties and the consequences of non-compliance.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings at government agencies like the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, the ALJ was Jenna Clark.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

The section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that governs a homeowner’s right to access the records of a homeowners’ association. It mandates that an association must make records available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Associated Asset Management (AAM)

The management company that served as the accounting firm for the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association. Petitioner was instructed at one point to direct requests to Lori Lock-Lee at AAM.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The governing body that oversees the operations of the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The Desert Ranch HOA is governed by its CC&Rs.

Environmental Design Committee (EDC)

A committee within the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association responsible for reviewing and approving architectural and landscaping changes. Brian Schoeffler was the Chairman of the EDC.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Tom Barrs is the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this civil administrative case. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and has superior weight, inclining a fair mind to one side of the issue over the other.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted upon appeal, to re-examine the issues and evidence. The rehearing in this case took place on August 27, 2019, and resulted in the reversal of the initial decision.

Respondent

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

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes like the one between Barrs and the Association.

Briefing Document: Barrs v. Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918037-REL)

Executive Summary

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Tom Barrs, a property owner and member of the Association.

◦ Respondent: Desert Ranch Homeowners Association (“the Association”).

• Venue: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark.

• Core Allegation: Whether the Desert Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to fulfill a records request submitted by the Petitioner.

• Case Numbers:

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL (Initial Decision)

◦ 19F-H1918037-REL-RHG (Rehearing Decision)

II. Chronology of the Dispute

Jul. 19, 2017

Association President Catherine Overby appoints Environmental Design Committee (EDC) Director Brian Schoeffler as the Petitioner’s primary contact for records requests.

Jul. 18, 2018

Ms. Overby instructs the Petitioner to direct all requests to the Association’s management company, Associated Asset Management (AAM), specifically to Lori Lock-Lee.

Nov. 1, 2018

Petitioner submits the records request at issue via email to Catherine Overby, Brian Schoeffler, and Lori Loch-Lee.

Nov. 2, 2018

Ms. Loch-Lee acknowledges the request, states she will forward it to all Board members, and clarifies that AAM is only the Association’s accounting firm.

Nov. 18, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

Petitioner files a single-issue petition against the Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, paying a $500 fee.

Mar. 6, 2019

Petitioner sends a follow-up email specifying the exact documents he is seeking, referencing items listed in the summary table he received.

Mar. 11, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler replies, asserting the request was already fulfilled and instructing the Petitioner to submit a new request for the additional items.

Mar. 17, 2019

Mr. Schoeffler emails again, claiming the original request was improperly submitted to only two of four Board members and that providing more documents could be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

Mar. 21, 2019

The first evidentiary hearing is held at the OAH.

Apr. 10, 2019

The initial ALJ Decision is issued, denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Jun. 10, 2019

Petitioner submits an appeal to the Department, which is granted.

Aug. 27, 2019

A rehearing is held at the OAH.

Sep. 12, 2019

The final ALJ Decision is issued, reversing the initial ruling and granting the Petitioner’s petition.

III. The Records Request and Response

Petitioner’s Request (November 1, 2018)

The Petitioner submitted a clear and direct request for specific records via email, citing the relevant statute:

Association’s Response (November 18, 2018)

Petitioner’s Clarification (March 6, 2019)

• Copies of violation notices and “Full Compliance” correspondence.

• Complaint correspondence from homeowners regarding shrubs and subsequent citations.

• Submittal correspondence for a project from Mr. Schoeffler himself, along with approvals.

• Original submittals and approvals for a garage remodel and septic install.

IV. Analysis of the Two Administrative Rulings

The opposite outcomes of the two hearings hinged entirely on the validity of the Petitioner’s original email submission.

A. Initial ALJ Decision (April 10, 2019) – In Favor of Respondent (HOA)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner failed to properly submit his records request because he sent it to only two Board members, not the entire Board.

• Outcome: The petition was denied. The Association was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fee, and his request for a civil penalty was denied.

B. Rehearing ALJ Decision (September 12, 2019) – In Favor of Petitioner (Barrs)

• Central Finding: The Petitioner did properly submit his records request by emailing the designated contacts.

• Key New Evidence: The Petitioner introduced two exhibits proving he had received explicit instructions from the Association President on where to direct his requests:

1. A July 19, 2017 communication appointing EDC Chairman Brian Schoeffler as his primary records request contact.

2. A July 18, 2018 communication instructing him to direct requests to the management company (AAM).

• Outcome: The initial decision was reversed, and the Petitioner’s petition was granted.

V. Key Arguments and Testimonies

• Petitioner (Tom Barrs):

◦ Argued his dispute was with the adequacy of the Association’s response, not its timeliness.

◦ Alleged the Association acted in bad faith and willfully withheld records, citing a previous OAH adjudication over a similar request.

◦ Successfully demonstrated he had followed the Association’s own prior instructions for submitting requests.

• Respondent (via Brian Schoeffler):

◦ Maintained that the request was invalid because it was not sent to all four Board members, an argument that collapsed during the rehearing.

◦ Admitted the Association’s governing documents do not contain a requirement that all Board members be copied on records requests.

◦ Justified the incomplete response by stating that providing additional documents after the petition was filed could be “interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

◦ Reasoned that the Association acted as it did because a previous, similar dispute had been decided in its favor.

VI. Final Order and Penalties

The binding order issued on September 12, 2019, following the rehearing, mandated the following:

1. Petition Granted: The Petitioner’s petition was granted in its entirety.

2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

3. Civil Penalty: The Association was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate for its violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tom Barrs (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf in the initial hearing; appeared as a witness in the rehearing.
Jonathan Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
Dessaules Law Group
Appeared on behalf of Petitioner in the rehearing.

Respondent Side

Brian Schoeffler (respondent representative / EDC chairman / witness)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Also identified as a Board Director.
Catherine Overby (HOA president / board member)
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association
Appointed Mr. Schoeffler as Petitioner’s primary records request contact.
Lori Loch-Lee (property manager)
Associated Asset Management (AAM)
Vice President of Client Services.
Amanda Shaw (property manager)
AAM LLC
Contact for Respondent.
B. Austin Baillio (HOA attorney)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Received electronic transmission of the rehearing decision.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
Dan Gardner (ADRE staff)
ADRE
HOA Coordinator.

Other Participants

Gerard Manieri (observer)
Listed as 'G. Mangiero' in initial hearing source.
Peter Ashkin (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Stephen Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Noah Banks (observer)
Observed initial hearing.
Stephen Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.
Abraham Barrs (observer)
Observed rehearing.

James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Posted on April 5, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918014-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-04-05
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	James Dutton	Counsel	Steven W. Cheifetz
Respondent	Cielo Noche Community Association	Counsel	Lydia Linsmeier; Nicholas Nogami

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge granted the petition, finding that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to notice at least one meeting which was improperly held in closed session. The Tribunal noted that while some executive sessions regarding pending litigation were permissible, meetings regarding vendor changes (management and landscaping) required open session and notice. The filing fee was refunded, but no civil penalty was assessed as the conduct was not found to be intentional or in bad faith.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide notice of meetings and acting on results of secret meetings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated open meeting laws by failing to provide notice of meetings held between November 2017 and May 2018, specifically regarding the hiring of new management and landscaping companies in executive session without community input or proper notice.

Orders: The Tribunal found the Respondent held at least one closed meeting that should have been open/noticed. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner the filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:30 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:35 (194.0 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 693361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (45.6 KB)

19F-H1918014-REL Decision – 699583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:15:40 (194.0 KB)

Administrative Decision Briefing: Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association

Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative proceedings and final decision in the case of James Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL). The dispute centered on allegations that the Association’s Board of Directors violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804 by holding "secret" meetings, failing to provide proper notice to members, and taking actions in executive sessions that should have occurred in open meetings.

Following hearings held on January 4 and March 7, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark determined that the Respondent violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. While the Board’s actions were not found to be in bad faith or intentionally negligent, the Petitioner's request for relief was granted, and the Association was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee.

Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

1. Transparency and the Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The central conflict of this matter was the tension between the Board’s perceived need for privacy during vendor transitions and the statutory requirement for transparency. Arizona law mandates that all meetings of a homeowners' association and its board be open to all members, with very narrow exceptions.

Violations Identified: The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open to the community. Specifically, the Board discussed and acted upon the hiring of a new management company (Tri-City) and a new landscaping vendor (Peak) in executive sessions.
Notice Failures: Testimony revealed a "miscommunication" between the community manager and the Board that led to a complete lack of notice for a meeting held on July 23, 2018.
The Scope of Executive Sessions: The Board argued that discussions regarding the management company were "employee performance" matters. However, the ALJ ruled that these topics did not meet the strict statutory criteria for closed sessions.

2. Governance and Management Transitions

The evidence highlighted a period of significant transition for the Cielo Noche subdivision, which consists of 164 homes in Queen Creek, Arizona.

Management Shift: The Association transitioned from Trestle Management Group to Tri-City Management Company. Petitioner James Dutton, a former Board President, argued that the community was denied input on this critical decision, which resulted in a 3% increase in management costs.
Vendor Influence: The Board also replaced the community landscaper via executive vote. This was a point of contention because the landscaping vendor receives approximately one-third of the community's annual budget.
Role of the Community Manager: Kari Moyer, the Tri-City manager, testified that she repeatedly had to "issue reminders" to the Board between June and November 2018 that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reasons they were citing.

3. Legal and Procedural Missteps

The proceedings underscored the importance of legal counsel in maintaining HOA compliance.

Lack of Counsel: Testimony indicated that during the period when many of the contested decisions were made, the Association did not have its own legal counsel, relying instead on advice from the management company.
Emergency Meetings: The Petitioner provided evidence of "emergency meetings" held in September and November 2018 where the Board failed to read or approve minutes at subsequent open meetings, a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2).

Key Entities and Roles

Entity	Role	Key Contributions/Findings
James Dutton	Petitioner	Former Board President; filed the petition alleging secret meetings and lack of notice.
Cielo Noche Community Association	Respondent	The HOA governing a 164-home subdivision; found in violation of Open Meeting Law.
Jenna Clark	ALJ	Presided over the hearings; issued the final order in favor of the Petitioner.
Kari Moyer	Witness	Community Manager for Tri-City; admitted to notice failures and correcting the Board's improper use of executive sessions.
David Hibler	Witness	Association Treasurer; testified regarding the Board’s rationale for closed sessions during developer negotiations.

Important Quotes with Context

On Statutory Requirements

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

— A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) (Cited in the Conclusions of Law to emphasize the legal preference for transparency).

On the Finding of Violation

"Based on a review of the credible and relevant evidence in the record the Tribunal holds that Respondent held at least one closed meeting which should have been held either partly or entirely in open session."

— Administrative Law Judge Decision, Page 12 (The core legal conclusion of the case).

On Notice Failures

"Ms. Moyer conceded that the Board’s July 18, 2018, meeting was not noticed. Ms. Moyer explained that there was a miscommunication between herself and the Board. Specifically, each party believed the other was going to post notice to the community, but neither did."

— Finding of Fact 46 (Contextualizing the lack of notice for a specific meeting).

On Management's Corrective Actions

"Ms. Moyer testified that… after the Board meeting held that day [May 30, 2018] she informed the Board that they were not permitted to hold executive sessions for the reason(s) they did, and that in the future such discussions needed to take place in open session."

— Finding of Fact 43 (Showing that the management company recognized and attempted to correct the Board's errors).

Actionable Insights for Association Governance

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this matter, the following principles are established for HOA compliance under A.R.S. § 33-1804:

Strict Adherence to Executive Session Criteria: A board may only close a meeting for five specific reasons: legal advice, pending/contemplated litigation, personal/financial/medical information of members, employee job performance, or discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation.
Vendor Contracts are Open Business: Discussing the performance of a third-party contractor (like a landscaping company) or the hiring of a new management firm generally does not qualify as an "employee job performance" exception and should be handled in open session.
Mandatory Notice Requirements: Boards must ensure that notice is posted for all meetings, including informal "workshops" where a quorum of the board meets to discuss association business, regardless of whether a vote is taken.
Emergency Meeting Protocol: If an emergency meeting is called to handle business that cannot wait 48 hours, the minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Email Voting Limitations: While minor administrative tasks (like architectural requests) might be handled via email per certain bylaws, substantive business and voting should generally occur in a noticed, open forum to avoid "secret meeting" allegations.
Documentation of Legal Basis: Before entering a closed session, the board must identify the specific statutory paragraph that authorizes the closure.

