Tag Archives: 2021

Aaron J Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121042-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Aaron J. Gragg Counsel —
Respondent Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. Counsel Curtis Ekmark, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.4(a)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
CC&R 2.4(a)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, or CC&R sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to participate in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with CC&R Article 12.4(a) regarding ADR. The ALJ found that CC&R Article 12.4(a) excluded proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from mandatory arbitration.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)

Fraudulent assessment of violations

Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations without observation. Evidence showed Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Failure to produce documents

Petitioner requested documents establishing design review requirements and enforcement authority. The ALJ found Petitioner’s requests were actually legal questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, not requests for specific documents or records.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Selective Enforcement / Similar Treatment

Petitioner alleged selective enforcement because he was required to provide a photograph to prove compliance. The ALJ found Respondent has required photographic verification from other similarly situated non-compliant homeowners since 2010.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement, Landscaping violation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Selective Enforcement, Document Request
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)
  • CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:34:48 (123.1 KB)

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:23 (123.1 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision Summary: Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121042-REL)

This matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 29, 2021, and October 19, 2021, concerning a Petition filed by Aaron J. Gragg ("Petitioner") alleging four violations by the Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc. ("Respondent").

Key Facts and Background

The core facts revolve around the Petitioner’s failure to complete rear yard landscaping as required by the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) within 120 days of closing escrow in December 2017. Despite multiple plan submissions and approvals between 2018 and 2019, Petitioner did not complete the landscaping. Respondent issued approximately 14 noncompliance notices. In December 2019, and again following Petitioner’s appeal to the Board in March 2021, Respondent requested photographic evidence to verify compliance and close the violation file. Evidence showed that Petitioner’s rear yard was still incomplete in April 2021, and after the initial hearing setting.

Main Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioner alleged four violations:

  1. CC&R 12.4(a) (Alternate Dispute Resolution – ADR): Petitioner alleged Respondent refused to participate in ADR.
  2. A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Fraudulent Assessment): Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations that were not actually observed.
  3. A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Document Production): Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with standards for producing documents.
  4. CC&R 2.4(a) (Similar Treatment/Selective Enforcement): Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced rules by requiring photographic proof of compliance.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on all four issues.

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803 (Observed Violations): The credible evidence established that the landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator; thus, Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1803.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Document Production): Petitioner’s requests were determined not to be requests for specific records, but rather questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, which Petitioner already possessed. Therefore, Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • CC&R 12.4(a) (ADR): The CC&Rs explicitly exclude proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from the mandatory arbitration requirements of Section 12.4. Furthermore, Respondent had not filed suit or requested arbitration against Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R Section 12.4(a).
  • CC&R 2.4(a) (Similar Treatment): Evidence showed that Respondent had requested photographic verification of compliance from other homeowners who were similarly non-compliant with landscape guidelines since at least 2010. The request made to Petitioner was consistent with past actions for similarly situated homeowners. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of CC&R Section 2.4(a).

Final Decision

The ALJ issued an Order denying Petitioner’s Petition on November 1, 2021.

Questions

Question

Can I use a records request to force the HOA to explain their legal authority or justification for fines?

Short Answer

No. A records request must be for existing documents, not a method to pose legal questions to the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that requests asking for 'evidence… supporting justification' or the 'location of explicit CC&Rs' are actually interrogatories (questions) rather than requests for existing records. The HOA is not required to create new documents to answer legal questions under the guise of a records request.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s request was not for documents or records, but rather for answers to legal questions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • legal authority
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA require me to submit photos proving I fixed a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, particularly if there is a history of non-compliance.

Detailed Answer

The decision found it reasonable for an HOA to require a homeowner to submit photographic evidence to close a violation file, especially when the homeowner had failed to comply for an extended period. This requirement does not necessarily constitute unequal treatment.

Alj Quote

Respondent has requested of homeowners that have not been in compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines, to submit photographic evidence when in compliance, in order prove such compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • evidence

Question

Is it discrimination if the HOA asks me for proof of compliance but doesn't ask my neighbors?

Short Answer

Not if you are in a different situation (e.g., non-compliant) than your neighbors.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that homeowners who are not in compliance are not 'similarly situated' to those who completed their obligations on time. Therefore, the HOA can impose different requirements (like submitting photos) on non-compliant owners without violating equal treatment clauses.

Alj Quote

This request is no different than those requests made by Respondent in the past of similarly situated homeowners, i.e., those not in compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • selective enforcement
  • equal treatment

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the HOA violated the law or CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proving their allegations by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, and CC&Rs sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • hearing process
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Does the HOA have to prove they physically saw a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, but testimony regarding routine inspections is sufficient proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner alleged the HOA assessed violations that were not observed. However, the ALJ accepted credible testimony from the Community Standards Administrator that the violations were observed during routine inspections as sufficient proof.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • inspections
  • evidence

Question

Can I sue the HOA for refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) if I didn't try to arbitrate?

Short Answer

No. If you skip the arbitration process required by the CC&Rs, you cannot claim the HOA refused ADR.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed the HOA refused ADR procedures. However, the ALJ found that because the homeowner filed a petition with the Department instead of submitting the dispute to binding arbitration as required by the CC&Rs, the claim was invalid.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, choosing instead to file a Petition with the Department.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 12.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • ADR
  • arbitration
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title
Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I use a records request to force the HOA to explain their legal authority or justification for fines?

Short Answer

No. A records request must be for existing documents, not a method to pose legal questions to the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that requests asking for 'evidence… supporting justification' or the 'location of explicit CC&Rs' are actually interrogatories (questions) rather than requests for existing records. The HOA is not required to create new documents to answer legal questions under the guise of a records request.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s request was not for documents or records, but rather for answers to legal questions.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • legal authority
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA require me to submit photos proving I fixed a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, particularly if there is a history of non-compliance.

Detailed Answer

The decision found it reasonable for an HOA to require a homeowner to submit photographic evidence to close a violation file, especially when the homeowner had failed to comply for an extended period. This requirement does not necessarily constitute unequal treatment.

Alj Quote

Respondent has requested of homeowners that have not been in compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines, to submit photographic evidence when in compliance, in order prove such compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • compliance
  • evidence

Question

Is it discrimination if the HOA asks me for proof of compliance but doesn't ask my neighbors?

Short Answer

Not if you are in a different situation (e.g., non-compliant) than your neighbors.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that homeowners who are not in compliance are not 'similarly situated' to those who completed their obligations on time. Therefore, the HOA can impose different requirements (like submitting photos) on non-compliant owners without violating equal treatment clauses.

Alj Quote

This request is no different than those requests made by Respondent in the past of similarly situated homeowners, i.e., those not in compliance.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • selective enforcement
  • equal treatment

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the HOA violated the law or CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proving their allegations by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, and CC&Rs sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • hearing process
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Question

Does the HOA have to prove they physically saw a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, but testimony regarding routine inspections is sufficient proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner alleged the HOA assessed violations that were not observed. However, the ALJ accepted credible testimony from the Community Standards Administrator that the violations were observed during routine inspections as sufficient proof.

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

  • violations
  • inspections
  • evidence

Question

Can I sue the HOA for refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) if I didn't try to arbitrate?

Short Answer

No. If you skip the arbitration process required by the CC&Rs, you cannot claim the HOA refused ADR.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed the HOA refused ADR procedures. However, the ALJ found that because the homeowner filed a petition with the Department instead of submitting the dispute to binding arbitration as required by the CC&Rs, the claim was invalid.

Alj Quote

Petitioner did not submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, choosing instead to file a Petition with the Department.

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 12.4(a)

Topic Tags

  • ADR
  • arbitration
  • dispute resolution

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title
Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-11-01
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Aaron J. Gragg (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
    Represented Respondent
  • Michelle Haney (community manager)
    Appeared as witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmittal

Richard E Jewell v. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221005-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-25
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Richard E Jewell Counsel —
Respondent Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp. Counsel Nicole Payne and Carlotta L. Turman

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition alleging the HOA violated conflict of interest statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1811) was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof, as the conflict was deemed sufficiently disclosed prior to the board action.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on the alleged violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Board Member Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the statute regarding conflict of interest when the board hired the board president as a paid office assistant and the conflict was not disclosed by the president. The ALJ found that while the president did not disclose the conflict, the conflict was made known by another attendee prior to discussion and action, fulfilling the statutory purpose.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition be dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA governance, Conflict of interest, Statutory interpretation, Board voting
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(c)
  • A.R.S. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
  • Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 1-211(B)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014)

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

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:38:33 (89.3 KB)

22F-H2221005-REL Decision – 920344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:53 (89.3 KB)

This summary pertains to the Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of *Richard E Jewell, Petitioner, vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp., Respondent* (No. 22F-H2221005-REL), heard on October 7, 2021.

Concise Legal Summary

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioner Richard E. Jewell, a homeowner and member of the Respondent, Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp. (an Arizona homeowners association or HOA), alleged that the HOA board violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1811. The central issue was whether the Board of Directors improperly handled a conflict of interest when voting to hire the sitting Board President, George Pavia, as a salaried office assistant.

The Board voted on July 15, 2021, to employ Mr. Pavia for 40 hours a week at a wage of $15.00 per hour. Petitioner asserted that his only issue was that the Board President failed to personally disclose the conflict of interest prior to the action being taken.

Key Legal Points and Arguments

The relevant statute, A.R.S. § 33-1811, stipulates that if a contract or action for compensation benefits a board member, that member "shall declare a conflict of interest" in an open meeting before discussion or action. A contract entered in violation of this section is void and unenforceable.

During the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge reviewed evidence, including a recording of the July meeting. The evidence showed:

  1. At the outset of the virtual meeting, Mr. Pavia indicated he would recuse himself from the discussion.
  2. An individual attending the meeting raised the possibility of a conflict of interest.
  3. The conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.
  4. Mr. Pavia refrained from participating in the vote.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure HOA members are aware of conflicts prior to discussion. Interpreting the statute to achieve a "fair and sensible result", the Judge determined that the conflict was, in fact, made known and discussed prior to action. The statute's requirement was satisfied, as the fact that Mr. Pavia was not the individual who disclosed the conflict did not negate that the conflict was discussed at length and known to those voting.

Outcome

At the conclusion of the Petitioner’s presentation of evidence, Respondent moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The motion was granted.

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent acted in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1811. The Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can an HOA board member also be a paid employee of the association?

Short Answer

Yes, provided the conflict of interest is properly declared.

Detailed Answer

A board member can be hired for compensation, but they must declare the conflict of interest in an open meeting before the board discusses or acts on the issue. In this case, the Board President was hired as an office assistant.

