Tag Archives: 2021

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-02-02
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell, Esq.
Respondent Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association Counsel Samantha Cote, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Homeowners Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 regarding the availability of voting records.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the HOA violated the statute through its NDA request or its method of providing the records (redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes) and failed to prove the records were not made reasonably available within the required statutory time frame.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to comply with voting records request (regarding assessment and cumulative voting records)

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 by requiring an NDA and providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, which prevented Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. Respondent argued it timely provided the totality of the requested information and that the manner of delivery did not violate the statute.

Orders: Petitioners' petition is denied.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • 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. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Governance, Statute Violation, Voting Records, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 881665.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:27 (167.3 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944169.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)

21F-H2120020-REL Decision – 944171.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:22 (184.1 KB)





Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120020-REL


Administrative Law Judge Decision: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG, a dispute between homeowners Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes (“Petitioners”) and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association (“Respondent”). The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805 by its handling of the Petitioners’ request for voting records.

The final order, issued on February 2, 2022, denied the petition. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof that a statutory violation occurred. The decision found that the Association’s method of providing the requested documents—redacted ballots in one stack and unredacted envelopes in another—was a “reasonable” approach that balanced the Petitioners’ right to examination with the Association’s duty to protect member privacy. While acknowledging this methodology was “not ideal,” the ALJ determined it made the totality of the requested information “reasonably available” as required by law and was not a violation. The ruling also established that the Association’s initial request for the Petitioners to sign a non-disclosure agreement did not constitute a statutory violation.

Case Overview

Entity

Details

Case Number

21F-H2120020-REL-RHG

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Administrative Law Judge

Jenna Clark

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes

Respondent

Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association

Central Allegation

Respondent failed to comply with a January 16, 2020, voting records request, violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.

Final Order Date

February 2, 2022

Outcome

Petition Denied.

Chronology of Key Events

• October 4, 2017: The Association’s Board of Directors adopts the “Rule Requiring Secret Ballots” for votes on special assessments.

• October 28, 2019 (approx.): A vote occurs regarding an increase in association dues.

• December 2019: A vote occurs regarding a proposed CC&R amendment to prohibit cumulative voting.

• January 6, 2020: Petitioners submit a written request to view the votes for the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 13, 2020: The Association’s Board votes 8:1 to require Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots, citing member privacy concerns. Petitioners decline to sign the NDA.

• January 16, 2020: Counsel for Petitioners submits a formal written request for all ballots and related documents for both the dues increase vote and the cumulative voting amendment.

• January 30, 2020: The Association’s counsel responds, stating the Association must “balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners” and that the records will be made available for inspection.

• February 7, 2020: Petitioners inspect documents at the office of the Association’s counsel. They are provided with two stacks of documents: redacted ballots and unredacted envelopes. They review the cumulative voting records for approximately 3.5 hours but cannot match specific ballots to specific voter envelopes.

• August 5, 2020: Petitioners issue a new demand for “unredacted ballots” and all related documents. No additional documentation is provided.

• September 22, 2020: Petitioners file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initiating the formal dispute process.

• May 17, 2021: An initial ALJ Decision is issued.

• June 22, 2021: Petitioners file a request for a rehearing on the grounds that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

• July 15, 2021: The rehearing request is granted.

• January 13, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is held before the OAH.

• February 2, 2022: The final ALJ Decision is issued, again denying the Petitioners’ petition.

Central Legal Arguments

The rehearing focused on oral arguments from both parties regarding the interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, which mandates that association records be made “reasonably available” for member examination.

Petitioners’ Position

• Unredacted Records Required: The statute requires the production of unredacted copies of requested documents, and the Association’s failure to provide original, unaltered documents was a violation.

• Methodology Impeded Access: By providing redacted ballots and separate unredacted envelopes, the Respondent prevented the Petitioners from cross-referencing votes with voters. This action meant the documents were not made “reasonably available.”

• NDA Was an Unlawful Barrier: The Association’s demand for an NDA was not supported by any enumerated exception in the statute and constituted an unlawful barrier to accessing records.

• No Expectation of Privacy: Petitioners argued that the ballots were not truly “secret ballots” because some had names or signatures on them, meaning voters “could not have reasonably held an expectation of privacy.”

Respondent’s Position

• Statute is Silent on Method: The statute does not specify how records must be made available, only that they must be. Respondent argued it had complied by providing the “totality of records” requested in a timely fashion.

• Balancing of Duties: The Association devised a method to satisfy its dual obligations: complying with the records request and protecting its members’ privacy and safety. This concern was heightened by complaints from other homeowners about “harassing” behaviors by the Petitioners.

• Information Was Provided: The two sets of documents (redacted ballots, unredacted envelopes) amounted to one complete set of unredacted records, allowing Petitioners to “cross reference and discern the information they sought.”

• NDA Was Reasonable: The NDA was proposed to protect member privacy regarding their secret ballot votes. Respondent argued it was ultimately irrelevant to the case, as the records were provided even after Petitioners declined to sign it.

Administrative Law Judge’s Analysis and Final Order

The ALJ’s decision rested on a direct interpretation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 and a finding that the Petitioners did not meet their evidentiary burden.

Key Rulings and Conclusions of Law

1. Burden of Proof: The Petitioners bore the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Association violated the statute. The ALJ concluded they failed to do so.

2. On the NDA: The Judge explicitly held that “Respondent’s request that Petitioners sign an NDA does not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”

3. On Timeliness: The Association’s response on January 30, 2020, to the January 16, 2020, request was within the 10-business-day statutory deadline (which ended January 31, 2020). The Petitioners did not establish that the documents were unavailable for review prior to the February 7 inspection date.

4. On the Method of Disclosure: This was the central finding. The decision states that the manner in which the documents were provided did not violate the statute. The ALJ found that the record reflected that “Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” Because there was no evidence that the documents were not made “reasonably available,” a violation could not be concluded.

5. Reasonableness of Association’s Actions: The ALJ offered a final assessment of the Association’s methodology: “While Respondent’s methodology of document delivery to Petitioners may have not been ideal, under the totality of underlying circumstances the decision reasonable and within the requirements of the applicable statute(s).”

Final Order

Based on the finding that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof, the final order was unambiguous: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied.”

The order is binding on the parties, who were notified of their right to seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the Superior Court within 35 days from the date of service.






Study Guide – 21F-H2120020-REL


Study Guide: Swanson & Barnes v. Circle G Ranches 4 HOA

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 21F-H2120020-REL-RHG. It is designed to test and reinforce understanding of the key parties, events, arguments, and legal principles outlined in the case.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. What specific statute did the Petitioners allege the Respondent violated, and what is the core requirement of that statute?

3. What two specific sets of voting records did the Petitioners request from the Association in their January 16, 2020 letter?

4. What action did the Association’s Board of Directors take on January 13, 2020, in response to the Petitioners’ initial request, and what was their stated reason for doing so?

5. Describe the method the Association used to provide the requested voting records to the Petitioners on February 7, 2020.

6. What was the Petitioners’ main argument for why the Association’s method of providing the documents failed to comply with the law?