Study Guide: Dutton v. Cielo Noche Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between James Dutton and the Cielo Noche Community Association. It explores the application of Arizona Open Meeting Laws, the powers of homeowners' association (HOA) boards, and the procedural requirements for administrative law proceedings.

Section 1: Case Overview and Legal Framework

Case Background

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) centers on allegations that the Association's Board of Directors violated state statutes by failing to provide notice for meetings and conducting business in "secret" or executive sessions that should have been open to the membership.

Key Entities

Entity	Description
James Dutton	The Petitioner; a property owner in the Cielo Noche subdivision and former Board President.
Cielo Noche Community Association	The Respondent; a homeowners' association for a 164-home development in Queen Creek, Arizona.
Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE)	The state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions from HOA members regarding violations of community documents or state statutes.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)	The independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for the ADRE.
Jenna Clark	The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the hearing and issued the decision.

Governing Documents and Statutes

A.R.S. § 33-1804: The primary statute in question, which mandates that meetings of homeowners' associations and their boards be open to all members, with specific, narrow exceptions for closed (executive) sessions.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The enforceable contract between the Association and property owners that empowers the Association to control property use.
Association Bylaws: The internal rules governing Board conduct, including meeting frequency, quorum requirements, and the ability to act via unanimous written consent.

Section 2: Key Concepts and Legal Standards

The Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804)

The state policy dictates that all meetings must be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to members.

Authorized Reasons for Executive Sessions: Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a board may only close a portion of a meeting to discuss:

Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
Pending or contemplated litigation.
Matters relating to the job performance of an individual employee of the association or a contractor's employee.
Personal, health, or financial information of an individual member or employee.
Discussions regarding a member's appeal of a violation (unless the member requests it be open).

Procedural Requirements for Closed Meetings:

Identification: The board must identify the specific statutory paragraph authorizing the closure before entering the executive session.
Emergency Meetings: May be called for business that cannot wait 48 hours. Minutes must state the reason for the emergency and be read/approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Informal Meetings: Any quorum of the board meeting informally to discuss association business (workshops, etc.) must still comply with open meeting and notice provisions.

The Burden of Proof

In administrative proceedings of this nature, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the contention is "more probably true than not."

Section 3: Short-Answer Practice Questions

What was the central issue the Petitioner paid to have adjudicated?

Answer: Whether the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by failing to provide notice of meetings and acting on the results of secret meetings.

What was the Respondent’s justification for hiring Tri-City Management and Peak Landscaping in executive sessions?

Answer: The Association argued these discussions related to employee performance (for Trestle Management) and were part of privileged negotiations regarding construction defects with the developer (KHOV).

According to the Bylaws, what constitutes a quorum for the Cielo Noche Board of Directors?

Answer: A majority of the number of Directors.

How much was the filing fee the Petitioner had to pay to the Department?

Answer: $500.00.

What was the ALJ’s finding regarding the Board’s conduct?

Answer: The ALJ found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice for at least one meeting (July 18/23, 2018), thus violating the Arizona Open Meeting Law.

Why did the ALJ decline to assess a civil penalty against the Respondent?

Answer: The record did not reflect that the Association’s conduct was intentional, negligent, or in bad faith.

What is required of the Board regarding the minutes of an emergency meeting?

Answer: The minutes must state the reason for the emergency and must be read and approved at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Who were the two primary witnesses called by the Respondent?

Answer: Kari Moyer (Tri-City Community Manager) and David Hibler (Association Treasurer).

Section 4: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

The Tension Between Privacy and Transparency: Analyze the Board’s decision to hire a new management company and landscaping vendor in executive session. Discuss whether "employee performance" exceptions should extend to the selection and hiring of third-party corporate contractors, or if such actions fundamentally impact the community's budget and require open-session deliberation.
Statutory Construction and Policy: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) states that any person interpreting the statute "shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings." Evaluate the Board’s actions regarding the July 23, 2018 meeting notice. How does the "miscommunication" defense presented by the Association weigh against the state’s explicit policy of transparency?
The Role of Legal Counsel and Management Advice: During the hearing, it was revealed that Trestle Management and later Kari Moyer provided advice regarding executive sessions. Discuss the extent to which a Board’s reliance on professional management or legal counsel mitigates their liability for statutory violations, specifically in the context of the ALJ’s decision to waive civil penalties.

Section 5: Glossary of Important Terms

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): An official who presides over hearings and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in cases involving state agencies.
A.R.S. § 33-1804: The Arizona Revised Statute governing open meetings for planned communities.
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules of the community and the powers of the HOA.
Electronic Signature: As defined by A.R.S. § 44-7002(8), an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to a record and executed by an individual with the intent to sign.
Executive Session: A portion of a board meeting that is closed to the general membership to discuss sensitive or legally protected matters.
Petitioner: The party who initiates the legal action or petition (in this case, James Dutton).
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; evidence that has the most convincing force and shows a claim is more likely true than not.
Quorum: The minimum number of board members who must be present (personally or via communication means) for the transaction of business to be legal.
Respondent: The party against whom a petition is filed (in this case, Cielo Noche Community Association).
Stipulated Order: A legal order where both parties agree to certain terms, such as extending a deadline for a decision.
Unanimous Written Consent: A provision in the Bylaws (Article VII, Section 5) allowing Directors to take action without a meeting if all Directors provide written consent.

Transparency Behind Closed Doors: Lessons from the Dutton vs. Cielo Noche HOA Decision

1. Introduction: The Conflict Over Community Governance

For homeowners in a planned community, the Board of Directors acts as a local government with significant power over property values and daily life. However, this power is not absolute. In Arizona, the law is designed to prevent "secret governance," yet the tension between Board efficiency and a member’s right to transparency remains a primary source of litigation.

The case of James Dutton vs. Cielo Noche Community Association (No. 19F-H1918014-REL) stands as a stark warning to Boards that treat executive sessions as a convenient shield for uncomfortable public business. When even a former Board President—an insider familiar with the gears of power—must petition the state to force transparency, it signals a systemic failure in accountability. The central question of this case remains vital for every Arizona homeowner: When exactly can an HOA Board legally shut its doors, and when does "privacy" become a statutory violation?

2. The Case Context: From President to Petitioner

The conflict within the Cielo Noche Community Association, a high-end development in Queen Creek, began following a leadership transition. James Dutton served as the Association’s Board President from August 2016 until his resignation in November 2017. Upon returning to the rank of a concerned member, Dutton discovered that the governance of the community had shifted toward a culture of closed-door decision-making.

On July 25, 2018, Dutton filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, triggering an adjudication by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute was the Association’s adherence—or lack thereof—to A.R.S. § 33-1804, the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Administrative Law Judge was tasked with determining whether the Board had systematically bypassed notice requirements and improperly used executive sessions to decide matters that, by law, belonged in the public eye.

3. Timeline of the "Secret" Decisions

The hearing revealed a troubling chronology of actions taken between November 2017 and July 2018. The Board frequently utilized executive sessions to conduct business that had direct, significant financial impacts on the community without the membership’s knowledge:

November 2017: Immediately following Dutton’s resignation, the Board used an executive session to vote on hiring a specific law firm, accept bids for a community reserve study, and deliberate on the retention of their management company.
April – May 2018: The Board negotiated and signed a contract with Tri-City Management, replacing Trestle Management. This decision not only changed the community’s primary administrative partner but also saddled the homeowners with a 3% increase in management fees—all without a public vote.
May 30, 2018: In a further closed-door session, the Board voted to replace the community’s landscaping vendor with a company called "Peak."
July 18, 2018: The Board held a meeting to vote on financial documents without providing any notice to the community. While the Association later claimed this was a "miscommunication," the manager conceded that no notice was posted.
Secret Administrative Tasks: Beyond major vendor changes, the Board used closed sessions to discuss mundane community business that strictly required open deliberation, including drainage issues, parking variances, gate lighting, and the community website.

4. The "Open Meeting" Standard: A.R.S. § 33-1804

Arizona law is not ambiguous regarding HOA transparency. The statutory construction of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) mandates that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the homeowner’s right to observe:

"It is the policy of this state… that all meetings of a planned community… be conducted openly… any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions… shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings."

The Board at Cielo Noche attempted to justify their secrecy through broad interpretations of the law. The following table contrasts those legal justifications with the reality found by the Tribunal:

Legal Justification (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))	The Association's Argument	The Reality & Legal Finding
Legal Advice (A1): Private advice from an attorney regarding litigation.	The Board argued that negotiations with the developer (KHOV) were privileged legal matters.	The Board held several "legal" executive sessions in Nov 2017 before they had actually secured legal counsel in Dec 2017 or Jan 2018. Secrecy is only permitted for actual legal advice.
Personnel Matters (A4): Job performance of an individual employee.	Management and landscaper changes were characterized as "employee performance" reviews.	A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(4) applies only to individual employees. Management firms and landscaping companies are corporate contractors; their performance is community business, not a private personnel matter.
Proper Notice (D/E): 48-hour notice is mandatory for all Board meetings.	The failure to notice the July 18 meeting was a "miscommunication" between the Board and Manager.	Notice is a statutory mandate, not a courtesy. A "miscommunication" does not excuse an illegal meeting.

5. Key Testimonies: Management vs. Membership

The evidentiary record highlights a Board that disregarded professional warnings in favor of autonomy.

James Dutton (Petitioner): Dutton’s testimony emphasized the high stakes of these secret meetings. He noted that the landscaping vendor alone accounted for one-third of the community’s budget, and the management company controlled all financial records and resident correspondence. Excluding members from these decisions deprived them of oversight over the Association's most critical financial pillars.
Kari Moyer (Tri-City Manager): In perhaps the most damaging testimony for the Association, Moyer—a CAAM-certified manager—admitted she had to repeatedly warn the Board from May through November 2018 that they were holding executive sessions for reasons not permitted by law. Despite these professional warnings from a certified expert, the Board continued its practice of "secret" governance.
David Hibler (Board Treasurer): Hibler, an engineer by trade, conceded that the Board conducted early closed-door negotiations regarding developer settlements without legal counsel present, undermining the Association's claim that these sessions were protected by "legal advice" exceptions.

6. The Verdict: Accountability without Penalties

Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark ruled that the Cielo Noche Community Association had indeed violated the Arizona Open Meeting Law. The Tribunal found that the Board held at least one closed meeting that should have been open and failed to provide proper notice to the community.

The Order:

Petition Granted: The Tribunal formally concluded the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.
Mandatory Reimbursement: Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A), the Association was ordered to reimburse James Dutton for his $500 filing fee.
No Civil Penalty: While the Judge did not find "bad faith" sufficient to warrant additional civil penalties, the ruling serves as a permanent record of the Board’s failure to adhere to the strict requirements of Arizona law.

7. Conclusion: 4 Essential Takeaways for HOA Members

The Dutton decision provides a clear roadmap for ensuring Board accountability:

The Default is Open: All meetings where a quorum of the Board meets to discuss Association business—including informal "workshops"—must be noticed and open. The five exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) are to be narrowly construed.
Corporate Vendors are Not "Employees": Boards cannot hide the hiring or firing of management companies or landscaping firms behind "personnel" exceptions. Those exceptions apply only to individual employees of the HOA or the contractor.
Notice is a Strict Liability Requirement: There is no "oops" in the Open Meeting Law. If a Board fails to provide the required 48-hour notice, any action taken is a violation of the law, regardless of intent or "miscommunication."
Emergency Meeting Transparency: Emergency meetings are for true emergencies only. The minutes must explicitly state the "reason necessitating the emergency" and must be read and approved at the very next regular meeting.