Alj Quote

If any contract, decision or other action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the board of directors would benefit any member of the board of directors . . . , that member of the board of directors shall declare a conflict of interest for that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • board compensation
  • hiring

Question

Does a conflicted board member have to personally announce their own conflict of interest?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, as long as the members are made aware of the conflict.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the purpose of the law is to ensure members are aware of conflicts. If the conflict is discussed and known to attendees, it does not matter if the specific board member was not the one to voice the disclosure.

Alj Quote

The purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure that the members of a homeowners association are aware of all conflicts of interest prior to any discussion… not to require that a specific board member announce to those members that such a conflict of interest exists.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • procedural requirements
  • meetings

Question

Can a board member vote on a contract that benefits them financially?

Short Answer

Yes, after declaring the conflict.

Detailed Answer

State law allows a board member to vote on an issue benefiting them, provided they have declared the conflict in an open meeting before discussion or action is taken.

Alj Quote

The member shall declare the conflict in an open meeting of the board before the board discusses or takes action on that issue and that member may then vote on that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • voting rights
  • conflict of interest
  • board powers

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) is responsible for proving their claim. They must show that their version of events is more likely true than not (the greater weight of the evidence).

Alj Quote

At an administrative hearing, the party asserting a claim, right, entitlement, or affirmative defense has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • administrative hearing

Question

Which specific law covers conflict of interest for HOAs (Planned Communities) versus Condominiums?

Short Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 for HOAs; A.R.S. § 33-1243 for Condominiums.

Detailed Answer

It is important to cite the correct statute based on the type of community. The petitioner initially cited the condo statute (§ 33-1243) but had to correct it to the planned community statute (§ 33-1811).

Alj Quote

Petitioner indicated that he erroneously cited to A.R.S. § 33-1243(C) in his petition as that statute relates to condominium associations rather than homeowner associations. Rather, Petitioner should have referenced A.R.S. § 33-1811…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • statutes
  • jurisdiction
  • legal definitions

Question

Is a contract void if the technical requirements of declaring a conflict weren't perfectly followed?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the conflict was known and discussed.

Detailed Answer

Statutes are interpreted to produce sensible results. If the conflict was discussed at length and everyone was aware, a technical failure (like the wrong person announcing it) may not constitute a violation.

Alj Quote

The fact that Mr. Pavia was not the board member to disclose the conflict does not negate that the conflict was made known prior to any discussion and that the conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.

Legal Basis

Case Law (Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission)

Topic Tags

  • contract validity
  • statutory interpretation
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title
Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date
2021-10-25
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can an HOA board member also be a paid employee of the association?

Short Answer

Yes, provided the conflict of interest is properly declared.

Detailed Answer

A board member can be hired for compensation, but they must declare the conflict of interest in an open meeting before the board discusses or acts on the issue. In this case, the Board President was hired as an office assistant.

Alj Quote

If any contract, decision or other action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the board of directors would benefit any member of the board of directors . . . , that member of the board of directors shall declare a conflict of interest for that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • board compensation
  • hiring

Question

Does a conflicted board member have to personally announce their own conflict of interest?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, as long as the members are made aware of the conflict.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the purpose of the law is to ensure members are aware of conflicts. If the conflict is discussed and known to attendees, it does not matter if the specific board member was not the one to voice the disclosure.

Alj Quote

The purpose of A.R.S. § 33-1811 is to ensure that the members of a homeowners association are aware of all conflicts of interest prior to any discussion… not to require that a specific board member announce to those members that such a conflict of interest exists.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflict of interest
  • procedural requirements
  • meetings

Question

Can a board member vote on a contract that benefits them financially?

Short Answer

Yes, after declaring the conflict.

Detailed Answer

State law allows a board member to vote on an issue benefiting them, provided they have declared the conflict in an open meeting before discussion or action is taken.

Alj Quote

The member shall declare the conflict in an open meeting of the board before the board discusses or takes action on that issue and that member may then vote on that issue.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • voting rights
  • conflict of interest
  • board powers

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner filing a complaint against their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) is responsible for proving their claim. They must show that their version of events is more likely true than not (the greater weight of the evidence).

Alj Quote

At an administrative hearing, the party asserting a claim, right, entitlement, or affirmative defense has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • administrative hearing

Question

Which specific law covers conflict of interest for HOAs (Planned Communities) versus Condominiums?

Short Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 for HOAs; A.R.S. § 33-1243 for Condominiums.

Detailed Answer

It is important to cite the correct statute based on the type of community. The petitioner initially cited the condo statute (§ 33-1243) but had to correct it to the planned community statute (§ 33-1811).

Alj Quote

Petitioner indicated that he erroneously cited to A.R.S. § 33-1243(C) in his petition as that statute relates to condominium associations rather than homeowner associations. Rather, Petitioner should have referenced A.R.S. § 33-1811…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • statutes
  • jurisdiction
  • legal definitions

Question

Is a contract void if the technical requirements of declaring a conflict weren't perfectly followed?

Short Answer

Likely not, if the conflict was known and discussed.

Detailed Answer

Statutes are interpreted to produce sensible results. If the conflict was discussed at length and everyone was aware, a technical failure (like the wrong person announcing it) may not constitute a violation.

Alj Quote

The fact that Mr. Pavia was not the board member to disclose the conflict does not negate that the conflict was made known prior to any discussion and that the conflict was discussed at length during the board meeting prior to any vote.

Legal Basis

Case Law (Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission)

Topic Tags

  • contract validity
  • statutory interpretation
  • enforcement

Case

Docket No
22F-H2221005-REL
Case Title
Richard E Jewell vs. Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
Decision Date
2021-10-25
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard E Jewell (petitioner)
    Jewell Company Inc.

Respondent Side

  • Nicole Payne (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Carlotta L. Turman (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • George Pavia (HOA board president/employee)
    Casa Fiesta Townhouses Corp.
    Subject of conflict of interest allegation

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of transmission

Rodney F Kirby v. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-10-12
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Rodney & Patricia Kirby Counsel —
Respondent Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association Counsel Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Kaylee Ivy

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article IV, Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The ALJ granted the Petitioners' petition, finding that the HOA violated CC&Rs Article IV section 4.1.1 by failing its duty to maintain common area landscaping (sissoo trees) in a state that did not cause damage or undue financial/health burden to the Petitioners' property. The HOA was ordered to refund the Petitioners' $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (Respondent) are in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 for failing to remove two (2) trees on community property, at the rear of Petitioners’ retaining wall, which have caused damage to Petitioners’ pool and patio slab.

Petitioners filed a single-issue petition alleging the Association violated CC&Rs Article IV sections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 by refusing to remove two sissoo trees located on community property behind Petitioners’ residence, which caused debris, clogged pool pump, and caused complications with their retaining wall and back patio. The ALJ concluded the Association violated Article IV section 4.1.1 because the trees' condition caused damage and financial/health burden to Petitioners.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is granted. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days. The Respondent is ordered to abide by the specified section of the planned community (Article IV section 4.1.1). No civil penalty shall be imposed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA maintenance duty, CC&R violation, sissoo trees, filing fee refund, common area landscaping, pool damage
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 940829.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:22 (47.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 950132.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:29 (41.0 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:33 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:36 (124.9 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 916848.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:48 (118.5 KB)

21F-H2121049-REL Decision – 917026.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:51 (124.9 KB)

This summary details the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 22, 2021, concerning a dispute between homeowners and their association.

Key Facts and Parties

The Petitioners, Rodney and Patricia Kirby, are property owners and members of the Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association (HOA/Respondent). The Petitioners, who are retired and use their pool daily for exercise, filed a petition alleging the Association violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on the Association's refusal to remove two sissoo trees, approximately 35 feet high, located on Common Area property just behind the Petitioners’ residence.

The Petitioners testified that since around 2017, the trees caused substantial problems: debris, including leaves and small dead animals, fell into their pool, clogging the pump, which had to be replaced multiple times. Furthermore, roots from the trees caused damage to their retaining wall and back patio slab.

Main Issue and Arguments

The core issue was whether the Association was in violation of CC&Rs Article IV, Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1 for failing to remove the two sissoo trees. CC&R Article IV required the Association to maintain and keep in good condition and repair the Common Area, including the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all landscaping and structures situated upon it.

The Respondent (HOA) denied the complaint, arguing that its duty of maintenance was fulfilled through its landscaping contractor, ProQual Landscaping. The HOA contended that it reasonably relied on ProQual's expert advice; ProQual had inspected the trees in April 2021 and advised that removal was unnecessary, instead leaving them on a regular trimming schedule.

The Petitioners argued that the Association’s inadequate maintenance endangered their health and welfare due to the debris and financial burdens incurred from pool and pump repairs and increased cleaning costs. They asserted that the Association had not given their request proper consideration.

Legal Points and Outcome

The OAH determined it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and interpret the CC&Rs, which form an enforceable contract between the Association and property owners. Petitioners bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners sustained their burden of proof. The decision emphasized that the Association's duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line. The evidence established that *but for* the sissoo trees being situated and maintained in their current state, the degree of debris causing damage or harm to Petitioners’ property would not exist.

Final Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Association had violated Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is granted. The Respondent was FURTHER ORDERED to pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days. The OAH clarified that while it lacked statutory authority to grant declaratory or injunctive relief, the decision acts to "Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified".

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the HOA's duty to maintain common areas end strictly at the property line?

Short Answer

No. The HOA is responsible if common area elements (like trees) cause damage to adjacent private property.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the Association's responsibility for maintenance extends beyond the physical boundary if conditions on the common area negatively impact a homeowner's property. In this case, debris from common area trees caused damage to a private pool and patio.

Alj Quote

The Association’s duty to maintain the Common Area does not end at the boundary line of the Common Area.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Article IV

Topic Tags

  • maintenance
  • common_area
  • liability

Question

Can the HOA avoid liability for damage by claiming they relied on a professional landscaping company's advice?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. Even if the HOA pays for regular maintenance and follows vendor advice, they may still be in violation if damage persists.

Detailed Answer

The HOA argued it was not in violation because it relied on its landscaper's (arborist's) recommendation not to remove the trees. The ALJ rejected this, ruling that despite the payments and advice, the damage caused to the homeowner proved a failure to maintain the common area properly under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Despite the Association’s payment to ProQual for regular arbor maintenance, the sissoo trees still caused debris of all kinds to fill Petitioners’ pool and backyard… Petitioners established a violation of Article IV section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs

Legal Basis

Contract Law / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • vendor_reliance
  • negligence
  • defenses

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for providing enough evidence to show that their claim is more likely true than not. It is not based on the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden_of_proof
  • evidence
  • procedure

Question

Can the Administrative Law Judge order the HOA to perform a specific act, like cutting down a tree?

Short Answer

Generally, no. The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to grant injunctive relief.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cannot issue an injunction or declaratory relief (specific orders to do or not do a specific act). Instead, the order generally directs the HOA to 'abide by' the specific section of the community documents, leaving the specific method of compliance somewhat open.