7. What was the Association’s primary defense for the way it provided the records and for its overall actions?

8. According to the “Conclusions of Law,” who bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, and what is the standard required to meet that burden?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion regarding the Association’s request that the Petitioners sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA)?

10. What was the ultimate outcome of the case as determined by the Administrative Law Judge in the final order issued on February 2, 2022?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties are Sandra Swanson & Robert Barnes, who are the “Petitioners,” and the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, which is the “Respondent.” The Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association who filed a complaint against it. The Association is the governing body for the residential development, managed by Vision Community Management, LLC.

2. The Petitioners alleged a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1805. The core requirement of this statute is that all financial and other records of a homeowners’ association must be made “reasonably available” for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

3. The January 16, 2020 letter requested all ballots and related documents from the vote regarding the increase in dues that occurred around October 28, 2019. It also requested all written consent forms and ballots for the Proposed Declaration Amendment regarding cumulative voting, which occurred in December 2019.

4. On January 13, 2020, the Board of Directors voted 8 to 1 to require the Petitioners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before viewing the ballots. Their stated reason was a concern for members’ expectation of privacy regarding non-public information and a fear that members could be harassed based on their votes.

5. The Association provided the Petitioners with two separate stacks of documents. One stack contained redacted ballots, and the other stack contained unredacted envelopes that the ballots had been mailed in. This method separated the vote from the identity of the voter.

6. The Petitioners argued that by providing redacted copies and separate envelopes, the Respondent had not made the documents “reasonably available” as required by statute. They contended this method created an unlawful barrier because they were unable to cross-reference the ballots with the purported voters to verify the vote.

7. The Association defended its actions by arguing that the statute does not specify the how records should be produced, only that they be made available. It contended that it provided the totality of the information requested in a timely manner while also fulfilling its duty to protect the privacy and safety of its members from potential harassment.

8. The Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the Respondent violated the statute. A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof that convinces the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

9. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent’s request for the Petitioners to sign an NDA did not constitute a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. The judge also noted the NDA was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome because the Association provided the documents even though the Petitioners declined to sign it.

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners’ petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioners did not sustain their burden of proof to show that the Association had committed a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, finding the Association’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response for each prompt, citing specific facts and arguments from the case documents.

1. Analyze the central legal conflict over the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably available” in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805. Contrast the arguments made by the Petitioners and the Respondent, and explain how the Administrative Law Judge ultimately resolved this conflict in the decision.

2. Discuss the competing interests the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association attempted to balance in its response to the records request. Evaluate the measures it took, including the proposed NDA and the method of document delivery, in light of its duties to both the Petitioners and its general membership.

3. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing on September 22, 2020, to the final order on February 2, 2022. What does this timeline reveal about the administrative hearing and appeals process for HOA disputes in Arizona?

4. The Petitioners argued that the ballots in question were not truly “secret ballots” and that voters could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Based on the evidence presented, construct an argument supporting this position and a counter-argument defending the Association’s stance on member privacy.

5. Examine the legal reasoning employed by the Administrative Law Judge in the “Conclusions of Law.” How did principles of statutory construction and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard directly influence the final order denying the Petitioners’ petition?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition in the Context of the Document

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Jenna Clark, who presides over the evidentiary hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings and issues a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

The specific Arizona statute at the heart of the dispute, which mandates that a homeowners’ association’s records be made “reasonably available” for member examination within ten business days of a request.

Association / Respondent

The Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association, the governing body for the residential development and the party against whom the petition was filed.

Board of Directors (the Board)

The group that oversees the Association and is responsible for its governance. The Board voted to require an NDA before releasing voting records.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial (in this case, the Petitioners) to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing documents for the Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association.

Department

The Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.

Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)

A legal contract proposed by the Association’s Board that would have required the Petitioners to keep the voting information confidential. The Petitioners declined to sign it.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency to which the Department refers HOA dispute cases for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioners

Sandra Swanson and Robert Barnes, members of the Association who filed the petition alleging a violation of state law by the Association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The evidentiary standard required for the Petitioners to win their case. It is defined as proof that convinces the judge that a contention is more probably true than not.

Redacted

Edited to remove or black out confidential or private information. The Association provided redacted ballots to the Petitioners to protect member privacy.

Vision Community Management, LLC (Vision)

The management company hired by and acting on behalf of the Association.






Blog Post – 21F-H2120020-REL


Your HOA Can Legally Keep Secrets From You. Here’s How.

Introduction: The Fight for Transparency

As a homeowner in an association, you assume a right to see the records. Transparency, after all, is the bedrock of accountability. But a recent legal dispute in Arizona offers a masterclass in how the gap between a right to information and the reality of obtaining it can be vast. The case demonstrates how a determined HOA, armed with a nuanced legal strategy and a literal interpretation of the law, can fulfill its obligation to provide records while ensuring they reveal almost nothing. It’s a story of escalation that began not with redacted documents, but with a demand for a nondisclosure agreement, setting the stage for a battle over what it truly means for records to be “available.”

1. The Two-Pile Shuffle: How “Access” Doesn’t Always Mean “Answers”

The conflict began with a standard request from a group of homeowners (the Petitioners) to examine their HOA’s voting records. The Board’s response, however, was anything but standard. Citing privacy concerns, the Board voted 8-to-1 on a crucial first move: it would require the homeowners to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) before they could view the ballots. The homeowners refused, creating a standoff.

Forced to provide access but unwilling to yield on its privacy stance, the HOA (the Respondent) devised a clever workaround. When the homeowners arrived to inspect the approximately 122 pages of records, they weren’t handed a coherent set of documents. Instead, after spending roughly three and a half hours sifting through the materials, they discovered they had been given two separate stacks: one containing redacted ballots with the votes visible but the names blacked out, and another containing the unredacted envelopes they arrived in.

This “two-pile shuffle” made it impossible to match a ballot to a voter, effectively neutralizing the homeowners’ ability to verify the vote. They argued that this method failed to make the documents “reasonably available” as required by Arizona statute. The HOA’s strategy proved legally astute, leading to a court case that hinged on the very definition of access.

2. The Privacy Shield: A Proactive Defense

The HOA’s justification for its actions was a proactive and layered defense rooted in protecting its members. The Board’s initial demand for an NDA was not a retroactive excuse, but its opening move, signaling a deep-seated concern that releasing the voting information could lead to conflict within the community.

This concern was not merely abstract. Faced with multiple homeowner complaints labeling the Petitioners’ behavior as “harassing,” the Board first attempted to manage the information release by requiring the nondisclosure agreement. When that failed, it developed the two-pile system. The HOA’s legal position was that it had a duty to balance the homeowners’ request against the “privacy and safety of all Owners.” In a letter, the association’s counsel articulated this position clearly:

The Association’s position is that it has to balance your clients’ requests against the privacy and safety of all Owners within the Association. The Board is concerned with the personal information contained on the written consent forms or other documents and fears that individual members will be retaliated against or harassed based on a member’s decision to support, or not support, the matters up for a decision.

This defense, framed as a duty to protect the community from internal strife, became the cornerstone of the HOA’s successful legal argument.

3. The “Reasonably Available” Loophole

The entire legal battle was ultimately decided by the interpretation of a single phrase in Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805, which requires an association to make its records “reasonably available.” The case exposed a critical ambiguity in the law.