Closing Statement

The case of Cielo Noche serves as a reminder that transparency is not a gift granted by a Board; it is a right owned by the members. Homeowners must remain vigilant, and when Boards ignore the warnings of their own professional managers, the Arizona Department of Real Estate stands as a critical venue for restoring the rule of law.

The final decision in this matter was transmitted on April 5, 2019.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

James Dutton (petitioner)
Cielo Noche subdivision
Former Board President; property owner
Steven W. Cheifetz (attorney)
Cheifetz Law, PLLC
Counsel for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Nicholas C. Nogami (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
Counsel for Respondent
Lydia Linsmeier (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen PLC
Counsel for Respondent
Kari Moyer (witness)
Tri-City Property Management Services
Community Manager
David Hibler (witness)
Cielo Noche Community Association
Board Treasurer

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano (clerk)
Signed minute entries/transmission

Other Participants

Cindo Dutton (observer)
Attended hearing
Aaron Smith (observer)
Attended hearing
Bob Willis (observer)
Attended hearing
Thomas Pruit (observer)
Attended hearing
Kenny Shepherd (observer)
Attended hearing
Luke Clesceri (observer)
Attended hearing
Carol Clesceri (observer)
Attended hearing
Derek Zeigler (observer)
Attended hearing
Carole Cozzi (observer)
Attended hearing
Anthony Cozzi (observer)
Attended hearing

Michael Stoltenberg vs Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Posted on April 3, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918038-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-04-03
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Michael Stoltenberg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association	Counsel	Nicole D. Payne

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs §§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the HOA acted in accordance with its governing documents (CC&Rs § 4.1) by imposing uniform assessments. The CC&Rs did not provide an exception for reduced assessments based on an owner's choice of landscaping (rock yard) or refusal of HOA maintenance services.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs, as CC&R § 4.1 requires uniform assessment and no provision requires or allows Respondent to assess Petitioner less due to his rock yard and refusal of maintenance.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA Assessment Uniformity Requirement

Petitioner, who had rock landscaping and refused HOA maintenance, alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs by assessing him uniform dues, arguing he should pay less since HOA expenditures on lawn maintenance were substantial and primarily benefited neighbors with grass yards.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

CC&Rs § 4.1
CC&Rs § 5.1(a)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Assessment, Uniform Dues, CC&R Enforcement, Landscaping Maintenance

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
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)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918038-REL Decision – 698869.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:30 (141.7 KB)

19F-H1918038-REL Decision – 698869.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:18 (141.7 KB)

Briefing Document: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918038-REL, concerning a dispute between homeowner Michael Stoltenberg and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA). The core conflict centered on Mr. Stoltenberg’s claim that he should pay lower HOA assessments because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards requiring more costly maintenance by the HOA.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately denied the petition. The decision rested on an unambiguous interpretation of the HOA’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Judge found that the CC&Rs explicitly obligate the HOA to maintain landscaping on all individual lots and, crucially, require assessments to be uniform for all members to cover these “common expenses.” The petitioner’s argument for a reduced assessment was unsupported by any provision in the governing documents. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr. Stoltenberg had actively refused the HOA access to his property to install a community irrigation system and to perform the very landscaping maintenance that is a central component of the assessments.

Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1918038-REL

• Parties Involved:

◦ Petitioner: Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner at 11777 E. Calle Gaudi, Rancho Del Oro.

◦ Respondent: Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).

• Hearing Date: March 19, 2019

• Presiding Judge: Diane Mihalsky, Administrative Law Judge

• Core Allegation: On December 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition alleging the HOA violated multiple sections of its CC&Rs (§§ 1.8, 1.9, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 14.2) by levying the same assessment fees on his property as on neighboring properties with grass lawns.

Petitioner’s Position and Evidence (Michael Stoltenberg)

The Petitioner’s case was built on the argument of fairness, contending that his assessment should be lower because his property does not utilize the HOA’s most expensive landscaping services.

• Primary Argument: It is inequitable for the HOA to charge him the same amount as neighbors with grass yards, given that his front yard is rock and does not receive the same level of maintenance.

• Financial Evidence: The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the HOA spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which constituted 39% of its total budget.

• Refusal of Services: The Petitioner acknowledged that he refused to allow the HOA access to his property for two key purposes:

1. To install irrigation pipes connecting his lot to a new community well.

2. To perform any landscape maintenance on his front yard.

• Justification for Refusal: The Petitioner accused the HOA of previously killing his trees during maintenance activities and stated that he now undertakes all maintenance of his own yard.

Respondent’s Position and Evidence (Rancho Del Oro HOA)

The HOA’s defense was grounded in its adherence to the plain language of its governing documents, arguing that its actions were not only permissible but mandated by the CC&Rs.

• Primary Argument: The HOA is legally bound by its CC&Rs to levy uniform assessments on all members and is simultaneously obligated to maintain the landscaping on every individual lot.

• Key Testimony (Diana Crites, Property Manager):

◦ CC&R § 5.1(a) explicitly requires the HOA to maintain the yards of its members.

◦ CC&R § 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly, without regard to the type of landscaping they have chosen or whether they permit the HOA to perform its maintenance duties.

◦ The Petitioner’s property is one of eight constructed by a different developer, who did not originally install grass or an irrigation system.

◦ The HOA has since drilled a community well to address water costs and has offered to remove rock and install grass for these properties, an offer the Petitioner could accept.

• Supporting Evidence (Letter from Dawn Simpson, former bookkeeper):

◦ A 2013 HOA project was initiated to install a community well for landscaping and to connect all homes, including the Petitioner’s.

◦ The letter details an incident where the Petitioner “became very heated with [the] contractor” and “declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose.”

◦ This action directly halted all construction to connect his property to the irrigation system and ceased all landscaping services provided by the HOA.

Analysis of Governing Documents (CC&Rs)

The judge’s decision centered on the clear, unambiguous language of specific articles within the CC&Rs. The petitioner failed to identify any language that would permit or require a non-uniform assessment.

CC&R Section

Key Language

Implication & Ruling

Article IV, Section 4.1

Assessments “shall be used for the… common benefit… of the Owners” and “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”

This establishes the principle of uniform, shared liability for common expenses, regardless of an individual owner’s specific use of a particular service.

Article V, Section 5.1(a)

“The Association shall maintain… landscaping… It shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.”

This article imposes a direct obligation on the HOA to maintain all members’ landscaping, not merely an optional service.

Legal Conclusions and Final Order

• Burden of Proof: The decision established that the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg, held the burden to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the HOA had violated its CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of Covenants: In Arizona, unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. The judge found the CC&Rs to be unambiguous, requiring a holistic interpretation. The documents clearly mandate that the HOA must maintain all yards and must assess all members equally to fund that maintenance.

• Final Ruling: The Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof. He failed to point to any provision within the CC&Rs that “allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard.”

• Order: The petition was denied. The HOA’s practice of charging uniform assessments was upheld as compliant with its governing documents.

Study Guide: Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association

This guide is designed to review the key facts, legal arguments, and conclusions presented in the Administrative Law Judge Decision for case number 19F-H1918038-REL, Michael Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Short-Answer Quiz Questions

Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences, based on the information provided in the case document.

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

2. What was the central allegation in the petition filed by Michael Stoltenberg with the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

3. According to the Petitioner’s testimony, what was the financial basis for his claim of unfair assessment?

4. Describe the history of the water and irrigation system issue at the Petitioner’s property prior to 2013, as detailed in Dawn Simpson’s letter.

5. What action did the Petitioner take during the 2013 well construction project, and what were the consequences of this action?

6. According to Article V, Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs, what specific maintenance obligation does the homeowners’ association have regarding individual lots?

7. How did Diana Crites, the HOA’s property manager, justify the uniform assessment for all homeowners based on the CC&Rs?

8. What reason did Ms. Crites provide for why eight units, including the Petitioner’s, were originally landscaped with rock instead of grass?

9. What is the legal standard of proof required in this hearing, and on which party does the burden of proof rest?

10. What was the final order of the Administrative Law Judge, and what was the core legal reasoning for this decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Michael Stoltenberg, the “Petitioner,” and the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, the “Respondent.” Mr. Stoltenberg is a homeowner and member of the HOA who filed a complaint against the association. The Respondent is the governing HOA for the Rancho Del Oro community in Yuma, Arizona.

2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated multiple sections of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). His central claim was that it was unfair for the HOA to charge him the same assessment fees as his neighbors because his property has rock landscaping, while his neighbors have grass yards that require more maintenance.

3. The financial basis for his claim was the HOA’s budget. The Petitioner testified that in 2016, the Respondent spent $54,000 on lawn maintenance and landscaping, which accounted for 39% of the total budget.

4. Prior to 2013, the Petitioner made several complaints that his home was not connected to the community water system. The HOA Board’s position was that the Petitioner knew his home was not connected to the system when he purchased it.

5. During the 2013 construction to install a well and connect all homes to an irrigation system, the Petitioner became “very heated” with the contractor. He declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose, which halted all construction in his backyard and all landscaping provided by the HOA for his front yard.

6. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs states that the Association’s maintenance duties “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” This obligates the HOA to maintain landscaping even on privately owned lots.

7. Diana Crites testified that CC&R Section 4.1 requires all owners to be assessed uniformly. She stated this uniformity applies regardless of the type of landscaping an owner has chosen or whether they permit the HOA onto their property to perform maintenance.

8. Ms. Crites testified that the eight units were built by a different developer after the original construction and were not equipped with an irrigation system or grass. She believed rock was used in the front yards of these lots due to the high cost of water, an issue later resolved by the installation of a community well.

9. The legal standard is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which means the evidence must be convincing enough to make the contention more probably true than not. The burden of proof to establish a CC&R violation rests on the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition. The reasoning was that the Petitioner failed to bear his burden of proof because he could not point to any provision in the CC&Rs that allows or requires the HOA to assess him less than his neighbors based on his landscaping choice or his refusal to allow maintenance.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate a detailed response for each, citing specific evidence and CC&R provisions from the case document.

1. Analyze the central conflict between the Petitioner’s concept of fairness and the Respondent’s interpretation of the CC&Rs. Use specific clauses from the CC&Rs (e.g., Articles IV and V) to support the analysis of each party’s position.

2. Discuss the significance of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in this case. How did the evidence presented by both the Petitioner (e.g., budget figures) and the Respondent (e.g., witness testimony and CC&Rs) contribute to the judge’s final decision regarding this standard?

3. Trace the history of the water and irrigation issue at the Petitioner’s property, from his initial complaints to his refusal to allow construction access. How did these past events impact the central issue of the 2019 hearing?

4. Explain the legal principle that “restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole.” How did the Administrative Law Judge apply this principle by referencing both Section 4.1 (Assessments) and Section 5.1(a) (Maintenance) of the CC&Rs to reach her conclusion?

5. Evaluate the actions of the Petitioner, Mr. Stoltenberg. Based on the evidence presented, did his own actions—specifically, denying the HOA access to his property—undermine his legal argument for a reduced assessment? Explain your reasoning using facts from the hearing evidence.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary

Definition from Source Context

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official (Diane Mihalsky) who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, and makes decisions in matters referred by state departments like the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Assessments

Charges levied by the homeowners’ association on its members. According to CC&R § 4.1, they are used for promoting the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of owners, including property maintenance, and are to be proportioned to each owner’s respective common interests.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal case to establish their claim. In this matter, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated its CC&Rs.

Common Area

Defined in CC&R § 1.8 as “those portions of the Project to which title is held by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and excepting the individual units.”

Common Expenses

Defined in CC&R § 1.9 as the “actual and estimated expenses of operating the association,” including any reasonable reserves and all sums designated as Common Expense by project documents.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents for a planned community that outline the rules, obligations, and rights of the homeowners and the homeowners’ association.