Alj Quote

Because this Tribunal has no statutory authority to grant Petitioners’ declaratory or injunctive relief, this decision is expressly issued to 'Order Respondent to abide by the section of the planned community specified.'

Legal Basis

Statutory Authority

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • injunctive_relief
  • alj_powers

Question

If I win my hearing against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the ALJ ordered the Association to pay the $500.00 filing fee directly to the Petitioners within 30 days.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

What kind of damage is required to prove the HOA failed to maintain the common area?

Short Answer

The homeowner must show actual damage, harm, or financial burden caused by the condition.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that the debris caused a financial burden (cleaning costs, pump replacement) and potential health risks. The mere presence of trees wasn't the issue; it was the specific damage and harm resulting from them.

Alj Quote

The record does reflect that, but for the sissoo trees being situated where they are and in the state they are in, there would not be debris to a degree on Petitioners’ property that caused any amount of damage or harm.

Legal Basis

Evidence of Damages

Topic Tags

  • damages
  • nuisance
  • evidence

Question

Who has the authority to hear disputes between a homeowner and an HOA?

Short Answer

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Detailed Answer

Statutes authorize the Department to receive petitions regarding violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102

Topic Tags

  • jurisdiction
  • adre
  • oah

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121049-REL
Case Title
Rodney & Patricia Kirby vs. Dove Cove Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-10-12
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Rodney Kirby (petitioner)
  • Patricia Kirby (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Kaylee Ivy (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Regis Salazar (witness)

Neutral Parties

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

Daniel B Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121058-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-11
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel B Belt Counsel —
Respondent Beaver Valley Improvement Association Counsel Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order dismissing the Petitioner’s Petition because the Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing on March 10, 2022, and thus failed to meet the burden of proof.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner had previously indicated he would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Petition alleging violation

Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and thus failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the alleged violation.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed because Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and failed to sustain the burden of proof.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, failure_to_appear, dismissal, rehearing, OAH
Additional Citations:

  • 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • R2-19-119(A)
  • R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • 32-2199.02(B)
  • 12-904(A)
  • 41-1092.01
  • 41-1092.07(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936420.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:34 (52.8 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 936523.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:37 (6.7 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 942810.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:41 (53.5 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 954077.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:46 (66.4 KB)

21F-H2121058-REL Decision – 915454.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:49 (133.6 KB)

Briefing Document: Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcomes of the administrative case Daniel B. Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association (No. 21F-H2121058-REL), a dispute adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Daniel B. Belt, alleged that the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (BVIA) violated Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1812(6) by refusing to provide him with unredacted copies of election ballots, a matter he characterized as “voter fraud” and of “life and death” importance.

The case was ultimately dismissed twice. The initial decision on October 5, 2021, dismissed the petition on its merits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to prove a violation, concluding that the HOA’s community documents permitted secret ballots and that state law (A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4)) prohibited the disclosure of the personal voting information requested. Following the petitioner’s request for a rehearing, the case was dismissed a second time on March 11, 2022, after the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof.

A significant theme throughout the proceedings was the petitioner’s conduct. Testimony from the HOA’s accounting services provider, Planned Development Services (PDS), described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” This conduct included a 45-day picket of the PDS office, verbal threats, and behavior that led PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner and ultimately resign its contract with the HOA. After the initial dismissal, the petitioner filed pleadings demanding that the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings act in an “appellate capacity” to “dispense justice,” a request the Director found he had no legal authority to grant. The petitioner also indicated his intent to not participate in the rehearing and to pursue the matter in federal court.

I. Case Overview and Procedural History

The Core Dispute: Access to Election Ballots

On June 8, 2021, Daniel B. Belt filed a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The petition alleged a single violation by the Beaver Valley Improvement Association of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6), a statute governing election materials.

The specific allegation, as articulated in the petition narrative, was that “…PDS refused to give petitioner the ballots containing the names, addresses and signatures, in compliance with ARS 33-1812(6)…”. The petitioner asserted that his petition, which he characterized as addressing “voter fraud,” was a “life and death matter.”

Key Parties

Name/Entity

Representation/Affiliation

Petitioner

Daniel B. Belt

Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent

Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Represented by Ellen B. Davis, Esq.

Witness (Initial Hearing)

Petra Paul

Managing Agent, Planned Development Services (PDS)

Witness (Initial & Final Hearing)

William Campbell

Member, BVIA Board of Directors

Administrative Law Judge

Sondra J. Vanella

Office of Administrative Hearings

Director

Greg Hanchett

Office of Administrative Hearings

Procedural Timeline

• June 8, 2021: Petitioner Daniel B. Belt files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• September 10, 2021: An initial hearing is held before ALJ Sondra J. Vanella.

• October 5, 2021: ALJ Vanella issues a decision dismissing the petition.

• January 4, 2022: A minute entry is issued continuing a scheduled rehearing to March 10, 2022.

• January 14, 2022: Petitioner files a pleading perceived by the Director as a motion for a change of judge.

• January 28, 2022: Petitioner files a subsequent pleading clarifying he is not seeking a change of judge but is demanding the Director review the prior proceeding.

• January 31, 2022: Director Greg Hanchett issues an order stating he lacks the statutory authority to review the case in an “appellate capacity” as requested.

• March 10, 2022: The rehearing convenes. The petitioner fails to appear. Respondent’s counsel moves for dismissal.

• March 11, 2022: ALJ Vanella issues a final decision dismissing the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and sustain his burden of proof.

II. Analysis of the Initial Hearing and Decision

Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

The BVIA’s defense centered on the established practice and legal basis for maintaining voter privacy through secret ballots. Key points included:

• Policy on Secret Ballots: The BVIA Board of Directors approved a “Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure” on July 10, 2004, which explicitly states that ballots will be folded “TO MAINTAIN THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.”

• Reaffirmation of Policy: In a meeting on May 8, 2021, the Board unanimously passed two motions: one to allow members to review ballots without personally identifying information, and a second to “reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections be conducted with a secret ballot.”

• Bylaws Protecting Privacy: The BVIA’s Bylaws (Article VII) explicitly state that “Personal . . . information about an individual Member of the Association” is not subject to inspection by parties other than the Board or its agent.

• Statutory Protection: Respondent argued that A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) prohibits the disclosure of personal records of an individual member, which includes how they voted.

• Constitutional Basis: Board member William Campbell cited Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that “secrecy in voting shall be preserved,” opining that non-secret ballots would have a “chilling effect” on member participation.

• Accommodations Offered: The petitioner was offered the opportunity to review the un-redacted ballots in person (but not take copies) and was provided with redacted copies of the ballots. He refused both offers.

Key Witness Testimony

Petra Paul, Managing Agent for PDS, testified that her company’s contract with BVIA was for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing ballots, collecting returns, and verifying a quorum.

Ms. Paul’s testimony detailed the petitioner’s conduct:

• Escalating Demands: The petitioner demanded ballots before the election (which was denied) and demanded un-redacted copies the Monday after the election.

• Harassment and Intimidation: Ms. Paul described the petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” She testified that his actions grew increasingly agitated, that he refused to leave PDS’s premises, and that PDS staff was intimidated and concerned for their personal safety.

• Workplace Injunction: The petitioner’s behavior, which impacted PDS’s business operations, culminated in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against him. This came after he spent 45 days picketing outside the PDS office with a large sign that stated, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.”

• Threats: The injunction noted threats made by the petitioner against PDS employees, including, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.”

• Contract Resignation: Due to the petitioner’s “abusive and erratic” interactions, PDS resigned its contract with the BVIA and demanded its legal fees be paid by the association.

William Campbell testified about the association’s long-standing policy of secret ballots. He acknowledged a procedural deviation—the ballots were folded for secrecy rather than being placed in manila envelopes as stipulated by the 2004 policy—but maintained that secrecy was preserved. Mr. Campbell also testified that multiple opportunities were provided in May, June, and July 2021 for members to view the ballots and confirm their votes were counted, but no one took advantage of the offers in June or July.

ALJ’s Conclusions of Law and Order (October 5, 2021)

ALJ Vanella concluded that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BVIA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6). The decision found that:

1. The credible evidence established that the ballots were intended to be secret pursuant to community documents.

2. The Respondent was precluded by A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) from disclosing the personal voting information demanded by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was offered the chance to review the ballots and was provided redacted copies, both of which he declined. Based on these findings, the petition was ordered dismissed.

III. Rehearing Proceedings and Final Disposition

Petitioner’s Post-Decision Filings

Following the initial dismissal, the petitioner requested a rehearing. In subsequent filings, he created confusion regarding his intentions. A January 14, 2022 filing was perceived as a motion for a change of judge. However, in a January 28, 2022 pleading, the petitioner clarified this was not his intent. Instead, he demanded the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings intervene directly:

“if Director Hanchett declines to make the case, with rationale, that the actions of Petra Paul and ALJ Vanella did not constitute the felony crimes as cited by the Petitioner, and if Director Hanchett declines to dispense justice in this case . . . as outlined by Petitioner, those issues will be decided in federal court.“

He further stated that the Director did not have the right to “pervert Petitioner’s request… for Impartial Justice and Equal Protection of the Laws, into a motion for a Change of Judge.”

Director’s Response

On January 31, 2022, Director Greg Hanchett issued an order rescinding a prior order that required the respondent to reply to the petitioner’s motion. The Director stated that the petitioner was not seeking a change of judge, but rather “seeks to have the Director review the earlier proceeding in some appellate capacity and pass judgment on the propriety of that proceeding.” Director Hanchett concluded that “There is no authority contained in either statute or rule that would permit the Director to undertake such action,” as an administrative agency has only those powers prescribed by law.

The Final Hearing and Dismissal (March 10-11, 2022)

The rehearing was held on March 10, 2022. The petitioner, Daniel Belt, failed to appear, despite having received proper notice at his address of record and email addresses. The hearing transcript notes that the petitioner had previously stated in a January 14 filing that he “would unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

As the petitioner bears the burden of proof, and having failed to appear to present his case, the respondent’s counsel made a motion to dismiss. ALJ Vanella granted the motion. The final order, issued March 11, 2022, dismissed the petition, stating: “Because Petitioner failed to appear, Petitioner failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation by Respondent.” This decision was binding on the parties.

Study Guide for the Case of Belt v. Beaver Valley Improvement Association

Short-Answer Quiz

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

1. Identify the petitioner and respondent in this case and state the petitioner’s central allegation.

2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the petitioner claim the respondent violated, and what does this statute generally require?

3. What was the role of Planned Development Services (PDS) in the respondent’s election process, according to the testimony of Petra Paul?

4. Describe the petitioner’s behavior that prompted PDS to obtain an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment.

5. According to William Campbell, what was the respondent’s long-standing policy regarding elections, and what documents supported this policy?