• The Homeowners’ View: They argued that “reasonably available” implies usability. To be meaningful, the records had to be provided in a way that allowed them to cross-reference votes with voters. A deliberately disorganized release, they contended, was not reasonable.

• The HOA’s View: The association countered with a brilliant legal distinction: the statute dictates what records must be produced, not how they must be presented. By providing all the components—the ballots and the envelopes—they had fulfilled their duty, even if they were separated.

In a decision that highlights the judiciary’s deference to the literal text of a statute, the Administrative Law Judge sided with the HOA. The judge’s ruling found no violation because, in the end, the homeowners had received everything they asked for. The legal linchpin of the decision was the finding that “the record reflects that Petitioners timely received the totality of the documents from their records request(s).” This interpretation effectively created a loophole, allowing the HOA to comply with the letter of the law while completely withholding the context the homeowners sought.

Conclusion: When “Legal” Isn’t the Whole Story

This case is a stark reminder that a legally defensible action can still feel like an affront to the spirit of community governance. The HOA’s victory demonstrates that in a dispute over transparency, the side with the more precise reading of the law, rather than the more open approach, may prevail. It reveals the profound tension between a homeowner’s right to know, an association’s duty to protect its members from potential harassment, and the powerful ambiguities hidden in legal statutes. An HOA can, with careful legal maneuvering, use privacy as a shield to deliver information in a way that obscures more than it reveals—and do so without breaking the law.

In a community governed by rules, what’s more important: absolute transparency, or the protection of every member’s privacy?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sandra Swanson (petitioner)
  • Robert Barnes (petitioner)
  • Kristin Roebuck Bethell (petitioner attorney)
    Horne Siaton, PLLC
    Also listed as Kristin Roebuck, Esq.,

Respondent Side

  • Jeremy Johnson (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
  • Samantha Cote (respondent attorney)
    Joes, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
    Also listed as Sam Cote, Esq.,
  • Patricia Ahler (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Amanda Stewart (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Jennifer Amundson (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Regis Salazar (witness)
    Circle G Ranches 4 Homeowners Association
  • Clint Goodman (HOA attorney)
    Vision Community Management, LLC
    Attorney for Vision, the HOA's property manager,

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during initial decision phase
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner during final/rehearing decision phase,
  • Dan Gardner (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    ADRE contact c/o Commissioner,,

John D Klemmer v. Caribbean Gardens Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-28
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome no
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John D. Klemmer Counsel —
Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association Counsel Nicole D. Payne, Esq., Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article 1, Sections 1.5 and 1.8; Article 3, Section 3.4; Article 4, Section 4.1; Article 8, Section 8.1; and Article 12, Section 12.4

Outcome Summary

The ALJ affirmed the initial decision upon rehearing, dismissing the homeowner's petition because the disputed space qualifies as a limited common element for exclusive use by one unit under state statute, rather than a general common area the HOA is required to maintain.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the space was a general common element. Statutory provisions override the ambiguity in the Plat and designate the fixture serving a single unit as a limited common element.

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to manage, operate, maintain and administer common area

Petitioner claimed a specific area exclusively occupied by Unit 207 was a common element owned by all 40 unit owners and that the HOA had a duty to claim ownership and maintain it. The HOA argued the area was a balcony and a limited common element.

Orders: Petition is dismissed. Petitioner continues to bear his $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1212
  • A.R.S. § 33-1218
  • A.R.S. § 33-551

Decision Documents

21F-H2120009-REL-RHG Decision – 876384.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:09 (124.8 KB)

21F-H2120009-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120009-REL/843358.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:10 (129.8 KB)

**Case Title:** 21F-H2120009-REL-RHG

**Procedural History & Introduction**
This matter involves a rehearing of an administrative dispute between Petitioner John D. Klemmer and Respondent Caribbean Gardens Association, a condominium HOA. It is important to explicitly distinguish the two proceedings: the original hearing (Case No. 21F-H2120009-REL) resulted in a December 17, 2020 decision dismissing the petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed a dispute rehearing request, which was granted by the Department of Real Estate, leading to the April 28, 2021 rehearing decision (Case No. 21F-H2120009-REL-RHG).

**Key Facts & Main Issues**
The core dispute centers on an unmapped, outdoor space located on the second level between Units 206 and 207. This area consists of a concrete slab fenced off by exterior iron railings and is accessible exclusively through a door from inside Unit 207.

* **Petitioner's Argument:** The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by failing to manage, maintain, and claim ownership of this specific area. He argued that because the area is left completely blank on the community's Plat document, it must be considered a general "common area" or "common element" owned by all 40 unit owners, and that the HOA improperly allowed Unit 207 to exclusively possess it.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The HOA argued the disputed space is not a general common element, but rather a "limited common element" (functioning as a balcony) that serves only Unit 207, which the HOA has no duty to maintain.

**Original Case Decision (December 2020)**
In the original hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the CC&Rs and Arizona property law. The ALJ determined that under A.R.S. § 33-1212(4), exterior fixtures such as balconies designed to serve a single unit but located outside the unit's boundaries are "limited common elements" allocated exclusively to that unit. Concluding that the disputed area was a balcony exclusively serving Unit 207, the ALJ found the HOA did not violate the CC&Rs and dismissed the petition.

**Rehearing Arguments and Legal Points (April 2021)**
The Petitioner requested a rehearing, arguing the original decision misapplied A.R.S. § 33-1212[A](4). He contended that the statute begins with the phrase "Except as provided by the Declaration," and because the community's Declaration and Plat do not explicitly draw or define the disputed area as an "Apartment," "patio," or "balcony

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John D. Klemmer (petitioner)
    Represented himself

Respondent Side

  • Nicole D. Payne (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Lydia A. Pierce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
  • Alex Gonzalez (board member)
    Caribbean Gardens Association
    Erroneously referred to as Alex Gomez in the initial decision

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:30 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:33 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; CC&R Section 10.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge, following a rehearing, affirmed the original decision, concluding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Article X regarding the denial of an architectural modification request for a patio shade. The Respondent was found to have acted in compliance with the community documents, and the appeal was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish a violation of the CC&R's and failed to follow the procedural requirements necessary to appeal a deemed disapproval under CC&R Section 10.3.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure and alleged violation of response timeline

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application for a patio shade, arguing the denial was improper because the shade would be attached (not a separate structure) and that the HOA missed the 30-day response deadline. The ALJ determined that the HOA's denial based on the 'only one structure other than the residence' rule (since a shed already existed) complied with the non-exhaustive Architectural Committee Standards (Article X, 10.2). Regarding the delayed response, the ALJ noted that Section 10.3 mandated that a late response results in the request being 'deemed disapproved,' and the Petitioner failed to subsequently request the required appeal meeting.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated Article X of the CC&R’s. The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the Petitioner's appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of Proof, Deemed Disapproved
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL Decision – 850032.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-17T18:18:33 (113.4 KB)

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Issued the decision for the original hearing and the rehearing
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Issued an Order Granting Rehearing

Charles P Mandela vs. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Charles P Mandela Counsel —
Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners' Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article X; A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated Article X of the CC&R’s regarding the denial of an architectural modification request (patio shade). The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and the appeal (rehearing) was dismissed.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the CC&R's by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded the Respondent acted in compliance with the CC&R’s Section 10.2 and 10.3 when denying the request, and Petitioner failed to follow the requisite procedures in Section 10.3 to appeal the denial.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request for patio shade structure

Petitioner challenged the HOA's denial of his application to build a patio shade. The HOA denied the request stating that 'Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property,' and a shed already existed. Petitioner argued the shade, being attached, was not a stand-alone structure. The ALJ upheld the denial, finding the HOA acted in compliance with CC&Rs Article X, Sections 10.2 and 10.3, and that Petitioner failed to follow appeal procedures outlined in Section 10.3.