Easements

A right of use over the property of another. CC&R § 2.1 grants every owner a “non-exclusive easement and equitable right of use and enjoyment in, to, and throughout the Common Area.”

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing body for a planned community (Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association) whose members are the property owners within that community. It is responsible for managing common areas and enforcing the CC&Rs.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Rancho Del Oro.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required to win the case. The source defines it as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and as evidence with “the most convincing force” that is “sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or community document that limits the use of the property. The source notes that in Arizona, an unambiguous restrictive covenant is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties and must be construed as a whole.

He Sued His HOA Over an ‘Unfair’ Fee—The Reason He Lost Is a Warning for Every Homeowner

Introduction: The HOA Fee Frustration

For many homeowners, the monthly or annual bill from the Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of constant frustration. It’s easy to look at the line items—landscaping, pool maintenance, common area repairs—and wonder if you’re truly getting your money’s worth, especially when you feel you aren’t using a particular service.

This was exactly the position of Michael Stoltenberg, a homeowner in Arizona who believed he had an open-and-shut case to lower his HOA fees. His argument seemed logical, fair, and simple. But the ultimate ruling in his case, Stoltenberg v. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association, reveals some surprising and crucial truths about how HOA rules actually work and serves as a powerful lesson for every person living in a planned community.

Takeaway 1: You Pay for the Service, Even If You Actively Refuse It

Michael Stoltenberg’s argument was straightforward: his front yard was landscaped with rocks, while his neighbors had grass. He pointed out that in 2016, lawn maintenance accounted for a significant 39% of the HOA’s total budget. He argued it was fundamentally unfair for him to pay the same assessment as his neighbors when he wasn’t consuming this costly service.

His sense of unfairness was rooted in the history of the development. His home was one of eight built by a different developer than the rest of the community. Likely due to high water costs at the time, these eight lots were constructed without irrigation systems or grass. From the very beginning, his property was different. This context makes the crucial twist in the case all the more telling. In 2013, the HOA undertook a community-wide project to drill a new well and install an irrigation system, an effort designed to rectify the inconsistency and bring these outlier properties up to the community standard. When the construction reached Stoltenberg’s property, he refused the workers access.

Testimony from the HOA’s former bookkeeper laid this fact bare:

At this time, [Petitioner] declared that no one was to enter his yard for any purpose. This was also to include his front yard. This halted all construction that was currently in place in his back yard, and all landscaping being provided by the HOA for the front yard.

Legally, this transformed the situation. Stoltenberg’s complaint was no longer about a service he didn’t need, but about a service he actively rejected. This case establishes a critical principle: HOA assessments are tied to your property ownership and membership in the community, not your individual consumption of services. By refusing the service, Mr. Stoltenberg did not absolve himself of the cost associated with its availability to the community.

Takeaway 2: “Common Benefit” Isn’t the Same as “Your Personal Benefit”

The legal foundation for the HOA’s position rested in the language of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, Section 4.1 states that assessments are to be used for the “common benefit, and enjoyment of the Owners.”

In an HOA context, “common benefit” is a broad concept. It means that well-maintained landscaping throughout the entire neighborhood enhances curb appeal, creates a cohesive community aesthetic, and supports the property values of all residents. This includes Mr. Stoltenberg, whose home value is supported by the beautiful, uniform appearance of the neighborhood, regardless of whether his specific yard has grass. It’s the same reason a homeowner without children still pays for the upkeep of a community playground; the amenity benefits the community as a whole.

Further testimony reinforced this point. The HOA’s property manager stated that the association was still willing to remove the rock and install grass on his property, just as they had already done for two other homeowners in a similar situation. The benefit was available to him; he simply continued to refuse it.

Takeaway 3: The Rules Are a Package Deal, Not an A La Carte Menu

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge’s role was not to rule on a general sense of fairness but to enforce the community’s governing documents as written. When examined together, two key clauses in the CC&Rs created a contractual vise, leaving the judge with no other legal option. The two clauses created a perfect, inescapable loop.

• Section 5.1(a): This clause states the HOA has an obligation that “shall also include maintenance of the landscaping on individual Lots outside of structures.” The HOA wasn’t just permitted to do the work; it was contractually required to.

• Section 4.1: This clause, which also defines assessments as being for the “common benefit,” requires that they “shall constitute common expenses for which the apartment owners shall be severally liable in proportion to their respective common interests.”

The documents legally obligated the HOA to maintain all yards and to charge every owner the same proportional amount for doing so. The CC&Rs provided no mechanism for a homeowner to opt-out of a service and receive a corresponding discount. The judge’s final ruling was decisive, emphasizing the absolute nature of this contractual obligation:

Because Petitioner has not pointed to any CC&R that allows, much less requires, Respondent to assess Petitioner less because he has a rock yard and will not allow Respondent to maintain his yard, Petitioner has not borne his burden in this matter.

Conclusion: The Contract You Live In

The case of Michael Stoltenberg is a powerful reminder that an HOA’s CC&Rs are not just a set of neighborhood rules; they are restrictive covenants that run with the land. When you buy the property, you are irrevocably buying into the contract that governs it. These documents are designed to prioritize the uniform application of standards for the collective good, and they supersede an individual’s personal preferences or interpretation of what seems “fair.”

This case forces every potential buyer to ask a critical question: Are you simply purchasing a dwelling, or are you prepared to become a party to the binding legal contract that governs the entire community?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Michael Stoltenberg (Petitioner)

Respondent Side

Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (Respondent Entity)
Entity, not human
Nicole D. Payne (HOA Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Represented Respondent
Diana Crites (Property Manager/Witness)
Property manager for Respondent; testified
Dawn Simpson (Former Bookkeeper/Witness)
Former bookkeeper for Respondent; provided a letter/testimony regarding history
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA Attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Received transmission of the Order

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Received transmission of the Order
Felicia Del Sol (Administrative Staff)
Transmitted the decision

Loraine Brokaw vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

Posted on April 1, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918017-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-04-01
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Loraine Brokaw	Counsel	—
Respondent	Sin Vacas Property Owners Association	Counsel	Sean K Moynihan, Esq. and Jason E Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803; Bylaws Article IV, Section 6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner's request, finding that the HOA's action to uniformly assess all CR-1 Lots (including Petitioner's two uncombined lots) adhered to the Association Bylaws, which require uniform rates, and did not violate ARS § 33-1803. The governing documents took precedence over any prior reduced assessment granted by a previous Board Order.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association’s interpretation of the Bylaws requiring uniform assessment for all CR-1 lots was incorrect or unlawful, as her lots remained separate parcels according to the county map.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements.

Petitioner challenged the Association's decision to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% (full rate for two lots) based on the Association's interpretation that the Bylaws require uniform assessment rates for all CR-1 lots, arguing the new rate violated a long-standing prior Board Order (2003) granting her a reduced rate.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
Bylaws Article IV, Covenant For Maintenance Assessments, Section 6

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Assessment Dispute, Uniform Assessment Rate, Bylaws Interpretation, Planned Community, Governing Document Precedence

Additional Citations:

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. § 33-1803
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:16:43 (137.2 KB)

19F-H1918017-REL Decision – 698354.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:26:53 (137.2 KB)

Briefing Document: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Case No. 19F-H1918017-REL)

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Loraine Brokaw versus the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (POA). The central conflict concerned the POA Board’s decision to increase Ms. Brokaw’s annual assessment from 150% to 200% for a single residence constructed across two separate lots.

The Petitioner, Ms. Brokaw, argued that this increase was unlawful and capricious, violating a nearly thirty-year practice that had been formalized by a 2003 Board decision granting her a reduced assessment. The POA contended that its action, taken on the advice of counsel, was necessary to comply with the Association’s governing documents, which mandate uniform assessments for all lots.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately denied the homeowner’s petition. The decision established a critical legal precedent for the Association: the unambiguous language of the governing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) takes precedence over any past Board decisions, informal agreements, or long-standing practices, regardless of their duration. Because the Petitioner owns two distinct, legally unconsolidated lots, the ALJ found that the Board’s action to assess each lot at the full, uniform rate was not a violation, but rather a correct and required application of the community’s Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Parties: Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) vs. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent).

• Jurisdiction: Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of Arizona.

• Case Number: 19F-H1918017-REL.

• Presiding Judge: Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark.

• Hearing Date: March 25, 2019.

• Decision Date: April 01, 2019.

II. Central Issue of the Dispute

The hearing was convened to address the following issue, as stated in the NOTICE OF HEARING:

“Whether Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent) arbitrarily and capriciously raised annual assessments for some homeowners and not others in contravention of decades of past board practice and contractual agreements based on utterly flawed legal theory, which, in fact, changed from attorney to attorney.”

The core of the dispute was the Association Board’s decision in 2017 to increase the annual assessment for the Petitioner’s property—a single home built across two adjacent lots—from 150% to 200% of the standard single-lot assessment rate. The Petitioner sought to compel the Board to revert to the 150% assessment schedule and reimburse her for costs associated with the petition.

III. Petitioner’s Position and Key Testimony

• Property History: The Petitioner testified that her husband first bought property in Sin Vacas in 1979. In 2003, the couple purchased an adjacent lot and constructed a new home that spanned across both properties (Lots 156 and 157).

• Claim of Lot Combination: The Petitioner claimed to have legally combined the two lots but presented no supporting documentation to the tribunal.

• Historical Assessment Practice: The Petitioner testified that as of 2003, the Association’s practice was to assess properties as follows:

◦ 100%: For a home on a single lot.

◦ 25%: For an undeveloped vacant lot.

◦ 150%: For a residence situated on two lots.

• 2003 Board Decision: On March 24, 2003, the Petitioner received written confirmation from the Board that it had voted to grant her a reduced assessment of 150%, formalizing the existing practice for her property.

• 2017 Assessment Change: On or about December 4, 2017, the Petitioner received a letter from the Association’s management company advising that the Board had decided to raise her assessment to 200%, citing “advice of counsel.”

• Rationale for Increase: The Petitioner stated she was given varying reasons for the change but was ultimately informed that the Board determined all plats needed to be assessed uniformly according to the Association’s governing documents. She was also told that to be assessed as a single lot, she would need to formally combine the lots on the county plat map, a process estimated to cost between $3,000 and $10,000 and require the permission of every other homeowner in the community.

IV. Respondent’s Position

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association declined to present witnesses or exhibits. Its position at the hearing was that the dispute arose from differing interpretations of the language within the governing Bylaws. The Association’s counsel stated that the matter would be resolved based on the tribunal’s interpretation of the relevant governing texts.

V. Analysis of Governing Documents

The decision rested heavily on the interpretation of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), recorded on April 13, 1978.

Document Section

Key Provision

Relevance to the Case

Bylaws Article I, Section 5

Defines a “Lot” as “any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties.”

This established that the Petitioner’s two properties, being separately numbered on the subdivision map, constitute two distinct lots for assessment purposes.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 6

“Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”

This clause was central to the Judge’s decision. It establishes a clear mandate for uniformity in assessments across all lots of the same type (CR-1), which the 150% rate violated by treating two CR-1 lots differently from others.

Bylaws Article IV, Section 7

States the Board of Directors shall “fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot.”

This empowers the Board to set assessments but reinforces that they must do so on a per-lot basis, consistent with the uniformity requirement.

VI. Judge’s Findings and Conclusions of Law

The Administrative Law Judge made the following key determinations, leading to the denial of the petition:

• Failure to Meet Burden of Proof: The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated community documents or Arizona statutes.

• Undisputed Material Facts: The Judge found it undisputed that:

1. The Petitioner owns two distinct CR-1 lots (Lot 156 and Lot 157).

2. The lots have never been legally combined or consolidated on the Pima County Assessor’s plat map.

3. The Petitioner’s residence is constructed across both lots.

• Primacy of Governing Documents: The central conclusion of the decision was that the Association’s governing documents supersede any past Board decisions or long-standing informal agreements. The Judge stated:

• Uniformity is Mandatory: The Bylaws require that the Association assess all developed CR-1 lots at a uniform rate. By assessing both of the Petitioner’s lots at the same full rate as every other developed CR-1 lot, the Association was found to be complying with the Declaration.