6. Explain the two offers the respondent and its agent made to the petitioner to allow him to review the election ballots.

7. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final order in the initial decision on October 5, 2021, and what were the two key statutes cited to support this conclusion?

8. After filing for a rehearing, what was the petitioner’s stated intention regarding his participation, and what was the ultimate outcome of the March 10, 2022, hearing?

9. What did the petitioner demand from the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings in January 2022, and how did the Director respond?

10. What evidentiary standard was the petitioner required to meet, and did the judge find that he met this standard in either the initial hearing or the rehearing?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner was Daniel B. Belt, and the respondent was the Beaver Valley Improvement Association (HOA). Belt alleged the HOA violated state law by refusing to provide him with election ballots containing the names, addresses, and signatures of the voters, an act he characterized as “voter fraud.”

2. The petitioner claimed a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1812(6). This statute requires completed ballots to contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but it provides an exception for secret ballots, where this identifying information need only appear on the envelope.

3. Petra Paul testified that PDS was contracted for accounting services only, not HOA management. PDS’s involvement in the election was limited to mailing the annual meeting documents, collecting the returned ballots, and reviewing the number of returns to ensure a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the ballots.

4. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “irrational, mean, and bullying.” He picketed the PDS office for 45 days with a sign calling employees “Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars,” made threats such as “You’ll be sorry,” and refused to leave the premises, causing employees to fear for their personal safety.

5. William Campbell testified that the respondent had a long-standing practice of using a secret ballot. This was supported by a Ballot/Proxy Handling Procedure approved in 2004 and a unanimous Board vote on May 8, 2021, to reaffirm that all Board of Directors elections would be conducted with a secret ballot.

6. First, Petra Paul of PDS offered the petitioner copies of the ballots with personal information such as names and signatures redacted, which he refused. Paul also offered him the opportunity to review the non-redacted ballots in the office but advised him he could not take them with him.

7. The judge ordered that the petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. The judge cited A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6), noting that the community’s documents permitted secret ballots, and A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4), which precludes an HOA from disclosing personal records of its members.

8. In a January 14, 2022, filing, the petitioner stated he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.” Consequently, the petitioner failed to appear at the March 10, 2022, hearing, and the judge dismissed his petition for failure to sustain his burden of proof.

9. The petitioner demanded that the Director, Greg Hanchett, review the previous hearing in an appellate capacity, determine if felony crimes were committed, and “dispense justice.” The Director responded that he had no statutory authority to perform such an appellate review and rescinded his order related to what he had mistakenly perceived as a motion for a change of judge.

10. The petitioner was required to prove his case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In the initial hearing, the judge found he failed to meet this burden because the evidence showed the respondent had not violated the law. In the rehearing, he failed to meet the burden because he did not appear to present any evidence at all.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each prompt, incorporating specific details and legal principles from the provided source documents.

1. Analyze the conflict between a member’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and the protection of individual members’ personal information and voting privacy as outlined in the same statute and the association’s bylaws.

2. Discuss the legal concept of “burden of proof” as it applied to the petitioner in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing. How did the petitioner’s actions (and inaction) directly lead to the dismissal of his case on two separate occasions?

3. Evaluate the actions of the Beaver Valley Improvement Association and its agent, PDS, in response to the petitioner’s demands for election materials. Did their responses align with their own bylaws, state law, and established procedures as presented in the hearings?

4. Trace the petitioner’s escalating behavior as described in the testimony of Petra Paul. How did this behavior impact PDS and ultimately factor into the context of the hearing, even if it was not the direct legal violation being adjudicated?

5. Examine the petitioner’s apparent misunderstanding of the administrative legal process, as evidenced by his filings with Director Greg Hanchett. Contrast what the petitioner demanded of the Director with the actual legal authority vested in the Director’s office according to the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent, impartial judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, Sondra J. Vanella served as the ALJ.

A.R.S. § 33-1805

An Arizona Revised Statute concerning the examination of a homeowners association’s financial and other records. It grants members the right to inspect records but also allows the association to withhold certain information, including personal records of individual members.

A.R.S. § 33-1812(6)

An Arizona Revised Statute detailing requirements for ballots used in HOA meetings. It mandates that ballots contain the voter’s name, address, and signature, but creates an exception for secret ballots permitted by community documents.

Burden of Proof

The legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim. In this case, the petitioner had the burden to prove the respondent committed the alleged violation.

Bylaws

The official rules and regulations that govern a corporation or association. The respondent’s Bylaws, specifically Article VII, were cited to justify withholding personal member information.

Homeowners Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the HOA in this case.

Injunction Against Workplace Harassment

A court order obtained by an employer to prohibit a person from committing acts of harassment against the business and its employees. PDS obtained one against Daniel B. Belt.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or initiates a legal action. In this case, Daniel B. Belt is the petitioner.

Planned Development Services (PDS)

An HOA management and accounting company. PDS provided accounting-only services to the respondent and was the entity that interacted directly with the petitioner regarding his ballot requests.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means that the trier of fact must be convinced that it is more probably true than not that the contention is correct.

Quorum

The minimum number of members of an association that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. PDS reviewed ballot returns to ensure a quorum was established for the respondent’s election.

Redacted

Edited to remove or obscure confidential or private information. The respondent offered the petitioner redacted copies of the ballots with names, email addresses, and signatures removed.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case to reconsider the issues and evidence, which may be granted upon request after an initial decision. The petitioner was granted a rehearing but failed to appear.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed or an appeal is brought. In this case, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association is the respondent.

Secret Ballot

A voting method in which a voter’s choices are anonymous, preventing intimidation and protecting privacy. The respondent’s bylaws and policies permitted the use of secret ballots for its elections.

An HOA Ballot Dispute, a 45-Day Picket, and 4 Shocking Lessons in Community Conflict

Introduction: When Neighborly Disagreements Go Nuclear

Disputes within Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are common, often revolving around landscaping, dues, or parking violations. But rarely do they escalate into a nearly year-long legal battle involving workplace harassment injunctions and vendor resignations. The story of one homeowner’s quest for election transparency in Arizona serves as a startling case study in how quickly a simple request can spiral out of control, offering crucial lessons for any community association. What began as a demand to see election ballots ended in a dismissed court case, but not before triggering a workplace harassment injunction, forcing its accounting firm to resign, and handing the HOA the bill for its legal fees.

——————————————————————————–

1.A Request for Ballots Can Escalate into a Harassment Injunction

The dispute began when petitioner Daniel B. Belt filed a petition against his HOA, the Beaver Valley Improvement Association. Alleging “voter fraud,” he demanded copies of unredacted election ballots in a conflict he framed as a “life and death matter.” When the HOA denied his request for unredacted copies, Mr. Belt’s tactics escalated from formal petitioning to direct, public confrontation aimed at the HOA’s accounting firm, Planned Development Services (PDS).

He picketed the PDS office for 45 consecutive days, holding a large sign that read, “PDS Embezzlers, Frauds, Liars.” According to court documents, he also allegedly made threats to PDS employees, stating, “You’ll be sorry,” “You’ll regret this,” and “You haven’t seen the end of me.” These actions crossed a critical legal line, resulting in PDS obtaining an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment against the petitioner.

This escalation provides a crucial lesson in community governance. The line between passionate advocacy and unlawful harassment is critical because volunteer boards and their essential vendors are uniquely vulnerable. Tactics involving defamatory signage and direct threats don’t just amplify a grievance; they can cripple an association’s ability to function, turning a dispute over records into an existential threat to its day-to-day management.

Ms. Paul described Petitioner’s behavior as “irrational, mean, and bullying” and that she and other employees were concerned for their personal safety.

——————————————————————————–

2.The “Right to Know” vs. The Right to Privacy and a Secret Ballot

The central conflict pitted one homeowner’s demand for total transparency against the community’s right to privacy. The petitioner insisted on receiving unredacted copies of all completed ballots, which contained the names, addresses, and signatures of every voter.

In response, the HOA did not deny access outright but instead offered a compromise. The petitioner was given the choice to either review the unredacted ballots in person under supervision or accept redacted copies with personal information removed. He refused both options. Notably, the HOA went a step further in its attempt to balance transparency with privacy. Board member William Campbell testified that he “devised a way in which he could match a members’ demographic information to the members’ vote if upon Petitioner’s inspection, something appeared irregular.”

The HOA grounded its refusal in multiple sources of authority, citing its own bylaws protecting member information, a long-standing practice of secret ballots, and, most critically, Arizona state law. A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(4) explicitly permits an association to withhold the personal records of its members. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately agreed, ruling that the HOA acted correctly and that state law sided with protecting member privacy.

Mr. Campbell referenced Article VII, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution which provides that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.”

——————————————————————————–

3.Third Parties Can Become Expensive Collateral Damage

This dispute demonstrates how community conflicts can ensnare and inflict significant damage on essential third-party vendors. The accounting firm, PDS, had a limited, non-managerial role. Its contract was for accounting services only; it facilitated the mailing of election documents, collected the returned ballots, and confirmed a quorum was met. PDS did not conduct the election or tabulate the votes.

Despite this narrow involvement, PDS bore the brunt of the petitioner’s aggressive campaign. The harassment severely impacted its business operations and, according to testimony, created an “abusive and erratic” environment. This led the firm to take two drastic steps: first, obtaining the legal injunction, and second, resigning its contract with the HOA. Critically, the collateral damage had a direct financial cost for the entire community. Court documents reveal that “PDS demanded its legal fees be paid by Respondent [the HOA]” for the costs of securing the harassment injunction.

This outcome reveals the cascading governance failures that result from such conflicts. When a key vendor like an accounting firm resigns under duress, it creates instability, raises the prospect of missed payments or financial errors, and makes it harder to secure a new vendor, who may now view the HOA as a high-risk client—with any increased costs ultimately passed on to all homeowners.

——————————————————————————–

4.You Can’t Win a Legal Battle You Refuse to Fight

In a final, counter-intuitive act, the petitioner successfully filed for a rehearing after losing his initial case, earning a second chance to argue his claims. His actions leading up to the new hearing, however, signaled a preference for performative conflict over substantive legal engagement. He attempted to have the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings review the case in an “appellate capacity,” a power the Director confirmed he did not possess, and threatened to escalate the matter to federal court.

Then came the final twist. After securing the rehearing, the petitioner submitted a filing stating he would “unequivocally not participate in the hearing.”