Orders: Petitioner's appeal (rehearing request) was dismissed, and Respondent was declared the prevailing party.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • CC&R Article X
  • CC&R Section 10.3
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Architectural Review, Denial, Rehearing, Burden of proof
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – 876009.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:34:51 (118.9 KB)

20F-H2020042-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020042-REL/850032.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:55:35 (113.4 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Briefing on Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings from two administrative law judge decisions concerning a dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association (“Blue Ridge”). The core issue was Blue Ridge’s denial of Mr. Mandela’s request to build a patio shade structure.

In the initial hearing on January 13, 2021, Mr. Mandela argued the denial was erroneous because the shade would be attached to his house, not a separate structure, and that similar structures existed in the community. Blue Ridge defended its decision based on Article X of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which limits properties to one structure besides the main residence. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, finding that Blue Ridge acted within the authority granted by its CC&Rs, as its architectural standards were not exhaustive and it provided a reasonably detailed written reason for the denial.

Following this decision, Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing, which took place on April 16, 2021. During this second hearing, he introduced a new argument that Blue Ridge had violated Article 10.3 of the CC&Rs by failing to respond to his request within the stipulated 30-day timeframe. However, the ALJ found that the same article specifies that a failure to respond results in the request being “deemed disapproved.” The ALJ concluded that Mr. Mandela had failed to follow the subsequent appeal procedures outlined in the CC&Rs and again failed to meet his burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Blue Ridge was declared the prevailing party. Notably, during the rehearing, Mr. Mandela testified that his request for the patio shade had since been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

Initial Hearing and Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL)

The first evidentiary hearing was held on January 13, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone to address Mr. Mandela’s petition alleging Blue Ridge violated its CC&Rs.

The Core Dispute

• Petitioner’s Request: On August 28, 2019, Charles P. Mandela submitted a request to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet,” described as a four-post structure he intended to attach to the east wall of his residence.

• Respondent’s Denial: On October 25, 2019, Blue Ridge denied the request, stating: “Only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property. The site plan that was given for review shows the residence and also a shed on property already existing, this would be the allowable limit per the Architectural Standards.”

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Argued passionately that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was to be attached to the house, not a separate, stand-alone structure.

◦ Presented photographs of other properties within Blue Ridge Estates that had multiple structures and stand-alone patio shades similar to his proposal.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Contended it properly followed Article X of the CC&Rs in its denial.

◦ At the hearing, Blue Ridge pointed to Article III of the CC&Rs as justification, classifying the proposed shade as an additional structure on the property.

Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Mr. Mandela’s petition, concluding he had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blue Ridge violated Article X of the CC&Rs.

• Interpretation of CC&R Section 10.2: The judge found that the architectural standards listed in this section were explicitly not exhaustive. The text states standards “may include, without limitation, provisions regarding” aspects like size, design, and placement. This allowed the architectural committee to deny the request based on the “one additional structure” rule, even if not explicitly listed.

• Compliance with CC&R Section 10.3: This section requires the committee to provide “reasonably detailed written reasons for such disapproval.” The judge found that the denial email of October 25, 2019, fulfilled this requirement. The email did not need to cite a specific CC&R section, only to provide an explanation.

• On Precedent and Fairness: The ALJ acknowledged Mr. Mandela’s evidence of similar structures on other properties. However, the decision noted: “While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.”

• Final Ruling: The petition was denied in a decision dated January 29, 2021.

Rehearing and Final Decision (Case No. 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG)

Mr. Mandela filed for a rehearing on February 5, 2021, on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence. The Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner granted the request, and a new hearing was held on April 16, 2021.

New Testimony and Arguments

• Petitioner (Charles P. Mandela):

◦ Subsequent Approval: Testified that since the January 29, 2021 decision, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Blue Ridge board.

◦ Procedural Violation: Argued that Blue Ridge violated CC&R Section 10.3 by failing to respond to his August 28, 2019, request within the required 30-day period, as the denial was not issued until October 25, 2019.

◦ History of Denials: Stated he had made several previous requests in 2018 and 2019 that were either denied or ignored.

◦ Discrimination: Claimed he had been discriminated against due to the previous denials.

• Respondent (Blue Ridge Estates HOA):

◦ Interpretation of Section 10.3: Argued that while the section may be “confusingly drafted,” it stipulates that if the committee fails to respond within 30 days, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the board acted within its authority.

◦ Failure to Appeal: Contended that Mr. Mandela failed to follow the proper appeal procedure outlined in the CC&Rs, as he never specifically requested a meeting to discuss the denial.

Judge’s Final Findings and Conclusions

The ALJ affirmed the original decision, finding for the Respondent as the prevailing party and dismissing Mr. Mandela’s appeal.

• Scope of Rehearing: The judge determined that the rehearing was limited to the August 28, 2019, request and its subsequent denial, as that was the sole focus of the original petition. Mr. Mandela’s arguments about prior denials were not considered new evidence relevant to the specific violation alleged.

• Interpretation of the 30-Day Rule: The ALJ sided with the HOA’s interpretation of Section 10.3. While acknowledging that Blue Ridge took more than thirty days to issue a written denial, the judge ruled that the CC&R’s provision for a “deemed disapproved” status meant the request was properly denied under the rules.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Follow Procedure: The judge noted that Mr. Mandela admitted he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee after the denial, which was the required next step in the appeal process under Section 10.3.

• Final Ruling: The final decision, dated April 27, 2021, concluded that Mr. Mandela failed to sustain his burden of proof. The HOA was found to have acted in compliance with the CC&Rs, and the appeal was dismissed. This order was declared binding on the parties.

Timeline of Key Events

August 28, 2019

Charles Mandela submits his request to build a patio shade.

October 25, 2019

Blue Ridge HOA denies the request via email, citing the one-additional-structure limit.

January 13, 2020

Mandela files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

January 13, 2021

The first evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

January 29, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying Mandela’s petition.

February 5, 2021

Mandela files a request for a rehearing.

March 15, 2021

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate grants the rehearing request.

April 16, 2021

The rehearing is conducted.

April 27, 2021

The ALJ issues a final decision, finding for the HOA and dismissing Mandela’s appeal.

Central CC&R Provision: Article X, Section 10.3

The most heavily debated provision was Section 10.3 of the Blue Ridge Estates CC&Rs, which outlines the procedure for architectural requests. Its language was central to the outcome of the rehearing.