• Board’s Action as Corrective: The 2017 Board’s action was not a breach of contract or an unlawful act. Instead, it was an appropriate correction of the previous Board’s 2003 order, which was inconsistent with the Bylaws’ uniformity mandate. The Petitioner’s argument that the 2003 order should supersede the 2017 order was deemed inaccurate.

VII. Final Order

Based on the findings and legal conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied.

The decision affirmed that the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate Arizona state law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803) or the Association’s Bylaws.

Study Guide: Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

This guide reviews the key facts, legal arguments, and final ruling in the administrative hearing case No. 19F-H1918017-REL, Loraine Brokaw v. Sin Vacas Property Owners Association.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source document.

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

2. What specific relief did the Petitioner request from the Office of Administrative Hearings?

3. What specific action taken by the Respondent prompted the Petitioner to file her petition?

4. Describe the assessment practice that the Sin Vacas Board had in place for the Petitioner’s property from 2003 until the change in 2017.

5. What was the Association’s stated reason for increasing the Petitioner’s assessment from 150% to 200%?

6. According to the Association’s Bylaws, what is the rule for how special assessments must be fixed and apportioned?

7. On what grounds did the Administrative Law Judge determine that the Petitioner owned two separate lots?

8. What is the legal standard of proof required in this case, and did the Petitioner successfully meet it?

9. Why did the Judge rule that the 2003 Board Order reducing the Petitioner’s assessment was not a binding contract?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Loraine Brokaw, the Petitioner, who brought the action, and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the Respondent. The case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

2. The Petitioner requested that the Association’s Board be compelled to honor the 30-year assessment schedule and charge her the 150% assessment rate. She also requested that the Board reimburse her for the costs of bringing the petition.

3. The Petitioner filed her petition after receiving a letter on or about December 4, 2017, from the Association’s management company. This letter advised her that the Board had decided to raise her assessment from 150% to 200% based on “advice of counsel.”

4. Beginning in 2003, the Association assessed a home on a single lot at 100%, an undeveloped vacant lot at 25%, and a residence spanning two lots, like the Petitioner’s, at 150%. The Petitioner received written confirmation of her reduced 150% assessment from the Board on March 24, 2003.

5. The Association’s Board increased the assessment after determining that all plats needed to be assessed uniformly, per the Association’s Restatement. The increase was meant to bring her two lots into compliance with the governing documents.

6. Bylaws Article IV, Section 6 states that “Special assessments must be fixed and apportioned at a uniform rate for all CR-1 lots, SR lots, and each 20,000 square feet of TR lots.”

7. The Judge’s conclusion was based on the undisputed fact that the Petitioner’s two properties, Lots 156 and 157, have never been officially combined or consolidated into a single numbered lot on the Pima County Assessor’s Office plat map.

8. The required standard of proof was a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means proving a contention is more probably true than not. The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof.

9. The Judge ruled that the 2003 Board Order was not a binding contract because the Petitioner provided no proof of consideration tendered to the Association. Therefore, the Association’s governing documents took precedence over the informal agreement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be denied. The Judge concluded that the Board’s action to uniformly assess all CR-1 lots did not violate state statutes or the Association’s Bylaws.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning behind the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Discuss the hierarchy of authority between the Association’s governing documents (CC&Rs) and a Board Order, as interpreted in this case.

2. Explain the concept of “burden of proof” in the context of this hearing. How did the Petitioner’s failure to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard lead to the denial of her petition?

3. The Petitioner’s case relied heavily on past practice and a 2003 Board decision to grant her a reduced assessment. Discuss why this argument was ultimately insufficient to overcome the explicit language of the Association’s governing documents.

4. Examine the contractual nature of a homeowners’ association’s CC&Rs as described in the Findings of Fact. How does this contractual relationship between the Association and each property owner shape the obligations and rights of both parties?

5. The Respondent (Sin Vacas POA) declined to present witnesses or exhibits, taking a passive stance at the hearing. Discuss the potential legal strategy behind this approach and how the undisputed material facts of the case made this a viable option.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over administrative hearings, reviews evidence, makes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues orders.

Association

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, a homeowners’ association for the Sin Vacas subdivision in Tucson, Arizona, responsible for managing, maintaining, and improving the property.

Assessment

A fee levied by the Association on property owners to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of residents and for the improvement and maintenance of common areas and private streets.

Bylaws

The specific articles and sections within the CC&Rs that govern the Association’s operations, including definitions, assessment rules, and voting procedures.

CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions)

The governing documents for the Association, recorded with Pima County on April 13, 1978. They form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations.

Any numbered lot shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Sin Vacas Properties, with the exception of the Common Area. This case deals specifically with CR-1 lots.

OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers matters for evidentiary hearings. The OAH has the authority to hear and decide contested cases and interpret contracts between parties.

Petitioner

Loraine Brokaw, a property owner in the Sin Vacas subdivision and member of the Association who filed the petition against the Association.

Planned Community

A real estate development where owners of separately owned lots are mandatory members of a nonprofit association and are required to pay assessments for the purpose of managing, maintaining, or improving the property.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof required for the Petitioner to win her case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not” and represents the greater weight of evidence.

Respondent

The Sin Vacas Property Owners Association, the entity against whom the petition was filed.

Select all sources

698354.pdf

No emoji found

19F-H1918017-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding a dispute between Loraine Brokaw (Petitioner) and the Sin Vacas Property Owners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner challenged the Association’s decision to raise her annual assessment, arguing that the increase was arbitrary and contravened a decades-long practice of assessing her two lots at a combined 150% rate, rather than the new 200% rate. The decision outlines the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, confirming that the Association is governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Bylaws, which require uniform assessment rates for all developed lots. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated any community documents or statutes, reasoning that the governing documents take precedence over any prior informal agreement, and denied the Petitioner’s request.

What was the core legal basis for rejecting the petitioner’s assessment challenge?

How did the Association’s governing documents dictate uniform assessment requirements?

What legal implications arose from the Board’s decision to change long-standing practice?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Loraine Brokaw (petitioner)

Respondent Side

Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association
Sean Moynihan (HOA attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Sin Vacas Property Owners Association

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Robert Brokaw (witness)
Observed the hearing
Jack Juraco (witness)
Observed the hearing

Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners

Posted on March 5, 2019 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	19F-H1918034-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2019-03-05
Administrative Law Judge	Diane Mihalsky
Outcome	Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Linda Curtin	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to requested association records within the statutory ten-day period. The petition was granted and Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide timely access to association financial records

Petitioner filed a single-issue petition alleging Respondent violated CC&Rs § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by refusing to make available association records or to produce a receipt identifying a contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community’s clubhouse.

Orders: The petition was granted because Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) by failing to provide access to records within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records, Record Inspection, Timely Disclosure, Statutory Violation, Filing Fee Reimbursement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
CC&R § 4.8
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
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)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:18:05 (151.9 KB)

19F-H1918034-REL Decision – 692859.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:28:04 (151.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, a dispute between homeowner Linda Curtin and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA). The central conflict arose from the HOA’s failure to provide financial records related to a small construction project within the timeframe mandated by Arizona law.

The petitioner, Ms. Curtin, alleged that the HOA violated its own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1805 by not producing an invoice for a $1,000 cinderblock wall project at the community clubhouse. While the HOA did eventually provide the requested records, the ALJ found that it failed to do so within the legally required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s formal written request on September 12, 2018.

Consequently, the ALJ granted the petition in favor of Ms. Curtin, ruling that the HOA was in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA was ordered to reimburse Ms. Curtin for her $500 petition filing fee. However, the ALJ dismissed all of the petitioner’s ancillary complaints, including suspicions of forgery, concerns about the contractor’s licensing status, and other issues of HOA governance, deeming them either unsubstantiated or outside the narrow scope of the single-issue petition. The ruling underscores the strict procedural compliance required of HOAs regarding member record requests while limiting the scope of such legal challenges to the specific violations alleged.

——————————————————————————–

I. Case Overview

• Case Number: 19F-H1918034-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Petitioner: Linda Curtin (“Complainant”), a homeowner and HOA member.

• Respondent: The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. (“HOA”), represented by Community Manager Tracy Schofield.

• Administrative Law Judge: Diane Mihalsky

• Core Allegation: The HOA violated its governing documents and state law by failing to make association records available to a member upon request. Specifically, the petitioner sought a receipt and contractor details for a cinderblock wall built at the community clubhouse.

II. Governing Rules and Statutes

The case centered on the interpretation and enforcement of the HOA’s internal rules and a specific Arizona statute governing planned communities.

Rule/Statute

Key Provision

CC&R § 4.8

Requires the HOA Board to keep “true and correct records of account in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles” and to make such books and records available for inspection by all owners upon request during normal business hours.

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Mandates that all financial and other association records be made “reasonably available for examination” by any member. The statute explicitly requires the association to fulfill a request for examination within ten business days. A similar ten-day deadline applies for providing copies of records.

The respondent did not claim any legal privilege under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) that would permit it to withhold the requested documents.

III. Chronology of the Dispute

The conflict unfolded over several months, beginning with an informal inquiry and escalating to a formal legal petition.

• August 1, 2018: Petitioner Linda Curtin first emails Community Manager Tracy Schofield for a contractor recommendation.

• August 2 – September 11, 2018: In a subsequent email exchange, Ms. Curtin asks who built the garbage can walls at the clubhouse. Ms. Schofield provides the name “Roberto” but is unable to provide a contact number, stating that the Board’s Treasurer, Jim Mackiewicz, had arranged the work. The petitioner later characterized this exchange as “evasive.”

• September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sends a formal written letter requesting “a copy of the invoice submitted to The Ridge HOA” for the wall construction. This action officially started the ten-day clock under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

• September 24, 2018: Ms. Schofield responds, stating that she does not have the invoices at her office as records are retained “in the community.” She provides a printout of payments made to contractor Gualberto Castro, which includes a $1,000 check dated November 1, 2017, for “Block work – clubhouse.”

• November 5, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests that the invoice be brought to that day’s HOA board meeting. The document is not provided.

• November 28, 2018: After making an additional 15 phone calls regarding related meeting minutes without a satisfactory response, Ms. Curtin files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• December 10, 2018: The HOA files its answer, claiming the issue has been resolved. On the same day, Ms. Schofield emails the contractor’s invoice to Ms. Curtin. The invoice, from ValleyWide Custom Painting Inc. and dated November 2, 2017, details the $1,000 job.

• December 11, 2018: Ms. Curtin requests additional documents, including a copy of the cashed check and the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) application for the project. Ms. Schofield is reported to have stated that ACC approval was not applicable to work on common areas.

• Post-December 11, 2018: Ms. Schofield eventually provides a copy of the cancelled check for $1,000 made payable to Mr. Castro.

• February 20, 2019: An evidentiary hearing is held before the ALJ.

IV. Analysis of Evidence and Arguments

A. Petitioner’s Position

Ms. Curtin’s case was built on the initial failure to produce records and expanded to include broader suspicions about the HOA’s conduct.

• Primary Claim: The HOA violated state law by failing to fulfill her September 12, 2018 request for records within the ten-day statutory period.

• Suspicions about Documentation: The petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the documents eventually provided. She opined that the November 2, 2017 receipt “appeared to have two different kinds of handwriting and might be a forgery.” She also pointed to the fact that the check for payment was dated one day before the invoice date.

• Ancillary Governance Concerns: Ms. Curtin raised several issues beyond the scope of her petition, including:

◦ The contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed as required by the Registrar of Contractors.

◦ The Board meeting minutes did not show authorization for the $1,000 expenditure.

◦ The HOA’s ACC approval process was not followed for the wall.

◦ A separate, unrelated $125,000 pool remodel project was approved improperly (this was refuted by Ms. Schofield’s testimony that it required a membership vote).

B. Respondent’s Position

The HOA, through Ms. Schofield, acknowledged the delay but argued it had ultimately complied and faced logistical constraints.