True to his word, on the day of the hearing—March 10, 2022—the petitioner failed to appear. As the party bringing the complaint, he carried the burden of proof. His absence meant the judge had no evidence to consider and was compelled to dismiss the case. This chapter serves as a stark lesson in strategic failure. After doing the difficult work of securing a second hearing, the petitioner abandoned the field. The legal system, for all its complexities, responds to procedure and participation, not to external threats or pronouncements. Passionate conviction is powerless if you refuse to show up and fight the battle you initiated.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Advocacy and Anarchy

The arc of this conflict—from a simple request for ballots to a multi-stage legal dispute that ended not with a bang, but a whimper—is a cautionary tale. It illustrates how a homeowner’s campaign for transparency, when pursued without regard for legal boundaries or civil discourse, can backfire completely. It left a vendor harassed, forced the community to pay its agent’s legal fees, and ultimately left the original issue unresolved. This case leaves all community leaders and members with a critical question: How can we foster a culture that balances the legitimate need for transparency with the equally important need for member privacy and basic civility?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel B. Belt (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Ellen B. Davis (HOA attorney)
    HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC
  • William Campbell (board member/witness)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Vice President of the Board
  • Mexal (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as President in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Sarah Linkey (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Treasurer in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes
  • Hallett (board member)
    Beaver Valley Improvement Association
    Identified as Director in May 8, 2021 Meeting Minutes

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on initial decision transmission
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
    Listed on subsequent transmissions
  • Greg Hanchett (Director)
    OAH/ADRE
    Issued order regarding Petitioner's filing
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents
  • Miranda A. (administrative staff)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted documents

Other Participants

  • Petra Paul (managing agent/witness)
    Planned Development Services (PDS)
    Testified regarding PDS's role with Respondent's election
  • Lori Rutledge (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list
  • Brandee Abraham (unknown)
    Listed on transmission list

Steven Kramer vs. Camelback House, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, Camelback House, Inc., violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) by failing to properly and timely respond to the Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation. Petitioner Steven Kramer was deemed the prevailing party and was awarded the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven Kramer Counsel —
Respondent Camelback House, Inc. Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, Camelback House, Inc., violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) by failing to properly and timely respond to the Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation. Petitioner Steven Kramer was deemed the prevailing party and was awarded the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to properly respond to Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation

The Respondent violated the statute by failing to provide a timely written response to the unit owner (Petitioner) within ten business days of receiving the unit owner's response to a Notice of Violation. The Tribunal also concluded that the original Notice of Violation failed to sufficiently identify the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, as required by the statute.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the filing fees of $500.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA violation response time, notice of violation requirements, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121063-REL Decision – 913417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:37:31 (113.9 KB)

21F-H2121063-REL Decision – 913417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:39:01 (113.9 KB)

This summary outlines the administrative hearing decision in the matter of *Steven Kramer v. Camelback House, Inc.*, decided by Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone on September 27, 2021.

Case Summary: Steven Kramer v. Camelback House, Inc.

Key Facts and Background

The Petitioner, Steven Kramer, is a condominium owner and member of the Respondent, Camelback House, Inc. (the Association). The dispute arose after the Petitioner received a Notice of Violation (NOV) on or about July 20, 2020, regarding Pencil Cactus plants located at his unit. The Petitioner timely submitted a response to the NOV on August 14, 2020. Following this response, the Petitioner failed to hear anything further from the Association for approximately eight months, until the matter was noted for discussion at an April 2021 Board meeting.

Main Issue and Legal Arguments

The central issue was whether the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) by failing to properly respond to the unit owner's response to the Notice of Violation. The Association argued it was excused from compliance with the statute because the initial NOV met all statutory requirements.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) mandates that, within ten business days after receiving the unit owner's response, the association must respond with a written explanation providing specific details, *unless* those details (including the provision violated, the date observed, the process to contest, and crucially, the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation) were already provided in the original notice.

Legal Analysis and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner sustained the burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

  1. Interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1242(C): The Tribunal rejected the Association’s primary defense. The ALJ concluded that the "unless previously provided" clause in the statute only excuses the inclusion of the detailed information (items 1-4), but it does not excuse the core requirement for the Association to send a written response to the homeowner within the ten-day statutory window.
  2. Deficiency of the Original Notice (Alternative Finding): Even if the Association’s interpretation of the statute had been correct, the ALJ found the original Notice of Violation was legally deficient because it failed to satisfy requirement number 3: providing the first and last name of the person(s) who observed the violation. Testimony established that the signature on the NOV was "auto-populated" and the notice vaguely referenced observation “[d]uring a recent inspection of the community,” which the ALJ found to be insufficient notice under the statute.

Outcome

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) for failing to properly and timely respond to the Petitioner's submission. The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and was awarded $500.00 in filing fees, which the Respondent was ordered to reimburse within 30 days.

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to respond after I send a written response to a violation notice?

Short Answer

The HOA must respond within 10 business days of receiving your certified mail response.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, if a unit owner responds to a violation notice via certified mail, the association is statutorily required to provide a written explanation within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Within ten business days after receipt of the certified mail containing the response from the unit owner, the association shall respond to the unit owner with a written explanation regarding the notice

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Topic Tags

  • timelines
  • violation notices
  • communication

Question

If the HOA's original violation notice was perfect, do they still have to reply to my response?

Short Answer

Yes. Even if the original notice contained all required details, the HOA must still send a response letter.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the statutory phrase 'unless previously provided' only excuses the HOA from repeating specific detailed information (like the date and observer's name) if it was already in the first notice. It does not excuse the HOA from the obligation to send a response letter entirely.

Alj Quote

First, the Tribunal believes that the “unless previously provided in the notice of violation” clause, only excuses the detailed written information, not the letter itself. Thus, the Tribunal believes that the statute requires a written response within 10 days of receiving the homeowner’s response to the notice of violation.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • HOA obligations
  • violation notices

Question

Does the HOA have to tell me the specific name of the person who reported my violation?

Short Answer

Yes. The notice must include the first and last name of the person who observed the violation.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly requires the HOA to provide the first and last name of the observer. A general statement that an item was noted during an inspection is insufficient if it does not identify the specific observer.

Alj Quote

3. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • violation notices
  • observer identity

Question

Is an automated signature on a violation letter enough to identify who saw the violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the letter doesn't explicitly state that the signer was the one who observed the violation, an auto-signature is insufficient.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ found that an auto-populated signature at the bottom of a form letter was not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of identifying the observer, particularly when the text only referred vaguely to a 'recent inspection' without stating who performed it.

Alj Quote

The only time a first and last name is used is in the signature block, which Ms. Smith testified was auto-populated. … This does not state who observed the violation. … The Administrative Law Judge does not find this sufficient notice under the statute.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • violation notices
  • signatures

Question

What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

You may be deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement for your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner proves the HOA violated the statute, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's filing fees (in this case, $500) within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $500.00, and Respondent must reimburse the same within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • prevailing party

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by showing that their contention is more probably true than not. This is based on the weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C). … “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121063-REL
Case Title
Steven Kramer vs. Camelback House, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-09-27
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

How long does my HOA have to respond after I send a written response to a violation notice?

Short Answer

The HOA must respond within 10 business days of receiving your certified mail response.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, if a unit owner responds to a violation notice via certified mail, the association is statutorily required to provide a written explanation within ten business days.

Alj Quote

Within ten business days after receipt of the certified mail containing the response from the unit owner, the association shall respond to the unit owner with a written explanation regarding the notice

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Topic Tags

  • timelines
  • violation notices
  • communication

Question

If the HOA's original violation notice was perfect, do they still have to reply to my response?

Short Answer

Yes. Even if the original notice contained all required details, the HOA must still send a response letter.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that the statutory phrase 'unless previously provided' only excuses the HOA from repeating specific detailed information (like the date and observer's name) if it was already in the first notice. It does not excuse the HOA from the obligation to send a response letter entirely.

Alj Quote

First, the Tribunal believes that the “unless previously provided in the notice of violation” clause, only excuses the detailed written information, not the letter itself. Thus, the Tribunal believes that the statute requires a written response within 10 days of receiving the homeowner’s response to the notice of violation.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Topic Tags

  • legal interpretation
  • HOA obligations
  • violation notices

Question

Does the HOA have to tell me the specific name of the person who reported my violation?

Short Answer

Yes. The notice must include the first and last name of the person who observed the violation.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly requires the HOA to provide the first and last name of the observer. A general statement that an item was noted during an inspection is insufficient if it does not identify the specific observer.

Alj Quote

3. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • due process
  • violation notices
  • observer identity

Question

Is an automated signature on a violation letter enough to identify who saw the violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the letter doesn't explicitly state that the signer was the one who observed the violation, an auto-signature is insufficient.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ found that an auto-populated signature at the bottom of a form letter was not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of identifying the observer, particularly when the text only referred vaguely to a 'recent inspection' without stating who performed it.

Alj Quote

The only time a first and last name is used is in the signature block, which Ms. Smith testified was auto-populated. … This does not state who observed the violation. … The Administrative Law Judge does not find this sufficient notice under the statute.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)(3)

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • violation notices
  • signatures

Question

What happens if I win my hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

You may be deemed the prevailing party and awarded reimbursement for your filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner proves the HOA violated the statute, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner's filing fees (in this case, $500) within a set timeframe.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $500.00, and Respondent must reimburse the same within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • filing fees
  • prevailing party

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by showing that their contention is more probably true than not. This is based on the weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C). … “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • evidence

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121063-REL
Case Title
Steven Kramer vs. Camelback House, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-09-27
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Steven Kramer (petitioner)
    Appeared and testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

  • Emily Cooper (attorney)
    Camelback House, Inc.
  • Laura Smith (witness, community manager)
    Camelback House, Inc.
    Current Community Manager for the Association since February 2021.
  • Rick Williams (community manager)
    Association
    Community Manager for the Association who sent the Notice of Violation in July 2020; signature on the notice was automated.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order.
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order.
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of the transmitted order.

Ronald Borruso v. Sunland Village East Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-21
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Ronald Borruso Counsel —
Respondent Sunland Village East Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq. and Nikolas Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Ronald Borruso, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) regarding the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 concerning meeting procedures and unauthorized board actions.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to carry the burden of proof to show that the alleged violations of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 occurred.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violations regarding member speaking rights at May 27, 2021 meeting and unauthorized board meetings concerning Operations Manager job qualifications

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated open meeting laws by restricting member speaking rights during deliberations at a special meeting on May 27, 2021, and by holding improperly noticed meetings to approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager.

Orders: Ronald Borruso’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $1,500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meetings, Right to Speak, Statute Violation, Burden of Proof, Dismissal, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011)
  • State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121062-REL Decision – 912276.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:53 (114.4 KB)

This summary details the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in the case of Ronald Borruso, Petitioner, vs. Sunland Village East Association, Respondent (No. 21F-H2121062-REL), heard on September 3, 2021. The Petitioner, Ronald Borruso, alleged that the Association violated its Bylaws and specific provisions of ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804.

Key Facts and Legal Standard

The Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction over the matter. The Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Borruso refined his allegations to two main issues, both centering on the violation of association meeting requirements under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A) and (C).