Key text from Section 10.3:

“The Architectural Committee shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such plans, specifications, and elevations to approve or disapprove of the proposed construction… In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved and the Owner can then request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for such disapproval…”

This clause was interpreted by the ALJ to mean that the HOA’s failure to provide a written response within 30 days automatically constituted a denial, shifting the burden to the homeowner to request a follow-up meeting, a step Mr. Mandela did not take.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Mandela v. Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative legal dispute between homeowner Charles P. Mandela and the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association, as detailed in the Administrative Law Judge Decisions from January 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. The case centers on the denial of an architectural request and the interpretation of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).

——————————————————————————–

Quiz: Key Facts and Arguments

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based on the provided legal decisions.

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

2. What specific structure did Charles P. Mandela request approval to build on August 28, 2019?

3. What was the initial reason given by the Blue Ridge Estates HOA for denying Mr. Mandela’s request on October 25, 2019?

4. What was Mr. Mandela’s central argument during the first hearing on January 13, 2021?

5. According to the decision from the first hearing, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule that the HOA’s denial was in compliance with Section 10.2 of the CC&Rs?

6. On what grounds did Mr. Mandela file his Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Dispute Rehearing Request on February 5, 2021?

7. During the rehearing, what new argument did Mr. Mandela raise concerning the timeline of the HOA’s denial of his August 28, 2019 request?

8. How did the HOA’s legal counsel counter Mr. Mandela’s argument regarding the 30-day response time outlined in Section 10.3?

9. What procedural step, outlined in Section 10.3, did Mr. Mandela admit he failed to take after his request was deemed denied?

10. What was the final outcome of the rehearing on April 16, 2021, and what was the judge’s conclusion regarding the HOA’s actions?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Petitioner Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner, and Respondent Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association of Coconino County. Mr. Mandela filed the petition against the HOA after it denied his request to build a patio shade.

2. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Mandela requested approval to build a “patio shade less than 200 sq. feet.” The structure was a four-post shade that he intended to attach to the east side wall of his residence.

3. The HOA denied the request based on Architectural Committee Standards Article X. The denial stated that only one structure other than the residence may be placed on the property, and Mr. Mandela already had a residence and a shed.

4. Mr. Mandela’s central argument was that the denial was erroneous because the patio shade was not a separate stand-alone structure. He planned to attach it to his house, and he presented photographs of other properties with similar structures.

5. The judge ruled the denial complied with Section 10.2 because the list of standards the Architectural Committee could enforce was “not an exhaustive one.” This meant the committee could properly deny the request based on the one-structure limit, even if it wasn’t explicitly enumerated.

6. Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing on the grounds that the findings of fact were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. He also claimed the decision was not supported by the evidence or was contrary to law.

7. During the rehearing, Mr. Mandela argued that the Board violated Section 10.3 of the CC&Rs. He contended that since he made his request on August 28, 2019, and the Board did not respond until October 25, 2019, it had failed to provide a written response within the required 30-day period.

8. The HOA’s counsel argued that while Section 10.3 may be “confusingly drafted,” it specifies that if the committee fails to approve or disapprove within the 30-day period, the request is “deemed disapproved.” Therefore, the Board was within its authority.

9. Mr. Mandela admitted that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee to discuss the reasons for the disapproval. This is the procedural step required by Section 10.3 after a request is deemed denied.

10. The final outcome was that the petition was dismissed, and the Respondent (HOA) was declared the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the HOA had not violated the CC&Rs and had acted in compliance with its governing documents.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions for Further Study

The following questions are designed to promote a deeper analysis of the case. Formulate a comprehensive response to each, citing specific details from the legal decisions.

1. Analyze the interpretation of CC&R Section 10.3, specifically the “deemed disapproved” clause. Discuss how this clause functioned as a key legal defense for the HOA and ultimately shaped the outcome of the rehearing.

2. The legal standard in this case was “a preponderance of the evidence.” Define this standard as described in the legal text and evaluate the evidence Mr. Mandela presented in both hearings. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that Mr. Mandela failed to meet his burden of proof?

3. Compare and contrast the arguments presented by the Petitioner and Respondent in the initial hearing (January 13, 2021) versus the rehearing (April 16, 2021). How did the focus of the legal arguments shift between the two proceedings?

4. Examine the authority and jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee as outlined in CC&R Section 10.2. Discuss the significance of the phrase “Such standards and procedures may include, without limitation, provisions regarding…” in the judge’s initial decision.

5. Trace the procedural history of this case, from Mr. Mandela’s initial request in August 2019 to the final order in April 2021. Identify at least four key procedural milestones and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate resolution.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge, in this case Adam D. Stone, who presides over hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings and makes decisions on petitions concerning disputes regulated by state agencies.

Architectural Committee

A body within the Blue Ridge Estates HOA established by Article X of the CC&Rs, with jurisdiction over all original construction and any modifications, additions, or alterations to the exterior of homes or properties.

Arizona Department of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and the associations themselves in Arizona.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a legal proceeding to produce evidence that proves the facts it claims are true. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Mandela) bore the burden of proof.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community like Blue Ridge Estates. This case centered on the interpretation of Article X of the Blue Ridge CC&Rs.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The governing organization for a planned community. In this case, the Respondent was the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners Association of Coconino County.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request filed by a party asking for a lawsuit or petition to be dismissed. The Blue Ridge HOA filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on October 7, 2020, allowing the case to proceed.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where petitions related to disputes with HOAs are sent for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Charles P. Mandela was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

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

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to review a legal decision. Mr. Mandela was granted a rehearing after the initial decision, based on his claim that the findings were arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by evidence.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Blue Ridge Estates Homeowners’ Association was the Respondent.

Tribunal

A term used in the documents to refer to the judicial body hearing the case, specifically the Office of Administrative Hearings and the presiding Administrative Law Judge.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020042-REL-RHG


He Fought the HOA Over a Patio and Lost. Here Are 5 Shocking Lessons Every Homeowner Needs to Learn.

Introduction: The Perils of a Simple Home Improvement Project

For any homeowner, the excitement of a new project—a deck, a fence, or a simple patio shade—can quickly turn to frustration when it collides with the dense rulebook of a Homeowners’ Association (HOA). What seems like a straightforward improvement can become a complex battle of bylaws and procedures.

This was the reality for Charles P. Mandela, a homeowner in the Blue Ridge Estates community. His plan to build a simple patio shade was denied by his HOA, sparking a legal challenge that went before an Administrative Law Judge. While Mr. Mandela ultimately lost his case on its legal merits, the details of his fight offer a masterclass in the surprising and often counter-intuitive world of HOA governance. This article distills the most shocking lessons from his case, providing critical insights for any homeowner living under an HOA.

——————————————————————————–

1. The “Deemed Disapproved” Clause: How an HOA’s Silence Becomes a Legal “No”

Mr. Mandela submitted his request to build a patio shade on August 28, 2019. He argued that the HOA, Blue Ridge Estates, violated its own rules, which required a response within 30 days. The HOA didn’t send its formal denial until October 25, 2019, well past the deadline. On the surface, it seemed like a clear procedural violation by the HOA.