• Eventual Compliance: The HOA’s primary defense was that it eventually provided all the documents in its possession related to the expenditure, thereby resolving the complaint.

• Logistical Challenges: Ms. Schofield testified that she is an off-site community manager for numerous associations and does not keep records in her office. She stated that the HOA’s records are stored “in the community” at a separate depository.

• Commitment to Future Compliance: Ms. Schofield testified that for any future requests, she would schedule a time for the petitioner to review records at the depository within the ten-day window.

• Communication: Ms. Schofield maintained that she “communicated with Petitioner on every issue” and provided what information she had available.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ’s decision was narrowly focused on the statutory violation, setting aside the petitioner’s other grievances.

A. Conclusions of Law

1. Violation Confirmed: The judge concluded that the petitioner successfully established by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The HOA “acknowledged that it did not provide the documents or provide access to Petitioner to view the documents within ten days of Petitioner’s September 12, 2018 request.”

2. Scope of Relief Limited: The ALJ determined that the statute only requires that records be kept and made available in a timely manner. The law “has not authorized the Department… that HOAs produce records that satisfy all of a members’ stated concerns.”

3. Ancillary Claims Dismissed: The judge explicitly rejected the petitioner’s broader concerns, stating: “Petitioner’s concern with ‘transparency’ and dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” The forgery claim was dismissed for lack of evidence, as Ms. Curtin did not present the opinion of a handwriting expert. The issues related to contractor licensing and internal HOA procedures were deemed outside the jurisdiction of the hearing for an HOA petition.

B. Recommended Order

Based on the findings, the ALJ issued a two-part order:

1. Petition Granted: The petition was granted on the grounds that Ms. Curtin had proven the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: The HOA was ordered to reimburse the petitioner the $500.00 she paid to file the single-issue petition.

The order, issued on March 5, 2019, was declared binding on both parties unless a request for rehearing was filed within 30 days.

Study Guide: Curtin v. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 19F-H1918034-REL, involving Petitioner Linda Curtin and Respondent The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test comprehension, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What was the central allegation in the single-issue petition filed by Linda Curtin on November 28, 2018?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute and CC&R section did the Petitioner claim the Respondent violated?

4. How did the HOA, through its community manager, initially attempt to resolve the records request that led to the petition?

5. What additional documents did Ms. Curtin request after receiving the contractor’s invoice on December 10, 2018?

6. What were Ms. Curtin’s specific suspicions and complaints regarding the quality and validity of the documents she eventually received?

7. What was Community Manager Tracy Schofield’s testimony regarding her role and the location of the association’s records?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” what is the primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) regarding member requests for records?

9. On what specific point did the Administrative Law Judge find that the Respondent had violated the statute?

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

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Linda Curtin, the Petitioner and a homeowner, and The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc., the Respondent. Tracy Schofield appeared for the HOA as its Community Manager, and Diane Mihalsky served as the Administrative Law Judge.

2. The central allegation was that the HOA violated its own rules and state law by refusing to make association records available. Specifically, Ms. Curtin sought a receipt identifying the contractor and the amount paid for a cinderblock wall built by the community clubhouse.

3. The Petitioner claimed the Respondent violated CC&R § 4.8, concerning the keeping and availability of accounting records, and A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs the examination of association records by members.

4. On September 24, 2018, Ms. Schofield responded to Ms. Curtin’s written request by stating she did not have invoices at her office. She did, however, provide a printout of payments made to the contractor, Gaulberto Castro, which included a $1,000.00 payment for “Block work – clubhouse.”

5. After receiving the invoice, Ms. Curtin requested a copy of the cashed check (front and back), the payee’s mailing address, and the completed Architectural Control Committee Application for the project, including the contractor’s address, license number, and insurance company.

6. Ms. Curtin complained that the contractor, Mr. Castro, was not licensed and that the job did not meet the exemption requirements for the Registrar of Contractors. She also opined that the receipt from November 2, 2017, appeared to be a forgery with two different kinds of handwriting.

7. Ms. Schofield testified that she is not an onsite manager, works for numerous associations, and does not keep any association records in her office. She stated that for future requests, she would schedule a time for Ms. Curtin to view the records at the Respondent’s records depository.

8. The primary requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) is that all financial and other records of an association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member. The statute mandates that the association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.

9. The Judge found that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) because, while it eventually provided all documents in its possession, it failed to provide the documents or access to them within the statutorily required ten-day period following Ms. Curtin’s September 12, 2018 request.

10. The Judge ordered that the Petitioner’s petition be granted because she established the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). The Judge further ordered that the Respondent reimburse Ms. Curtin the $500.00 she paid to file her single-issue petition.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate comprehensive responses using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source document.

1. Analyze the timeline of communication between Linda Curtin and Tracy Schofield, from the initial informal inquiry on August 1, 2018, to the formal petition. How did the nature of the requests and the quality of the responses contribute to the escalation of the dispute?

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge used this standard to find the Respondent in violation of the ten-day rule while simultaneously dismissing the Petitioner’s other concerns about transparency and forgery.

3. The Petitioner raised several issues during the hearing that were not part of her original single-issue petition, such as the contractor’s licensing status, the lack of Board meeting minutes authorizing the project, and a proposed $125,000 pool remodel. Why did the Administrative Law Judge deem these points irrelevant to the final decision?

4. Evaluate the responsibilities of a Homeowners Association regarding record-keeping and member access as outlined in CC&R § 4.8 and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Based on the testimony and evidence, describe the specific procedural failures of The Ridge at Diamante del Lago HOA in this matter.

5. The Judge’s decision explicitly states that the Petitioner’s “dissatisfaction and suspicions about the records that were eventually provided do not entitle her to any additional relief in this forum.” Explore the distinction the ruling makes between a procedural violation (timeliness of access) and the substantive content or perceived legitimacy of the records themselves.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Diane Mihalsky of the Office of Administrative Hearings served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute requiring that all financial and other records of a homeowners association be made reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

Complainant

An alternative term used in the document to refer to the Petitioner, Linda Curtin.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing documents that create and define the rules for a planned community. In this case, CC&R § 4.8, which deals with accounting records, was cited.

Department (The)

Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings from HOA members and HOAs.

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where evidence is presented and testimony is given before an administrative law judge to resolve a factual dispute. The hearing in this case took place on February 20, 2019.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a planned community that creates and enforces rules for the properties and its members. The Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies, such as the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner is Linda Curtin, a homeowner and member of the Respondent HOA.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case, defined as evidence that is more convincing and has greater weight, inclining an impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. The Petitioner bears this burden of proof.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent is The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Restrictive Covenants

Legal obligations imposed in a deed upon the buyer of real estate. The document notes that if unambiguous, they are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Transparency as a Requirement: A $500 Lesson for Arizona HOAs

1. Introduction: The Price of Delay and the Statutory Hammer

In the realm of Arizona homeowners’ associations, transparency is often treated by boards as a courtesy rather than a mandate. However, the case of Linda Curtin vs. The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc. serves as a stark reminder that the law provides homeowners with a powerful "statutory hammer" to compel accountability.

What began as a simple request for a contractor’s receipt for a small masonry project—a $1,000 cinderblock garbage enclosure—escalated into a formal administrative hearing. Despite the HOA’s eventual production of the documents and their claim that the matter was "resolved," the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) delivered a $500 lesson in the importance of deadlines. This case proves that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) is a viable, high-leverage forum for individual owners to level the playing field against well-funded boards.

2. Your Right to Audit the Paper Trail: Understanding A.R.S. § 33-1805

Arizona law provides homeowners with a clear, non-negotiable right to inspect the financial records of their association. Whether it is through state statute or the community’s own governing documents, the "10-day rule" is the gold standard for transparency.

The following table outlines the balance of power established under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) and CC&R § 4.8:

HOA Obligations (The Mandate)	Member Rights (The Leverage)
Must maintain true and correct records of account using generally accepted accounting principles.	The right to inspect all financial and other records upon request.
Must provide reasonable detail regarding all expenses incurred and funds accumulated.	The right to designate a representative in writing to review materials.
Must fulfill requests or provide copies within ten business days.	The right to obtain copies for a fee of no more than $0.15 per page.
Must make records available during normal business hours.	The right to review records without being charged for the association’s time.

The ten business day deadline is the most critical component. In the eyes of the law, "eventually" is a violation.

3. Case Study: Evasion and the "Day-After" Invoice

The dispute at The Ridge at Diamante del Lago began on August 1, 2018, when Ms. Curtin sought the identity of the contractor responsible for a $1,000 wall project. The ensuing timeline illustrates a pattern of "evasive" communication that frequently plagues HOA-member relations:

August – September 2018: The Community Manager initially claimed she did not know the contractor, then provided only a first name ("Roberto"), and finally claimed she could not obtain his phone number, directing the homeowner to the Board Treasurer instead.
September 12, 2018: Ms. Curtin sent a formal written request for the invoice.
September 24, 2018: The Manager claimed she did not have the records because they were kept "in the community" rather than at her office.
The Date Discrepancy: When a payment report was finally provided, Ms. Curtin noticed a glaring red flag: the check to the contractor was dated November 1, 2017, but the invoice was dated November 2, 2017.

This "day-after" invoice fueled the Petitioner’s suspicion of forgery and mismanagement. Seeking clarity, she petitioned the ADRE for:

The original contractor invoice.
A copy of the cancelled check (front and back).
The contractor’s contact info, license number, and insurance details.

4. The Administrative Ruling: The Myth of the "Resolved" Dispute

When the HOA finally produced the documents in December 2018—well past the deadline—they argued the case should be dismissed because the issue was "resolved." The Administrative Law Judge disagreed, focusing on the procedural violation of the 10-day rule.

The Failed "Non-Profit" Defense

In a notable attempt to evade the statute, the HOA argued that Title 33 did not apply to them because they were a non-profit organization. The ALJ flatly rejected this, confirming that the Department of Real Estate has clear jurisdiction over such disputes. HOAs cannot hide behind their corporate status to circumvent state transparency laws.

Findings of Law

The Judge’s logic in Conclusions of Law #6 and #7 was surgical:

Timing is Everything: While the HOA did provide the documents eventually, their failure to do so within the ten business day window starting from the September 12 request constituted a legal violation.
Narrow Scope: The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner’s claims regarding contractor licensing and forgery, noting the ADRE’s role is strictly to enforce HOA statutes, not to adjudicate Registrar of Contractors issues. However, the procedural victory remained.

5. Financial and Legal Consequences

The ADRE, through the Office of Administrative Hearings, serves as an essential forum for homeowners who are being stonewalled by their boards.

The Recommended Order was a definitive win for homeowner rights:

The Petitioner’s request was granted due to the statutory violation.
The Respondent (the HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500.00 filing fee.

This fee-shifting mechanism is vital. It ensures that when an HOA forces a member to file a petition just to see a basic receipt, the HOA—and by extension, the community’s budget—bears the cost of that recalcitrance.

6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards

For Homeowners: Protecting Your Rights

Start the Clock: Always submit record requests in writing (email and certified mail) to establish the exact start date of the 10-day window.
Be Granular: Specifically request "the invoice and cancelled check (front and back)" rather than general "information."
Leverage the Discrepancies: If dates don't align (like the Nov 1 vs. Nov 2 issue), document it. Even if the Judge cannot rule on "forgery," these facts prove your request was reasonable and necessary.

For HOA Boards & Managers: Avoiding the $500 Penalty

The "Knowledge of Agent" Rule: Boards are legally responsible for their managers. A manager claiming "I don't have the records in my office" is not a valid legal excuse.
Location Does Not Pause the Clock: Storing records "in the community" or at a Treasurer’s house does not exempt the Board from the 10-day deadline.
Stop the Evasion: Providing only a first name or claiming a lack of contact info for a paid contractor is seen by the court as evasive. If you paid a vendor $1,000 of the members' money, you must produce the paper trail immediately.