Main Issues and Arguments

Issue 1: Member Participation at the May 27, 2021 Special Meeting

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged that during a special meeting concerning a recall petition, the Board denied members the right to speak at an appropriate time during proceedings, violating § 33-1804(A). He argued the meeting was improperly divided into a "closed" session where members could not offer substantive comments, followed by an "Open Session Q & A" after adjournment.
  • Association's Argument: The Association maintained there was only one meeting, and it was not a violation to restrict members’ comments until after the Board provided its statements. They argued they used the term "closed" inartfully, noting that members were allowed to attend the entire 3-hour meeting, and ample opportunity was provided for comments during the Q & A session (lasting about 90 minutes).
  • Legal Point: ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804(A) permits members to attend and speak at an appropriate time during deliberations, and mandates they speak once after the Board discusses an agenda item but before formal action. The ALJ noted that legally, a "closed" meeting refers to an executive session, which the Board did not conduct.

Issue 2: Unnoticed Meeting to Approve Operations Manager Qualifications

  • Petitioner's Claim: Borruso alleged the Board held un-noticed meetings to write and approve job qualifications for an Operations Manager, violating sections 33-1804(A) and (C). His primary evidence was a former Board President, Ms. Haynie, confirming in a May 6, 2021 meeting that the Board had written and approved the job description.
  • Association's Argument: Current Board members testified credibly that Ms. Haynie was wrong and that the Board had never met or voted on the job description. The description posted was similar to a previous one, and Ms. Haynie had allegedly prepared and posted it without Board approval.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Borruso failed to meet the required standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) on both issues.

  1. Regarding the May 27th Meeting: The Petitioner did not prove a violation of § 33-1804(A). Although the Board was not precise in its terminology, members were allowed to attend the entire meeting, and the evidence showed it was a single meeting where members spoke after the Board's presentation.
  2. Regarding the Job Qualifications: The Petitioner failed to prove that an un-noticed meeting occurred, as the credible testimony indicated that the former President had been mistaken about the Board’s approval. Therefore, there was no violation of sections 33-1804(A) and (C).

The petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can the HOA Board restrict when homeowners are allowed to speak during a meeting?

Short Answer

Yes, the Board is allowed to place reasonable time restrictions on speakers and determine the appropriate time for comments.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited Arizona law stating that while members have a right to speak, the Board may impose reasonable time restrictions. In this case, requiring members to wait until after the Board's presentation to speak was not a violation.

Alj Quote

The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • homeowner rights
  • speaking limits

Question

If the Board calls part of a meeting 'closed', is it automatically an illegal executive session?

Short Answer

No, not if members are still allowed to attend and observe.

Detailed Answer

Even if the Board uses the term 'closed' inartfully to mean 'no comments allowed yet,' it is not an illegal meeting if members are physically permitted to attend. A true 'closed' meeting (executive session) is one members cannot attend.

Alj Quote

Consequently, although the Board referred to the initial part of the meeting as being 'closed' because it would not take members’ comments in that portion of the meeting, it was using that word in a different sense than it is used in section 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) and (C)

Topic Tags

  • meetings
  • executive session
  • definitions

Question

What standard of proof do I need to meet to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You must prove your case by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof. This means showing that the allegations are more likely true than not—having the 'greater weight' of evidence.

Alj Quote

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. § R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • procedure

Question

Is a Board President's verbal admission enough to prove an illegal meeting occurred?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, especially if other testimony contradicts it and there are no records.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a Board President said 'yes' when asked if the Board met to approve a job description. However, the ALJ found this insufficient because other Board members testified credibly that she was wrong and no such meeting took place.

Alj Quote

Although Ms. Haynie did answer 'yes' when asked, Messrs. Thurn and Fretwell provided credible testimony that she was wrong. … Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no violation

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • board meetings
  • testimony

Question

Can I file a single petition for multiple different complaints against my HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, but you must pay the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Detailed Answer

When filing a petition, you must either identify a single issue or pay the Department the fee required for a multi-issue hearing.

Alj Quote

Mr. Borruso that he was required either to identify a single issue for hearing or to pay to the Department the appropriate fee for a multi-issue hearing.

Legal Basis

Administrative Procedure

Topic Tags

  • filing fees
  • procedure
  • petitions

Question

Does the Board have to let me speak before they take a formal vote?

Short Answer

Yes, homeowners must be allowed to speak after discussion but before the vote.

Detailed Answer

The statute explicitly states that a member must be permitted to speak once after the board has discussed a specific item but before formal action is taken.

Alj Quote

[S]hall permit a member or member's designated representative to speak once after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Topic Tags

  • voting
  • meetings
  • homeowner rights

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121062-REL
Case Title
Ronald Borruso vs. Sunland Village East Association
Decision Date
2021-09-21
Alj Name
Thomas Shedden
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Ronald Borruso (petitioner)
  • Thomas Huston (witness)
    Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Nikolas Eicher (respondent attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Mark Thurn (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Current Board President, testified for Respondent
  • Marvin Fretwell (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Testified for Respondent
  • Joyce Haynie (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Former President, subject of recall petition
  • Kim Shallue (board member)
    Sunland Village East Association
    Presided over May 27th meeting

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Recipient of decision transmission

Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko v. Bellvue Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-20
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko Counsel Laurence Stevens, Esq.
Respondent Bellvue Homeowners Association Counsel Jamie B. Palfai, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) and CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition, finding that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Association violated state statute or community documents. The Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) refusal to approve the wall modification request was deemed reasonable because Petitioners failed to provide the supplemental information requested by the ARC.

Why this result: The record did not establish violation(s) of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2 by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to make a reasonably objective determination, nor did they attempt to cure the deficient application.

Key Issues & Findings

Arbitrary and capricious denial of architectural request to move garage-side yard block wall and install a double-wide gate.

Petitioners alleged the Association (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected their request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property, using the same materials as the existing wall, except replacing the single-wide gate with a double-wide gate previously approved by Respondent.

Orders: Petitioners’ petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Request, Block Wall, Architectural Review Committee (ARC), A.R.S. 33-1817
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2
  • 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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121046-REL Decision – 912007.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:35:00 (138.0 KB)

21F-H2121046-REL Decision – 912007.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:39 (138.0 KB)

This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in *Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko vs. Bellvue Homeowners Association* (No. 21F-H2121046-REL), heard on August 30, 2021.

Key Facts and Proceedings

The dispute involved Arthur Fisenko and Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko (Petitioners), property owners in the Bellvue subdivision, and the Bellvue Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) pursuant to Arizona statutes governing disputes between owners and planned community associations.

Petitioners initially filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected landscaping modification requests. By July 30, 2021, the issue concerning the installation of pavers and artificial grass became moot when the Respondent reversed its initial denial.

The main issue for the hearing was whether the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) and/or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2, by denying Petitioners’ request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property. The proposal included using the same materials and replacing an existing single-wide gate with a previously approved double-wide gate.

Key Arguments

  1. Petitioners’ Argument: Petitioners asserted that the Association's denial was arbitrary and capricious, noting that the ARC had approved the paver/artificial grass portion of their request without requiring supplemental information. They argued that their initial Architectural Request Form, filled out without counsel, should have been approved despite any technical omissions.
  2. Respondent’s Argument: The Association contended that the Petitioners' Architectural Request Form was deficient and incomplete because crucial and relevant information was missing. Specifically, after the initial denial in February 2021 (citing concerns over length and neighbor impact), Petitioners were instructed in March 2021 to submit a complete form, a plot plan, elevation plans, and specifications. Respondent argued that because Petitioners failed to provide this specific supplemental information, the ARC was unable to make a reasonably objective determination necessary for approval.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Petitioners bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) (which mandates that architectural approval "shall not unreasonably be withheld") or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The decision rested on the finding that the Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to reasonably evaluate the wall modification request. Furthermore, the record established that Petitioners were specifically advised what supplemental information was required but failed to cure their application deficiencies.

The final decision held that the Respondent’s refusal to grant the Architectural Request was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition was denied.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2121046-REL

1 source

This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.

What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 11:01 AM

1 source

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Select all sources

No emoji found

Loading

21F-H2121046-REL

1 source

This administrative law decision outlines a legal dispute between homeowners Arthur and Viktoriya Fisenko and the Bellvue Homeowners Association regarding property modifications. The petitioners alleged that the association’s Architectural Committee unfairly rejected their request to extend a boundary wall and install a double-wide gate. While the parties resolved disagreements over landscaping materials like artificial grass and pavers before the hearing, the conflict regarding the wall remained. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the Homeowners Association, finding that the residents failed to provide the specific plans and technical data required for approval. Consequently, the court determined the association did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its refusal, leading to the formal denial of the petition.

What was the core legal dispute between the Fisenkos and the HOA?
Why did the Administrative Law Judge ultimately rule against the homeowners?
How do Arizona statutes regulate the architectural approval process for HOAs?

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 11:01 AM

1 source

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Arthur Fisenko (petitioner)
    Testified on behalf of Petitioners
  • Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko (petitioner)
  • Laurence Stevens (petitioner attorney)
    Stevens & Van Cott, PLLC

Respondent Side

  • Jamie Palfai (HOA attorney)
    O’Hagan Meyer LLC
  • Samuel Truett (witness)
    Bellvue Homeowners Association
    Witness for Bellvue Homeowners Association

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121059-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-08
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Jeffrey D Points Counsel —
Respondent Olive 66 Condominium Association Counsel MacKenzie Hill

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part (violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258 regarding documents) and denied in part (no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding open meetings). Respondent was ordered to reimburse $500.00 of the filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 because evidence of improper notice was lacking and the topic discussed in executive session was likely covered by a statutory exemption.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Records

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide certain requested 2021 invoices that were in existence at the time of the request within the statutory 10-day period.

Orders: Respondent must comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward. Petitioner reimbursed $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805

Open Board Meetings

Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248 regarding the March 25, 2021, board meeting, as the issue regarding notice was not established and the topic discussed (Landscaping Bid Review) likely fell under a statutory exemption.

Orders: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium association, document request, open meeting, executive session, invoices, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804
  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:37:01 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:37:11 (117.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909631.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:43 (47.7 KB)

21F-H2121059-REL Decision – 909633.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:48 (117.7 KB)

This decision arises from the administrative hearing in the matter of *Jeffrey D Points v. Olive 66 Condominium Association*. The hearing, held on August 19, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer, addressed allegations that the Olive 66 Condominium Association (Respondent) violated Arizona statutes concerning document availability and open meetings.