However, a bizarre and “unartfully drafted” clause hidden in the HOA’s governing documents (CC&Rs) turned this logic on its head. The rule stated:

In the event the Architectural Committee fails either to approve or disapprove the proposed construction… within said thirty (30) day period, such proposed construction… shall be deemed disapproved…

Contrary to common sense, the rule meant that the HOA’s failure to respond on time resulted in an automatic denial, not a pending approval. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by this text, concluding that because the 30-day period had passed without a formal approval, the request was “properly deemed denied.”

2. The “My Neighbor Has One” Argument Is Weaker Than You Think

To support his case, Mr. Mandela presented photographs showing that “similar shades exist on other properties with additional structures.” He argued that the HOA was engaging in selective enforcement by denying his project while having approved others like it. This is one of the most frequent arguments homeowners make when they feel singled out by their HOA board.

The judge’s conclusion was a stunning reality check. The legal decision stated:

While those properties may have had their shades approved by different members of the Blue Ridge Architectural Committee that does not follow that Mr. Mandela’s request was improperly denied under Article X.

The legal reasoning here is crucial for homeowners to understand. Architectural committees are not static; members change, and so can their interpretation of aesthetic standards. Each application is legally considered a distinct request, evaluated under the rules in place at that moment. A previous committee’s approval—which may have even been a mistake or a variance granted under different circumstances—does not create a binding legal precedent that forces the current committee to repeat it.

3. Procedure is Everything: A Missed Step Can Cost You the Case

The HOA’s rules contained a specific process for appealing a denial. After a project is “deemed disapproved” because the 30-day clock ran out, the homeowner must then formally request a meeting with the committee to discuss the denial.

The judge found that Mr. Mandela had failed to take this critical next step. This procedural misstep, however small it might seem, became a key factor in the case against him. The decision hinged on this procedural failure, stating:

Further, Petitioner admitted that in his several email responses that he did not formally request a meeting with the Architectural Committee, thus he failed to follow the procedures in Section 10.3.

This highlights a crucial lesson: meticulously follow every single procedural step outlined in your HOA’s documents. Failure to do so, such as not using the correct language to request a meeting, can be used to dismiss your claim, regardless of its other merits.

4. “Unartfully Drafted” Rules Can Still Be Legally Binding

Even the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the poor quality of the HOA’s rulebook. In the decision, the judge offered a candid assessment of the rule regarding the 30-day response time, stating, “Admittedly this section is unartfully drafted…”

Despite this observation, the rule was enforced exactly as written. The judge was bound by the text, however confusing, and concluded that “from the evidence presented, the request was properly deemed denied.”

This is perhaps the most sobering lesson. Homeowners often assume that a rule that is confusing or seems illogical won’t hold up under scrutiny. This case proves that the literal text of the governing documents possesses immense power. What a rule literally says is far more important than what one might assume it should mean.

5. The Final Twist: He Lost the Case But Got His Patio Anyway

After the initial decision was made against him, Mr. Mandela requested a rehearing. During this second hearing, a surprising fact emerged. Mr. Mandela testified that “since the decision on January 29, 2021, his request for the patio shade had been approved by the Board.”

This outcome highlights a crucial dynamic: while Mr. Mandela lost the legal argument based on procedural history, his persistent engagement in the process—including filing a formal appeal—likely created enough administrative and community pressure to compel the Board to find a practical, non-legal solution. It’s a powerful reminder that a legal loss on a technicality does not always foreclose a real-world victory.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Do You Really Know Your HOA’s Rules?

The case of Charles Mandela serves as a powerful cautionary tale. It reveals that HOA disputes are rarely won on appeals to fairness or common sense. Instead, they are won or lost in the fine print of the governing documents—documents that can contain counter-intuitive clauses, procedural traps, and “unartfully drafted” rules that are nonetheless legally binding.

A homeowner’s best defense is not passion or conviction, but a deep and thorough understanding of the specific rules and procedures they agreed to live by. This case forces every homeowner to ask: Are you prepared to navigate the literal text of your community’s rules, where silence can mean “no” and a neighbor’s precedent is no precedent at all?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Charles P Mandela (petitioner)

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Robert H GelinasRobert H Gelinas v. The Meadows at Eagle Ridge

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121034-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-23
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome yes
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert H. Gelinas Counsel —
Respondent The Meadows at Eagle Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and the Association's Bylaws by failing to hold an annual members meeting in 2019. The petition was granted, and the Association was ordered to comply in the future and reimburse the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to Hold Members Meeting

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to hold an annual members meeting in 2019. The Association admitted no meeting was held due to concerns about obtaining a sufficient amount of votes during the holiday season.

Orders: Petition granted. Respondent ordered to fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Article IV, Section 1 of the Association's Bylaws in the future and reimburse the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(B)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • Association Bylaws Article IV, Section 1

Decision Documents

21F-H2121034-REL Decision – 874987.pdf

Uploaded 2026-03-03T16:21:32 (65.7 KB)

**Case Summary: 21F-H2121034-REL**

**Parties:** Robert H. Gelinas (Petitioner) v. The Meadows at Eagle Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc. (Respondent).

**Key Facts and Main Issue:**
The Petitioner, a property owner within the Eagle Ridge development, filed a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The central allegation was that the Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(B) and Article IV, Section 1 of the Association's Bylaws by failing to hold an annual members meeting during the 2019 calendar year. Instead, the Association held the 2019 members meeting on January 11, 2020. The legal issue was whether this delay constituted a violation of the governing statute and bylaws, with the burden resting on the Petitioner to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments:**
During the evidentiary hearing on April 8, 2021, representatives for the Association admitted that no members meeting took place in 2019. The defense presented two main arguments for this delay:
* The president of the Association's management company testified that she believed it was standard to hold the meeting in January after the financial books close at the end of December.
* Another Association witness testified that a 2019 meeting was avoided due to concerns that holiday season absences would prevent them from securing a sufficient amount of votes.

Despite these practical explanations, the legal requirements outlined in both A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and the Association's Bylaws are clear, mandating that an annual members meeting must be held at least once every twelve months (each year).

**Final Decision and Outcome:**
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Because it was undisputed that the Association failed to hold a members meeting in 2019, the Judge concluded that the Petitioner successfully established that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Article IV, Section 1 of its Bylaws.

**The Administrative Law Judge issued the following orders:**
* **The petition was granted**.
* The Association must **fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804(B) and Article IV, Section 1** of its Bylaws in the future.
* The Association must **pay $500.00 to the Petitioner** to reimburse his filing fee within 30 days of the Order.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert H. Gelinas (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself; property owner

Respondent Side

  • Deborah Bolzano (property manager)
    DHB Management
    President of DHB Management; appeared and testified on behalf of the Respondent
  • Bill Godwin (witness)
    The Meadows at Eagle Ridge Property Owners Association, Inc.
    Testified on behalf of the Association

Neutral Parties

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

Thomas A & Jade Bossert v. Silverbell West Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120011-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-16
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Thomas A & Jade Bossert Counsel Anthony Tsontakis
Respondent Silverbell West Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C Nogami & Timothy D Butterfield

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A) & ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after Respondent was found in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) for failing to provide specific financial records (bank statements, check copies) and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) for failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. The ALJ declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to disclose records and complete annual financial compilation

Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A) by failing to provide bank account statements and check copies, and violated A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete the 2019 financial compilation. Petitioner did not meet the burden regarding the 2018 financial report.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fees of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Homeowners Association, Records Access, Financial Compilation, Statutory Violation, Condominium Association
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 865401.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:06 (42.0 KB)

21F-H2120011-REL Decision – 872606.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:35:09 (153.6 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to provide bank statements by claiming the Treasurer kept poor records?