7. Conclusion: Building a Better Community

Transparency is the bedrock of a healthy association. As the Administrative Law Judge noted, the ultimate goal is for members and boards to move past "concerns and suspicions to cooperatively build a better community."

However, that cooperation can only exist when boards recognize that transparency is not a choice—it is a legal mandate. For Arizona HOAs, the lesson is clear: respect the 10-day rule, or be prepared to pay the price for your delay.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Linda Curtin (petitioner)
Also referred to as 'Complainant'; testified on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Tracy Schofield (community manager)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
Appeared for Respondent and testified as Community Manager
Jim Mackiewicz (board member)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association
Board Treasurer
Mitch Kellogg (statutory agent)
The Ridge at Diamante del Lago Homeowners Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Diane Mihalsky (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Gualberto Castro (contractor)
Gualberto Stucco & Repairs
Contractor involved in the disputed work
Felicia Del Sol (administrative staff)
Transmitted decision electronically

Brad W. Stevens vs. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Posted on March 1, 2019 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	18F-H1818029-REL-RHG, 18F-H1818045-REL, 18F-H1818054-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2018-10-18
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge ruled partially in favor of Petitioner Warren R. Brown, finding that Mogollon Airpark, Inc. violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,. The ALJ ruled against both Petitioners (Brown and Stevens) regarding the challenge to the $325 assessment increase, dismissing those petitions because they failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A),,,.
Filing Fees Refunded	$1,500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Warren R. Brown	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mogollon Airpark, Inc.	Counsel	Gregory A. Stein, Esq.; Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge ruled partially in favor of Petitioner Warren R. Brown, finding that Mogollon Airpark, Inc. violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) by imposing a $25 late payment fee, and ordered the fee rescinded and the $500 filing fee refunded,,,. The ALJ ruled against both Petitioners (Brown and Stevens) regarding the challenge to the $325 assessment increase, dismissing those petitions because they failed to prove the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A),,,.

Why this result: Petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined $325 assessment increase violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) because their definition of 'regular assessment' as encompassing all assessments enacted through proper procedures was not supported by statutory construction principles,.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to assessment increase exceeding 20% limit (Brown Docket 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG)

Petitioner Brown alleged the combined $325 increase, consisting of a $116 regular increase and a $209 special assessment, violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) because 'regular assessment' refers to the creation process, making the total increase subject to the 20% cap,,,,.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent Mogollon Airpark, Inc. deemed the prevailing party in the 029 matter,,,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Challenge to assessment increase exceeding 20% limit (Stevens Docket 18F-H1818054-REL)

Petitioner Stevens alleged the total $325 assessment increase violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(A) and raised accompanying allegations of deceptive accounting and lack of authority to impose special assessments,,.

Orders: Petition dismissed. Respondent deemed the prevailing party in the 054 matter,,,,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Challenge to late payment charges (Brown Docket 18F-H1818045-REL)

Petitioner Brown alleged that the $25 late fee and 18% interest charged by Mogollon violated the statutory limits set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1803(A),,. The ALJ found the $25 late charge violated the statute because the limit applies to all 'assessments',.

Orders: Petitioner Warren R. Brown deemed the prevailing party. Mogollon Airpark Inc. must rescind the $25 late fee and pay Mr. Brown his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days,.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA assessment cap, Late fee violation, Statutory construction, Regular assessment definition, Special assessment, Filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Ass’n #1, Inc., 241 Ariz. 1, 382 P.3d 1216 (2016 App.)
Deer Valley, v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)
U.S. Parking Sys v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33, 34 (App. 1989)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 692388.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:31 (102.8 KB)

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 666285.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:35 (151.9 KB)

18F-H1818054-REL-RHG Decision – 672623.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:14:39 (144.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Brown and Stevens vs. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions from a consolidated administrative law case involving petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens against their homeowners’ association (HOA), Mogollon Airpark, Inc. The central dispute concerned a 2018 assessment increase of $325, which represented a 39.4% increase over the previous year, and the imposition of a new $25 late fee.

The petitioners argued that the entire assessment increase violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1803(A), which limits annual regular assessment increases to 20%. They contended that the term “regular” describes the procedural enactment of an assessment, making the entire 325increaseasingleregularassessment.Conversely,theHOAassertedthatithadbifurcatedtheincreaseintoacompliant14.1116) regular assessment increase and a separate $209 special assessment, which is not subject to the 20% statutory cap.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately sided with Mogollon Airpark on the assessment increase, dismissing the petitions of both Mr. Brown and Mr. Stevens. The ALJ’s rationale, based on principles of statutory construction, was that “regular assessment” refers to a type of assessment, distinct from a “special assessment,” and that to rule otherwise would render the word “regular” meaningless in the statute. A subsequent rehearing requested by Mr. Stevens was also denied on the same grounds.

However, the ALJ ruled in favor of Mr. Brown on the matter of the late fee. The decision found that the statutory limit on late fees applies to all “assessments,” not just regular ones, making the HOA’s $25 fee a clear violation. Underlying the legal challenges were substantial allegations by the petitioners of deceptive accounting and financial mismanagement by the HOA to create a “fabricated shortfall,” though the ALJ noted these issues were outside the narrow scope of the administrative hearing and better suited for civil court.

Case Overview and Parties Involved

This matter consolidates three separate petitions filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which were heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

• Petitioners:

◦ Warren R. Brown (Docket Nos. 18F-H1818029-REL-RHG & 18F-H1818045-REL)

◦ Brad W. Stevens (Docket No. 18F-H1818054-REL)

• Respondent:

◦ Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

• Venue and Adjudication:

◦ Tribunal: Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona

◦ Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden

◦ Hearing Date (Consolidated Matters): September 28, 2018

◦ Rehearing Date (Stevens Matter): February 11, 2019

Key Financial Figures

Amount/Rate

Calculation/Note

Previous Year’s Assessment (2017)

The baseline for calculating the increase percentage.

Total 2018 Assessment Increase

The total amount disputed by the petitioners.

Total Increase Percentage

($325 / $825)

“Regular Assessment” Increase

As classified by Mogollon Airpark, Inc. (14.1% increase).

“Special Assessment”

As classified by Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

New Late Fee

Challenged as exceeding statutory limits.

New Interest Rate

For past-due accounts.

Statutory Late Fee Limit

Greater of $15 or 10%

Per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A).

Statutory Assessment Increase Limit

20% over prior year

Per ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A), applies to regular assessments.

Analysis of Core Legal Disputes

The hearings focused on two primary violations of Arizona statute alleged by the petitioners.

The 2018 Assessment Increase (39.4%)

The crux of the case in dockets 029 and 054 was the interpretation of the term “regular assessment” within ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803(A).

• Petitioners’ Position (Brown & Stevens):

◦ The total $325 increase, constituting a 39.4% hike, is a clear violation of the 20% statutory cap.

◦ The term “regular assessment” as used in the statute refers to the process by which an assessment is created (i.e., by motion, second, and vote). As the entire $325 was passed via this standard procedure, it constitutes a single regular assessment.

◦ They further argued that Mogollon Airpark, Inc.’s governing documents (Bylaws and CC&Rs) do not provide any explicit authority to impose “special assessments,” meaning any assessment levied must be a regular one.

• Respondent’s Position (Mogollon Airpark, Inc.):

◦ The assessment was properly bifurcated into two distinct parts: a $116 increase to the regular assessment (a 14.1% increase, well within the 20% limit) and a $209 special assessment.

◦ “Regular assessment” and “special assessment” are established terms of art in the HOA industry, denoting different types of assessments, not the process of their creation.

◦ The existence of both terms in other parts of Arizona law, such as § 33-1806, demonstrates the legislature’s intent to treat them as separate categories.

Late Fees and Interest Charges

In docket 045, Mr. Brown challenged the legality of the newly instituted penalties for late payments.

• Petitioner’s Position (Brown):

◦ The statute explicitly limits late fees to “the greater of fifteen dollars or ten percent of the amount of the unpaid assessment.”

◦ The HOA’s imposition of a flat $25 late fee is a direct violation of this provision. An invoice provided as evidence showed Mr. Brown was charged this $25 fee plus $1.57 in interest.

• Respondent’s Position (Mogollon Airpark, Inc.):

◦ The HOA argued that the statutory limitation on late fees applied only to regular assessments, not to special assessments. This argument was explicitly rejected by the ALJ.

Underlying Allegations of Financial Misconduct

While the administrative hearings were limited to the specific statutory violations, the petitions were motivated by deep-seated concerns over the HOA’s financial management. These allegations were not adjudicated but were noted by the ALJ.

• Core Allegation: The petitioners claimed the HOA treasurer and others engaged in “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods” to manufacture a financial crisis and justify the assessment increase.

• Specific Claims:

◦ Mr. Brown alleged that the accounting was “deliberately misleading” to obscure the fact that the 2016 board left the treasury approximately “$200,000 better off.”

◦ Mr. Stevens submitted a 45-page petition with over 600 pages of exhibits detailing the alleged improprieties, including “keeping two sets of books,” to create a “fabricated shortfall.” He testified that he believed the HOA possessed over $1 million and did not need an increase.

• Judicial Comment: The ALJ noted that these complex financial allegations were not addressed in the hearing and suggested that “the civil courts may be better suited than an administrative tribunal to address the issues they raise.”

Judicial Decisions and Rationale

The ALJ issued separate findings and orders for each docket, culminating in a split decision. The rulings on the assessment increase were further solidified in a subsequent rehearing.

Summary of Outcomes

Docket No.

Petitioner

Core Issue

Ruling

Prevailing Party

18F-H1818029-REL-RHG

Warren R. Brown

Assessment Increase

Petition Dismissed

Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

18F-H1818054-REL

Brad W. Stevens

Assessment Increase

Petition Dismissed

Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

18F-H1818045-REL

Warren R. Brown

$25 Late Fee

Violation Found

Warren R. Brown

Rationale for Initial Decision (October 18, 2018)

• On the Assessment Increase: The ALJ found that the petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. The ruling rested on statutory interpretation:

◦ The petitioners’ definition of “regular assessment” as a process was rejected because it would render the word “regular” in the statute “trivial or void,” as all assessments are presumed to follow a regular process.

◦ The only “fair and sensible result” that gives meaning to every word in the statute is to interpret “regular” and “special” as distinct types of assessments.

• On the Late Fees: The ALJ found that Mr. Brown successfully proved a violation.

◦ The statutory text on late fees applies to “assessments” generally, without the qualifier “regular.”

◦ Mogollon’s argument required adding the word “regular” where the legislature did not use it, which violates principles of statutory construction.

◦ Order: Mogollon was ordered to rescind the $25 fee assessed against Mr. Brown and reimburse his $500 filing fee.

Rationale for Rehearing Decision (March 1, 2019)

Mr. Stevens’s request for a rehearing on his dismissed petition was granted but ultimately denied again.

• Mr. Stevens’s Rehearing Arguments: He argued the ALJ erred by not applying a definition of “special assessment” from the case Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona and reasserted that an assessment unauthorized by the HOA’s documents must logically be a regular one.

• ALJ’s Rejection:

◦ The reliance on Northwest Fire District was “misplaced” because that case applies to special taxing districts created under a different state title, not private HOAs.

◦ The argument that an unauthorized special assessment becomes a regular one was deemed “nonsensical.” The ALJ noted, “More reasonably, if Mogollon has no authority to issue a special assessment, any such assessment would be void.”

◦ The core statutory interpretation from the initial hearing was affirmed. The petition was dismissed a final time.

Study Guide: Brown and Stevens v. Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal documents.

1. Identify the petitioners and the respondent in this consolidated legal matter and describe their relationship.

2. What specific financial changes did Mogollon Airpark, Inc. implement in 2018 that led to the legal dispute?

3. What was the central legal argument presented by petitioners Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens regarding the assessment increase?

4. How did Mogollon Airpark, Inc. justify its total assessment increase of $325 in the face of the legal challenge?

5. Explain the Administrative Law Judge’s primary reason for dismissing the petitions concerning the assessment increase (the 029 and 054 matters).