Key Facts and Legal Framework

The Respondent is a condominium unit owners’ association located in Phoenix, Arizona. The Petitioner, Jeffrey D. Points, alleged violations, initially citing homeowner association (HOA) statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805). Due to the Respondent’s status, the legal focus shifted to the corresponding condominium statutes: A.R.S. § 33-1248 (meetings) and A.R.S. § 33-1258 (records). Petitioner bore the burden of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Main Issues and Arguments

The dispute centered on two key issues:

  1. Improper Executive Session (A.R.S. § 33-1248): Petitioner challenged the use of a closed session during the March 25, 2021, Board Meeting, specifically regarding the Landscaping Bid Review. The statute allows meetings to be closed for matters relating to the job performance of or specific complaints against an individual employee of a contractor. Respondent’s witness testified that the review addressed specific performance issues with a landscaping company employee.
  2. Failure to Produce Documents (A.R.S. § 33-1258): Petitioner made numerous requests for association records, including invoices and 1099s. The statute requires financial and other non-privileged records to be made reasonably available within ten business days of a request. Petitioner also asserted a right to examine *all* association documents in person at the office. Respondent argued that allowing unlimited in-person review was unduly burdensome due to the need to remove confidential documents and ongoing COVID-19 concerns.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reached the following conclusions of law:

  • Closed Session (A.R.S. § 33-1248): The ALJ found that the Respondent properly considered the landscaping issue in executive session because it fell under the statutory exception concerning the job performance of an individual contractor employee. Petitioner failed to establish that the meeting notice was improper or that the executive session violated A.R.S. § 33-1248.
  • Document Production (A.R.S. § 33-1258): The ALJ rejected Petitioner’s assertion of a right to examine all documents in person. However, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that certain requested 2021 invoices were in existence at the time of the request but were not provided to the Petitioner within the required 10-day statutory period. This failure constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

The Final Decision

The Petitioner’s petition was affirmed in part and denied in part. Although a violation of the document production statute (A.R.S. § 33-1258) was established, the ALJ found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

The Order required the following remedy:

  1. Respondent must reimburse Petitioner $500.00 of the filing fee for the issue on which the Petitioner prevailed.
  2. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward.

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I demand to inspect every single HOA document in person at the management office?

Short Answer

No. While records must be reasonably available, you do not have the right to peruse all documents at will.

Detailed Answer

The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the statute requiring records be 'reasonably available' does not grant an unlimited right to inspect all documents in person. The HOA can withhold certain confidential documents, and sorting through everything to remove them may be considered unduly burdensome.

Alj Quote

Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Inspection Rights

Question

Is it a violation if the HOA fails to provide requested invoices within 10 days?

Short Answer

Yes. If the documents exist and are not provided within the statutory timeframe, it is a violation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found the Association in violation of the law because they acknowledged that requested invoices existed at the time of the request but were not provided to the homeowner.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness acknowledged that certain invoices requested by Petitioner were in existence at the time of the request, but were not provided to Petitioner. Such a failure to provide the documents requested was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Topic Tags

  • Records Request
  • Invoices
  • Timeliness

Question

Can the HOA Board discuss vendor contracts or issues in a closed executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves specific complaints or performance issues regarding an individual employee of the contractor.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that a 'Landscaping Bid Review' was properly held in executive session because the testimony indicated it involved specific performance issues with an employee of the landscaping company.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness asserted that the issue regarding the landscaping bid review was a specific performance issue with an employee of the landscaping company. As that topic falls under the exception listed in A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4), Respondent properly considered the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(4)

Topic Tags

  • Open Meetings
  • Executive Session
  • Vendors

Question

Will the HOA be fined if they are found to have violated records request laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. The ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties.

Detailed Answer

In this case, even though a violation was found regarding the failure to provide invoices, the judge decided that no civil penalty was appropriate based on the facts presented.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Administrative Discretion

Topic Tags

  • Penalties
  • Enforcement

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a dispute with the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner is responsible for providing evidence that outweighs the evidence offered by the HOA. If the homeowner fails to provide sufficient evidence (such as proof of when a meeting agenda was issued), the claim will likely fail.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof

Question

Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if I win?

Short Answer

Yes, typically for the portion of the case on which you prevail.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ordered the Association to reimburse the homeowner $500.00, which represented the filing fee for the specific issue (records request) where the homeowner won.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner their $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • Remedies
  • Fees

Question

What if I suspect the HOA altered a document they sent me?

Short Answer

You must provide proof. Mere assertion is not enough.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner claimed a landscaping contract was altered but provided no evidence. The ALJ ruled that an assertion without merit cannot be the basis for finding a violation.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the landscaping contract was altered in some way is completely without merit and cannot be the basis for a finding that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

Evidence

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Fraud Allegations

Question

Do Open Meeting laws apply to Condominium Associations?

Short Answer

Yes, under A.R.S. § 33-1248.

Detailed Answer

Although the homeowner originally cited the Planned Community statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1804), the hearing proceeded under the correct Condominium statutes (A.R.S. § 33-1248), which contain similar open meeting requirements.

Alj Quote

After discussion, the hearing proceeded with the understanding that the statutes applicable to the instant matter were A.R.S. § 33-1248… and A.R.S. § 33-1258…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Condos vs HOAs

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121059-REL
Case Title
Jeffrey D Points vs. Olive 66 Condominium Association
Decision Date
2021-09-08
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jeffrey D Points (petitioner)
    Appeared on their own behalf

Respondent Side

  • MacKenzie Hill (respondent attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Nathan Tennyson (respondent attorney)
    Represented Olive 66 Condominium Association
  • Cathy Hacker (association manager)
    Olive 66 Condominium Association
    Provided testimony as Association Manager,
  • Musa (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices; referred to as 'Musa', and 'M. Sayegh'
  • Lorinda Brown (individual/contractor)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s and invoices

Neutral Parties

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

Other Participants

  • Tim (individual)
    Mentioned regarding 1099s/invoices; reportedly 'has not done any work on the property',

Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) v. Desert Mountain Master

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121055-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-31
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) Counsel —
Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Esq.

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge vacated the hearing from the docket because the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew.

Why this result: The Petitioner voluntarily withdrew the request for hearing, leading to the matter being vacated from the docket.

Key Issues & Findings

statute

The party requesting the hearing voluntarily withdrew the matter.

Orders: The matter was vacated from the docket of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: respondent_win

Analytics Highlights

Topics: voluntary withdrawal, vacated hearing, continuance granted

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 934279.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:13 (49.2 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 934302.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:18 (8.1 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 942918.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:22 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2121055-REL Decision – 909217.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:36:25 (113.1 KB)

This summary focuses on the procedural history and final administrative disposition of the matter, Case No. 21F-H2121055-REL-RHG, before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Parties

The case involved Petitioner Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) and Respondent Desert Mountain Master Association. The proceedings were conducted under the authority of the OAH, with Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson presiding over the entries.

Hearing Proceedings and Main Issues

The primary procedural actions documented are two Minute Entries concerning the scheduling and eventual removal of the case from the docket.

  1. Granting Continuance (December 22, 2021): The OAH issued a minute entry granting a continuance of the scheduled hearing, noting that good cause appearing. The matter was reset for February 23, 2022, at 9:00 AM. The hearing was scheduled to be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet, though parties retained the option to appear in person at the OAH in Phoenix if they advised the office seven days prior. In-person attendance required adherence to social distancing and masking guidelines.
  1. Vacating Hearing (January 31, 2022): Before the continued hearing date, a subsequent Minute Entry was filed vacating the hearing from the OAH docket.

Outcome and Legal Points

The most significant legal outcome was the termination of the proceedings at the administrative level. The matter was vacated because "The party requesting the hearing has voluntarily withdrawn". This voluntary withdrawal by the petitioner rendered the scheduled hearing unnecessary and led to the closure of the case on the OAH docket.

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide records if I am currently suing them?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA may withhold records if they relate to pending litigation between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is permitted to withhold books and records if the disclosure relates to pending litigation. In this decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA could withhold documents regarding a keyless entry system because it related to an ongoing lawsuit regarding short-term rental restrictions (since the entry system controlled renter access).

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program from Petitioner, due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • pending litigation
  • withholding records

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents. They must prove this by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Section 5.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs, Article III, Section 1 of the Association’s Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence do I need to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You need a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof in these administrative hearings is 'preponderance of the evidence.' This is defined as evidence that makes a contention 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of convincing force.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

How long does the HOA have to respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute mandates that an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me for copies of the records I request?

Short Answer

Yes, they can charge a fee for copies.

Detailed Answer

While the association cannot charge a member for making material available for review, they may charge a fee for providing actual copies of the records. The statute caps this fee.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific types of information can an HOA legally keep private?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged attorney communications, pending litigation records, closed meeting minutes, and personal or employee information.

Detailed Answer

The law lists specific categories of records that do not have to be disclosed. These include attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, personal/health/financial records of members or employees, and records related to employee job performance or complaints.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation… 3. Meeting minutes… of a board meeting that is not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records… 5. Records relating to the job performance…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • exemptions
  • records request

Question

Does a records request have to be directly about the lawsuit to be denied?

Short Answer

Not necessarily directly, but it must 'relate to' the pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner requested records about a security entry system. Even though the lawsuit was about short-term rentals, the ALJ found the records could be withheld because the entry system controlled renter access, making the records related to the litigation.

Alj Quote

The evidence presented at hearing shows that the keyless entry program controls renters’ access to Desert Mountain. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program… due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • pending litigation
  • records request
  • scope of discovery

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121055-REL
Case Title
Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) vs. Desert Mountain Master Association
Decision Date
2021-09-07
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide records if I am currently suing them?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA may withhold records if they relate to pending litigation between the homeowner and the association.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, an association is permitted to withhold books and records if the disclosure relates to pending litigation. In this decision, the ALJ ruled that the HOA could withhold documents regarding a keyless entry system because it related to an ongoing lawsuit regarding short-term rental restrictions (since the entry system controlled renter access).

Alj Quote

Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program from Petitioner, due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • pending litigation
  • withholding records

Question

Who has to prove that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the statutes or governing documents. They must prove this by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated Section 5.10 of the Association’s CC&Rs, Article III, Section 1 of the Association’s Bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1805 by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • legal standards
  • procedure

Question

How much evidence do I need to win a case against my HOA?

Short Answer

You need a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning your claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The standard of proof in these administrative hearings is 'preponderance of the evidence.' This is defined as evidence that makes a contention 'more probably true than not' or carries the greater weight of convincing force.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Arizona Law of Evidence

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • legal standards

Question

How long does the HOA have to respond to my request to inspect records?

Short Answer

The HOA has 10 business days to fulfill a request.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute mandates that an association must make financial and other records reasonably available for examination within ten business days of a request.

Alj Quote

The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • timelines
  • HOA obligations

Question

Can the HOA charge me for copies of the records I request?

Short Answer

Yes, they can charge a fee for copies.

Detailed Answer

While the association cannot charge a member for making material available for review, they may charge a fee for providing actual copies of the records. The statute caps this fee.