Short Answer

No. The Board has a duty to obtain readily available records like bank statements directly from the bank if necessary.

Detailed Answer

The Board cannot excuse a failure to provide records by blaming a specific officer's poor record-keeping. If records like bank statements are missing from the files, the Board President or other officers should go to the bank to obtain copies.

Alj Quote

Mr. Warnix, as President of the Board, should have taken a more active role in at least obtaining all bank account records and copies of checks given his knowledge of Mr. Molley’s actions… he could have requested copies of the same in person at the bank. The fact that these records still have not been turned over is inexcusable.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • records request
  • board duties
  • bank statements

Question

What is the deadline for the HOA to complete its annual financial compilation?

Short Answer

The compilation must be completed within 180 days after the fiscal year ends.

Detailed Answer

Unless the governing documents require an audit, the Board must provide for an annual financial audit, review, or compilation to be finished no later than 180 days after the fiscal year ends. It must be made available to owners within 30 days of completion.

Alj Quote

The audit, review or compilation shall be completed no later than one hundred eighty days after the end of the association's fiscal year and shall be made available on request to the unit owners within thirty days after its completion.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243(J)

Topic Tags

  • financials
  • deadlines
  • compilation

Question

Will the judge always fine the HOA if they violate record-keeping laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the HOA fixes the issue and ensures future compliance, the judge may decline to issue a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if violations are found, the ALJ has discretion regarding civil penalties. If the HOA has hired a professional manager or taken steps to ensure better record-keeping moving forward, the judge might decide a penalty is not required.

Alj Quote

That being said, the tribunal believes that Board took the appropriate steps to ensure better record keeping in the future… Thus, the Administrative Law Judge declines to impose a civil penalty.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)

Topic Tags

  • civil penalty
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What happens if I request specific accounting records (like ledgers) that the HOA simply never created?

Short Answer

The HOA cannot produce what doesn't exist, so they may not be penalized for failing to produce them, though the lack of records is a governance issue.

Detailed Answer

If there is no evidence that specific documents (like check registers or dues reports) were ever created due to poor management, the judge may find it impossible to rule that the HOA failed to provide existing records.

Alj Quote

With regards to the other records (check registers, cash receipt journals, dues reports, etc.), it is unclear from Mr. Bossert’s testimony, if those even existed… Thus, it is impossible to know if they even exist, as there was no evidence from Mr. Bossert that they do in fact exist.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1258(A)

Topic Tags

  • missing records
  • record keeping

Question

If I win my case against the HOA regarding records, can I get my filing fees back?

Short Answer

Yes, the prevailing party is typically entitled to reimbursement of filing fees.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner sustains their burden of proof and is deemed the prevailing party, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fees.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party and is entitled to his filing fees of $1,000.00, and Respondent must reimburse this within 30 days.

Legal Basis

Order based on prevailing party status

Topic Tags

  • reimbursement
  • fees
  • prevailing party

Question

Does a former Board President have a claim regarding missing financials from their own term?

Short Answer

It may be difficult to prove if the President had the authority to fix the issue at the time but didn't.

Detailed Answer

If a petitioner was the Board President during the time the violation occurred and had the power to remedy the situation (e.g., by taking over responsibility from a non-compliant Treasurer) but failed to do so, the tribunal may find they did not meet their burden of proof for that specific violation.

Alj Quote

Mr. Bossert, while acting as President, could have taken more aggressive measures with Mr. Molley to get him to provide the same… Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden as to the 2018 financial report.

Legal Basis

Burden of proof standard

Topic Tags

  • board member rights
  • fiduciary duty

Case

Docket No
21F-H2120011-REL
Case Title
Thomas A & Jade Bossert vs. Silverbell West Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2021-04-16
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Thomas A Bossert (petitioner)
    Former Board President; testified on own behalf
  • Jade Bossert (petitioner)
  • Anthony Tsontakis (petitioner attorney)
    Tsontakis Law
  • Barbara Schoneck (witness)
    Digit & Docs LLC
    Called by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Timothy D Butterfield (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Rex Warnix, III (board member; witness)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Current Board President; testified for Respondent/Association
  • Linda Garner (property manager; witness)
    Adam LLC
    Property manager for the Association
  • Donald Molley (board member; treasurer)
    Silverbell West Association, Inc.
    Board Treasurer responsible for financial records

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Lynda Meadows (accountant)
    Prepared 2018 financial compilation
  • LDettorre (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient
  • ncano (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Email recipient

Other Participants

  • c. serrano (ADRE staff)
    Individual listed on transmission details

Kristina K Merkle v. Desert Palms Village Condominium Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2120030-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-14
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kristina K. Merkle Counsel —
Respondent Desert Palms Village Condominium Association Counsel Quinten Cupps

Alleged Violations

CC&R § 7.13
A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of Petitioner regarding the HOA's failure to conduct a reserve study every three years as required by CC&R § 7.13, ordering compliance and a $500 filing fee reimbursement. However, the ALJ ruled in favor of Respondent on the records request issue, finding Petitioner failed to prove documents in the HOA's possession were withheld.

Why this result: Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove Respondent withheld documents that were actually in its possession at the time of her request.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to complete reserve study

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated CC&R § 7.13 by failing to complete a required reserve study every three years.

Orders: Respondent ordered to fully comply with CC&R 7.13 in the future and to pay Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R 7.13

Failure to provide requested documents

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested documents within 10 business days.

Orders: Petition is denied regarding the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258

Decision Documents

21F-H2120030-REL Decision – 872292.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:36 (80.6 KB)

**Case Title:** 21F-H2120030-REL

**Background and Main Issues:**
This administrative hearing took place on March 25, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson. The case involves Petitioner Kristina K. Merkle, a condominium unit owner, against Respondent Desert Palms Village Condominium Association. The Petitioner alleged two primary violations:
1. The Respondent violated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 7.13 by failing to conduct a mandatory reserve study every three years, noting that the last study was completed in 2016.
2. The Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to provide requested association documents within 10 business days.

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments:**
The legal standard required the Petitioner to prove her claims by a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning the claims are more probably true than not).

During the hearing, the Petitioner testified to her allegations but provided no other testimony. The Respondent disputed the document-related violation; the Community Manager and the Association's attorney testified that they had provided all requested documents that were in their possession at the time.

Regarding the reserve study, it was undisputed that the Respondent had not completed one since 2016. However, the Respondent argued that they had made numerous repairs and replacements listed in the 2016 study and asserted that completing a new reserve study at that time would not be cost-effective.

**Final Decision and Outcome:**
The Judge split the decision between the two main claims:
* **Document Violation:** The Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she did not prove they withheld documents within their possession.
* **Reserve Study Violation:** The preponderance of the evidence established that the Respondent failed to complete a reserve study, officially violating CC&R § 7.13.