6. What was the specific subject of the petition in the 045 matter, and what was the final ruling in that case?

7. What was the judge’s legal reasoning for finding Mogollon’s $25 late fee to be in violation of the statute?

8. Why did the hearing not address the petitioners’ underlying allegations of deceptive accounting and financial impropriety?

9. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which parties were responsible for meeting it?

10. In the rehearing for the 054 matter, what was Brad Stevens’s argument regarding the definition of “special assessment,” and why did the judge find his reliance on the Northwest Fire District case to be misplaced?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The petitioners were Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens, who were members of the homeowners’ association (HOA). The respondent was Mogollon Airpark, Inc., the HOA itself. The dispute arose from actions taken by the HOA board that the petitioners, as members, believed to be unlawful.

2. In 2018, Mogollon Airpark, Inc. raised its total annual assessment by $325 over the previous year’s $825. Additionally, the HOA instituted a new late payment fee of $25 and began charging 18% interest on past-due accounts.

3. The petitioners’ central argument was that the total $325 assessment increase, representing a 39.4% hike over the prior year, violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A). This statute prohibits an HOA from imposing a “regular assessment” that is more than 20% greater than the previous year’s assessment without member approval.

4. Mogollon Airpark, Inc. argued that the $325 increase was composed of two separate parts: a $116 increase to the “regular assessment” (14.1%) and a $209 “special assessment.” They contended that the 20% statutory limit in section 33-1803(A) applies only to regular assessments, not special assessments, and therefore their actions were lawful.

5. The judge dismissed the petitions based on principles of statutory construction. He concluded that “regular assessment” is a specific type of assessment, distinct from a “special assessment,” and that if “regular” merely referred to the process of passing an assessment (motion, second, vote), the word would be redundant and meaningless in the statute. Since the regular assessment portion of the increase was below the 20% threshold, no violation occurred.

6. The 045 matter, filed by Warren R. Brown, specifically challenged Mogollon’s new $25 late fee and 18% interest charge. The judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brown, deeming him the prevailing party, and ordered Mogollon to rescind the $25 late fee and refund his $500 filing fee.

7. The judge found the $25 late fee violated the statute because the section of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) limiting late charges applies to “assessments” generally, not just “regular assessments.” Unlike the clause on assessment increases, the legislature did not use the limiting word “regular,” so applying that limitation would violate principles of statutory construction.

8. The hearing did not address the allegations of deceptive accounting because the petitions filed by Mr. Brown (029) and Mr. Stevens (054) were “single-issue petitions.” This limited the scope of the hearing strictly to the question of whether Mogollon violated the specific statute, section 33-1803(A). The judge noted that civil courts may be a more suitable venue for the financial allegations.

9. The standard of proof required was a “preponderance of the evidence.” The burden of proof was on the petitioners, Messrs. Brown and Stevens, to prove their respective allegations against the respondent, Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

10. Mr. Stevens argued that the definition of “special assessment” from the case Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona should be applied, which it failed to meet. The judge found this reliance misplaced because that case applies to special taxing districts created under ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 48, and Mogollon Airpark, Inc. is an HOA, not such a taxing district.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-format response. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the competing interpretations of the term “regular assessment” as presented by the petitioners and the respondent. Discuss the Administrative Law Judge’s final interpretation and the principles of statutory construction used to arrive at that conclusion.

2. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision distinguishes between the legality of the assessment increase and the legality of the late fee. Explain the legal reasoning behind this split decision, focusing on the specific wording of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A) and the different statutory construction applied to each clause.

3. Discuss the procedural limitations of the hearings as described in the legal decision, specifically referencing the concept of a “single-issue petition.” How did this limitation affect the scope of the case and prevent the judge from ruling on certain serious allegations made by Brown and Stevens?

4. Based on the “Findings of Fact,” describe the background allegations of financial misconduct made by the petitioners against Mogollon’s treasurer and board. Although not ruled upon, explain how these allegations served as the primary motivation for their legal challenges regarding the assessment and fee increases.

5. Trace the procedural history of the “029 matter,” from its original petition and dismissal to the eventual rehearing and final order. What does this process reveal about the requirements for filing a successful petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, weighs evidence, and makes legal rulings and decisions, in this case, Judge Thomas Shedden.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A)

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute. It limits HOA regular assessment increases to 20% over the prior year and caps late payment charges to the greater of $15 or 10% of the unpaid assessment.

Assessment

A fee or charge levied by a homeowners’ association on its members to cover operating expenses, reserve funds, and other costs.

Bylaws

A set of rules adopted by an organization, like an HOA, to govern its internal management and operations. Part of the governing documents.

Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. These are legal obligations recorded in the deed of a property, governing its use and maintenance. Part of the governing documents.

Consolidated Matter

A legal procedure where multiple separate cases or petitions involving common questions of law or fact are combined into a single hearing to promote efficiency.

Docket Number

A unique number assigned by a court or administrative office to identify a specific case. The matters in this case were identified as 029, 045, and 054.

Governing Documents

The collection of legal documents, including CC&Rs and Bylaws, that establish the rules and authority of a homeowners’ association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action in an administrative or court proceeding. In this case, Warren R. Brown and Brad W. Stevens.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this case. It means the greater weight of the evidence shows that a fact is more likely than not to be true.

Regular Assessment

As interpreted by the ALJ, a specific type of recurring annual assessment for an HOA’s general operating budget, subject to the 20% increase limit in section 33-1803(A).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Mogollon Airpark, Inc.

Single-Issue Petition

A petition that limits the scope of the administrative hearing to a single, specific legal question or alleged violation, as was the case for the 029 and 054 matters.

Special Assessment

As interpreted by the ALJ, a one-time or non-recurring assessment levied for a specific purpose (e.g., replenishing a reserve fund). The ALJ found it is not subject to the 20% annual increase cap that applies to regular assessments.

Statutory Construction

The process and principles used by judges to interpret and apply legislation. The judge used these principles to determine the meaning of “regular” and “assessment” in the statute.

How One Word Let an HOA Raise Dues by 40%—And 4 Surprising Lessons for Every Homeowner

Imagine opening your annual bill from your Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and discovering your dues have skyrocketed by nearly 40% overnight. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s precisely what happened to homeowners in the Mogollon Airpark community in Arizona when their HOA board raised the annual assessment by $325, from $825 to $1,150—a staggering 39.4% increase.

But the homeowners weren’t just angry about the amount; they alleged the increase was justified by a “fabricated shortfall” created through “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods.” At first glance, the hike also seemed legally impossible. Arizona state law, specifically ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1803(A), clearly states that an HOA cannot impose a regular assessment that is more than 20% greater than the previous year’s. So how did the Mogollon Airpark board legally circumvent this cap? The answer, found in the fine print of an administrative law judge’s decision, reveals critical lessons for every homeowner about the power of language, legal strategy, and reading the fine print.

1. The Power of a Name: The “Special Assessment” Loophole

The HOA’s strategy was deceptively simple. Instead of raising the annual assessment by the full $325, the Mogollon Airpark board split the increase into two distinct parts. First, it raised the “regular assessment” by $116. This amounted to a 14.1% increase over the previous year’s $825, keeping it well within the 20% legal limit. The remaining $209 was then levied as a separate fee, which the board classified as a “special assessment.”

When homeowners challenged this, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling was based on a strict reading of the statute: the 20% cap applies only to “regular assessments,” not “special assessments.” By simply calling a portion of the increase a “special assessment,” the HOA legally circumvented the very law designed to protect homeowners from massive, sudden fee hikes.

Lesson 1 for Homeowners: The name of a fee is everything. State-mandated caps on “regular” assessments offer zero protection if your HOA can simply reclassify an increase as a “special” assessment.

2. Every Word Is a Battlefield: “Regular” Doesn’t Mean What You Think

The homeowners, petitioners Warren Brown and Brad Stevens, built their case on a common-sense interpretation of the law. They argued that the term “regular assessment” in the statute referred to the process by which an assessment is created—that is, any fee approved through a regular motion, second, and vote by the board. By this logic, the entire $325 increase was a single “regular assessment” and therefore violated the 20% cap. They also argued that the HOA had no authority under its own governing documents to impose a special assessment in the first place.

The judge, however, rejected this definition. The judge reasoned that lawmakers don’t add words to statutes for no reason. If “regular” simply meant “voted on normally,” the word would be redundant, as all assessments are assumed to be passed this way. To give the word meaning, it must refer to a specific type of assessment. To support this interpretation, the judge pointed to another Arizona statute, 33-1806, which explicitly uses the distinct terms “regular assessments” and “special assessment[s].” This proved that the state legislature intended for them to be entirely different categories of fees, cementing the HOA’s victory on the main issue.

Lesson 2 for Homeowners: Every word in a statute has a purpose. Courts assume lawmakers don’t use words accidentally, and a layperson’s “common-sense” definition of a term can be easily defeated by established principles of legal interpretation.

3. A Small Victory on a Technicality: Why You Should Still Read the Fine Print

While the homeowners lost the battle over the 39.4% dues increase, one petitioner, Mr. Brown, secured a small but significant win on a separate issue: late fees. The Mogollon Airpark board had instituted a new $25 late fee, which Mr. Brown challenged.

Arizona law limits late fees to “the greater of fifteen dollars or ten percent of the amount of the unpaid assessment.” The HOA argued that this limit, like the 20% cap, only applied to regular assessments. This time, the judge disagreed. The judge’s logic was a textbook example of statutory interpretation: when lawmakers include a specific word in one part of a law but omit it from another, courts assume the omission was deliberate. In the section of the law governing late fees, the limit applies to “assessments” in general; the word “regular” is conspicuously absent.

Because the HOA’s $25 fee exceeded the legal limit, the judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brown. The court ordered the HOA to rescind the illegal late fee and, importantly, to reimburse Mr. Brown for his $500 filing fee.

Lesson 3 for Homeowners: The fine print cuts both ways. While one word can create a loophole for an HOA, the absence of that same word elsewhere can be your most powerful weapon.

4. Fighting the Right Battle in the Right Place: The Allegations a Judge Couldn’t Hear

Underlying the dispute over the 20% cap were much more serious allegations. The homeowners’ petitions claimed the HOA board used “deceptive and nonstandard accounting methods,” including keeping “two sets of books,” to create a “fabricated shortfall” and justify the massive fee increase.

Yet, none of these explosive claims were ever addressed during the hearing. The reason was a crucial matter of legal procedure. The homeowners had filed what are known as “single-issue petitions,” which focused narrowly and exclusively on the violation of the 20% assessment cap in statute 33-1803(A). This strategic choice legally prevented the judge from considering the broader allegations of financial mismanagement, regardless of their merit.

In a pointed footnote, the judge highlighted the procedural constraints and suggested the homeowners had chosen the wrong legal venue for their most serious claims:

Considering the nature of Messrs. Brown and Stevens’s allegations, the civil courts may be better suited than an administrative tribunal to address the issues they raise.

Lesson 4 for Homeowners: Your legal strategy is as important as your evidence. Choosing the right claims to file and the right venue to file them in can determine whether a judge is even allowed to hear your most compelling arguments.

Conclusion: Your Most Powerful Tool

The case of Mogollon Airpark is a powerful illustration of how legal battles are won and lost not on broad principles of fairness, but on the precise definitions of individual words. The presence of the word “regular” in one clause of the law cost the homeowners their central fight, allowing the HOA to circumvent the 20% cap. In a stunning contrast, the absence of that very same word in another clause handed them a clear victory on late fees.

This case is a stark reminder of the power hidden in legal definitions and fine print. It leaves every homeowner with a critical question: Do you really know what your governing documents—and the state laws that bind them—truly allow?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Warren R. Brown (petitioner)
Appeared pro se
Brad W. Stevens (petitioner)
Appeared pro se; presented testimony/evidence

Respondent Side

Gregory A. Stein (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Mark K. Sahl (respondent attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Spelled Mark K. Saul in some transmissions

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Felicia Del Sol (clerk/staff)
Transmitting staff