Alj Quote

An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • fees
  • HOA obligations

Question

What specific types of information can an HOA legally keep private?

Short Answer

The HOA can withhold privileged attorney communications, pending litigation records, closed meeting minutes, and personal or employee information.

Detailed Answer

The law lists specific categories of records that do not have to be disclosed. These include attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, minutes from executive sessions, personal/health/financial records of members or employees, and records related to employee job performance or complaints.

Alj Quote

Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: 1. Privileged communication… 2. Pending litigation… 3. Meeting minutes… of a board meeting that is not required to be open… 4. Personal, health or financial records… 5. Records relating to the job performance…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)

Topic Tags

  • privacy
  • exemptions
  • records request

Question

Does a records request have to be directly about the lawsuit to be denied?

Short Answer

Not necessarily directly, but it must 'relate to' the pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the homeowner requested records about a security entry system. Even though the lawsuit was about short-term rentals, the ALJ found the records could be withheld because the entry system controlled renter access, making the records related to the litigation.

Alj Quote

The evidence presented at hearing shows that the keyless entry program controls renters’ access to Desert Mountain. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was permitted to withhold documentation and communication related to the keyless entry program… due to pending litigation regarding the CC&Rs amendment that prohibits short-term rentals.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2)

Topic Tags

  • pending litigation
  • records request
  • scope of discovery

Case

Docket No
21F-H2121055-REL
Case Title
Nicole Armsby (NICDON 10663 LLC) vs. Desert Mountain Master Association
Decision Date
2021-09-07
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nicole Armsby (petitioner)
    NICDON 10663 LLC
    Appeared on behalf of herself, also referred to as Nikki,
  • Jon Dessaules (petitioner attorney)
    Armsby's attorney, referred to as 'Dom',
  • Matthew Hoxsie (petitioner attorney)
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
    Associate, Armsby's attorney
  • Jordan (related party)
    Party referenced in communications between counsel regarding conditional approval to speak,

Respondent Side

  • Mark Sahl (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Kevin C. Pollock (Executive Director)
    Desert Mountain Master Association
    Also referred to as community manager
  • Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
    Respondent's attorney, listed as Curtis S. Ekmark in later filing
  • Stephen Prall (witness)
    Desert Mountain Master Association (implied)
    Presented testimony for Respondent
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner as of September 7, 2021
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner as of December 22, 2021
  • c. serrano (administrative clerk)
    OAH/ADRE (transmittal)
    Signed transmittal notices,,

Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120022-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-24
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes Counsel Anthony L. Perez, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Clint G. Goodman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
A.R.S. § 33-1811
Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated any of the cited Arizona Revised Statutes or that the alleged CC&R violation was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10. The Respondent was deemed the prevailing party.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1803(D) and (E), 33-1804(5), or 33-1811, or that the alleged unapproved flood light violation was outside the scope of the cited CC&R provision (Article III, § 3.10).

Key Issues & Findings

The Association violated A.R.S.§ 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to properly respond to the Barnes response to the notice of alleged violation and proceeding with enforcement actions.

Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated these statutes because the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice contained all required information under A.R.S. § 1803(D)(1)-(4), rendering A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) inapplicable.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

The association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) in rendering its decision on the Barnes contest of the notice.

Petitioner failed to establish violation of meeting procedures, as the appeal was discussed in an open session, and the subsequent closed session was justified to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

The alleged violation and resulting penalty imposed are void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.

Petitioner failed to prove violation. A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies only to contracts, decisions, or actions for compensation, and no evidence was presented that the Petitioner's appeal involved such compensation.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

The alleged violation is outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Petitioner failed to prove the violation (installation of an unapproved flood light) was outside the scope of Article III, § 3.10, which requires prior approval for 'other structure[s]'.

Orders: Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • Article IV, 4.6 (CC&Rs)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Architectural Control Committee, CC&R Enforcement, Floodlight, Meeting Procedure, Statutory Compliance
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • Article III, § 3.10 (CC&Rs)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:28 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:31 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T11:31:34 (99.4 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895732.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:00 (39.8 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 895827.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:03 (5.6 KB)

21F-H2120022-REL Decision – 906326.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:06 (99.4 KB)

This summary addresses the legal case heard in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concerning Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes (Petitioner) and Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (Respondent/HOA). The case number was 21F-H2120022-REL, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was Velva Moses-Thompson. Hearings were held on January 26, 2021, March 3, 2021, and July 14, 2021, with the record held open until August 4, 2021.

Key Facts and Dispute Background

The dispute originated when a member of the HOA Board of Directors filed a complaint alleging that Petitioner had installed an unapproved floodlight at the back of their home. On May 27, 2020, the HOA issued a violation notice alleging a violation of Article III, Section 3.10 of the HOA CC&Rs, which requires prior approval of design, location, and materials for structures constructed on the property.

Petitioner requested a hearing regarding the notice. After the parties failed to resolve the issue of "excessive light trespass" following an initial July 9, 2020 open appeal session, the Board held another appeal hearing on July 24, 2020. The Board voted on the appeal in a closed, executive session in order to obtain legal advice. The Board notified the Petitioner that their appeal was denied around August 18, 2020. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) outlining four alleged violations by the HOA.

Main Legal Issues

The OAH hearing focused on four issues set for determination:

  1. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E) by failing to respond properly to the notice contest and proceeding with enforcement.
  2. Whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5) by rendering its decision on the contest in a closed session.
  3. Whether the alleged violation and resulting penalty were void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1811.
  4. Whether the alleged violation (the unapproved floodlight) was outside the scope of the cited CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Key Legal Findings and Decision

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

  • A.R.S. § 33-1803(D) and (E): The ALJ found no violation. The evidence showed the HOA's May 27, 2020 notice of violation provided all the requisite information (including the CC&R provision, observation date, observer name, and contest process) required under A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)(1)-(4). Since the notice was compliant, the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1803(E) were not triggered and did not apply.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(a)(5): The ALJ found no violation. While the Board voted in a closed session, credible testimony demonstrated that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning the decision, which is permissible pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).
  • A.R.S. § 33-1811: The ALJ found no violation. This statute pertains to the validity of actions for compensation (contracts, decisions, etc.) taken by the Board, and no evidence was presented that Petitioner’s appeal involved such an action.
  • Scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10: The ALJ determined the allegation regarding the unapproved floodlight fell within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10. This article governs the construction of structures, including "other structure[s]," requiring prior approval from the Architectural Control Committee.

Outcome

The ALJ concluded that the petition filed by Darryl L. Jacobson-Barnes and Robert Barnes should be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed, and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association is deemed the prevailing party in this matter. The decision was signed on August 24, 2021.

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

What specific information must be included in a violation notice for it to be legally sufficient?

Short Answer

The notice must include the provision violated, the date of observation, the name of the observer, and the process to contest it.

Detailed Answer

An HOA violation notice is considered sufficient if it includes four key pieces of information: the specific community document provision alleged to be violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed it, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice. If these are present, the HOA has met its obligation.

Alj Quote

The weight of the evidence shows that the HOA notified Petitioner of the provision of the community documents that had allegedly been violated, the date the violation was observed, the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, and the process the member must follow to contest the notice through the May 27, 2020 notice.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(D)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • due process
  • HOA procedures

Question

Does the HOA have to send a second 'explanation' letter after I receive a violation notice?

Short Answer

No, not if the original notice already contained all the legally required details.

Detailed Answer

Under Arizona law, the requirement for an HOA to provide a written explanation (often detailed in A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)) is only triggered if the initial violation notice was missing required information. If the initial notice fully satisfied the statutory requirements (provision, date, observer, contest process), the HOA is not required to send further explanation letters before proceeding.

Alj Quote

If a homeowner’s association satisfies the requirements in A.R.S. § 1803(D) (1)-(4) in its notice of violation, A.R.S. § 33-1803 (E) is not triggered and does not apply.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803(E)

Topic Tags

  • violation notices
  • legal requirements

Question

Can the HOA Board go into a closed session to decide on my appeal?

Short Answer

Yes, if the closed session is used to seek legal counsel regarding the decision.

Detailed Answer

While appeals generally involve open discussion, the Board is permitted to adjourn to an executive (closed) session to deliberate if they need to obtain legal advice concerning the decision. This does not violate the open meeting requirement of A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Alj Quote

The preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(5) because Petitioner’s appeal was discussed in an open session. Moreover, the HOA presented credible testimony that the session was closed to allow the HOA to seek legal counsel concerning its decision in Petitioner’s appeal

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • board meetings
  • open meeting law
  • executive session

Question

Do I need architectural approval to install a floodlight?

Short Answer

Yes, floodlights can be considered 'structures' or changes requiring approval under CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

Even if not a building, items like floodlights attached to a home can fall under the scope of CC&R restrictions regarding 'structures' or unapproved changes. The ALJ found that an allegation of an unapproved floodlight falls within the scope of architectural control provisions.

Alj Quote

Respondent alleged that an unapproved flood light was installed at the back of Petitioner’s home. Such allegation falls within the scope of CC&R Article III, § 3.10.

Legal Basis

CC&R Article III, § 3.10

Topic Tags

  • architectural control
  • home improvements
  • lighting

Question

Can I use A.R.S. § 33-1811 to void a penalty if I disagree with the violation?

Short Answer

Generally no, unless the decision involved a conflict of interest or compensation for a board member.

Detailed Answer

A.R.S. § 33-1811 specifically addresses the validity of contracts or decisions involving compensation/conflicts of interest. It is not a catch-all statute to void standard violation penalties where no such compensation or conflict exists.

Alj Quote

A.R.S. § 33-1811 applies to the validity of any contract, decision, or action for compensation taken by or on behalf of the Board. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner’s appeal involved a contract, decision or other action for compensation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1811

Topic Tags

  • conflicts of interest
  • penalties
  • statutory interpretation

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the HOA violated the law by a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Detailed Answer

In these administrative proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner (the homeowner) to provide evidence that carries greater weight or is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA.

Alj Quote

At this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1808.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • hearings
  • burden of proof

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120022-REL
Case Title
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes & Robert Barnes vs. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2021-08-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Darryl Jacobson-Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Darryl Lynn Barnes–Jacobson and Darryl Barnes
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
    Also referred to as Robert A Barnes and Bob Barnes
  • Anthony L. Perez (petitioner attorney)
    Boyes Legal, PC

Respondent Side

  • Clint G. Goodman (respondent attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren Law Group
  • Michelle Mooney (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Filed complaint against Petitioner
  • Jennifer Amundson (property manager)
    VISION Community Management
    Also referred to as Jen Amundson; inspected violation
  • Amanda Stewart (board member)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Board of Directors
    Board President

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (ADRE contact)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    Transmitted July 14, 2021 Order
  • Miranda Alvarez (administrative staff)
    Transmitted August 24, 2021 Order