**Final Orders:**
The Judge deemed the Petitioner the prevailing party regarding the CC&R 7.13 violation. The Judge issued the following orders:
1. The Respondent must fully comply with CC&R 7.13 in the future.
2. The Respondent must pay the Petitioner $500.00 (half of her $1,000.00 filing fee) within 30 days of the Order.
3. In all other respects, the petition was denied.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kristina K. Merkle (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of herself and testified at the hearing

Respondent Side

  • Quinten Cupps (HOA attorney)
    Desert Palms Village Condominium Association
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent
  • Becky Stowers (property manager)
    Desert Palms Village Condominium Association
    Community Manager who presented testimony for Respondent
  • Kelly Oetinger (HOA attorney)
    Desert Palms Village Condominium Association
    Respondent's attorney who also provided testimony regarding document requests

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    Administrative Law Judge who authored the decision
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Commissioner to whom the decision was electronically transmitted

Carla J Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121032-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-04-07
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carla J. Snyder Counsel —
Respondent Las Hadas Villas Association Counsel David Potts

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs 14.2

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish the HOA violated CC&R 14.2. The evidence demonstrated that the damages occurred in an exclusive use area that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining, and that the HOA had adequately maintained the roof.

Why this result: The damage was located on a patio/pergola which under CC&R 14.1 is an exclusive use area for which the homeowner holds maintenance responsibility, not the HOA.

Key Issues & Findings

Association's Responsibility

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&R 14.2 by failing to repair and take responsibility for $11,476.00 in damages resulting from an improperly constructed roof without flashing.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Decision Documents

21F-H2121032-REL Decision – 870534.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:23:48 (121.6 KB)

Here is a concise summary of the requested legal hearing:

**Case Title**: *Carla J. Snyder v. Las Hadas Villas Association* (No. 21F-H2121032-REL)

**Key Facts & Main Issue**
Petitioner Carla J. Snyder filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Las Hadas Villas Association (Respondent), alleging a violation of Section 14.2 of the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered on $11,476 in water damage and mold remediation costs incurred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that the damage was caused by a construction flaw—specifically, a lack of flashing on the roof—and asserted that the roof was the Homeowners Association's (HOA) responsibility to maintain and repair.

**Hearing Proceedings & Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner’s Arguments:** The Petitioner presented testimony from a general contractor who stated that the absence of roof flashing allowed water to permeate the garage and patio, classifying it as a design flaw. The Petitioner explicitly sought a "finding of negligence" against the HOA regarding the roof's construction to aid in a future civil lawsuit.
* **Respondent’s Arguments:** The HOA argued that a finding of negligence was outside the statutory purview of the administrative hearing. Relying on Section 14.1 of the CC&Rs, the Respondent noted that while the HOA is responsible for the roof, the homeowner is strictly responsible for "exclusive use" areas, which include patios and pergolas. The HOA provided maintenance logs showing the roof was repaired and fitted with proper flashing in 2015, as well as an independent 2019 inspection confirming the roof underlayment was in good condition and that the leak was an "old issue". Furthermore, the Respondent presented evidence that the unit's previous owner had experienced pergola damage but refused to replace the rotted wood, instead hiring a contractor to simply cover the rot with stucco.

**Most Important Legal Points**
* **Burden of Proof:** Under Arizona law, the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged CC&R violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
* **Interpretation of CC&Rs:** The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) utilized a plain reading of the CC&Rs, confirming that the patio and pergola are subject to the homeowner

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Carla J. Snyder (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf
  • Ray Odom (witness)
    General contractor who performed mold remediation and drywall repairs
  • Dr. John Gilderbloom (witness)
    University of Louisville
    Professor and Petitioner's fiancé

Respondent Side

  • David Potts (HOA attorney)
    Las Hadas Villas Association
  • Tonia Reynolds (property manager)
    Las Hadas Villas Association
    Testified as a witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Tom Reynolds (witness)
    99 Home Improvements
    Lead for 99 Home Improvements; provided an affidavit
  • Judy Lowe (commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

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

Case Summary

Case ID 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-03-24
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $2,500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Nancy L. Babington Counsel —
Respondent Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation Counsel Mark K. Sahl, Scott B. Carpenter

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A). Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee and pay a $2,500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to make financial and other association records reasonably available for examination/provide copies within ten business days

Petitioner formally requested several records on May 1, 2020, but Respondent failed to provide the documents within the 10-day statutory limit. Evidence presented at the rehearing established that Respondent possessed the requested bank statements and contracts prior to the request.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $2,500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: A.R.S. § 33-1258, Records Access, HOA Dispute, Civil Penalty, Rehearing
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – 866802.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:34 (123.5 KB)

20F-H2020064-REL-RHG Decision – ../20F-H2020064-REL/823263.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-20T13:59:35 (108.6 KB)





Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and outcomes from the administrative case of Nancy L. Babington (Petitioner) versus the Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation (Respondent). The dispute centered on the Respondent’s failure to provide association records as required by Arizona state law (A.R.S. § 33-1258).

The case progressed through two distinct phases: an initial hearing that ruled in favor of the Respondent, and a subsequent rehearing that reversed the decision. The initial ruling was based on the Respondent’s testimony that it did not possess the requested records due to a dispute with a former management company. However, the rehearing was granted based on newly discovered evidence proving the Respondent, through its management company and board, did possess key documents at the time of the request.

The final judgment established that the Respondent had violated state law. The Administrative Law Judge rejected the Respondent’s defense, including the argument that records held in a corporate satellite office were not in its possession. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner’s $500 filing fee and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Case Background and Timeline

The dispute arose from a records request made by Petitioner Nancy L. Babington to her condominium association, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, and its management company, Associa Arizona. The timeline of key events is as follows:

June-July 2019

Respondent’s prior management company, Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC), terminates its agreement.

Post-July 2019

Respondent hires Associa Arizona (Associa). Associa and the Respondent encounter difficulty obtaining records from CMC due to a financial dispute.

April 29, 2020

Petitioner sends a formal email requesting association records from September 1, 2019, to April 28, 2020, citing A.R.S. § 33-1258.

May 1, 2020

Petitioner provides a specific, nine-point list of requested documents, including bank statements, financial statements, and contracts.

May 28, 2020

Having received no documents, Petitioner files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 28, 2020

The Office of Administrative Hearings conducts the initial hearing.

September 17, 2020

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a decision denying the petition.

Post-Sept 2020

Respondent provides some of the requested documents to the Petitioner. Upon review, Petitioner discovers evidence that the documents had been in the Respondent’s possession prior to her request.

Date Unspecified

Petitioner files a request for rehearing based on newly discovered material evidence.

March 4, 2021

A rehearing is held.

March 24, 2021

The ALJ issues a new decision, reversing the original finding and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.

The Initial Hearing: Petition Denied

The initial hearing on August 28, 2020, focused on whether the Respondent had violated its statutory obligation to provide records.

Petitioner’s Allegation

The Petitioner’s case was based on her formal request for records on April 29, 2020, and the Respondent’s failure to produce any documents. Her petition stated:

“After repeated attempts since the beginning of this year to get information, on April 29, 2020 I emailed Associa Arizona and the Board of Directors of Park Scottsdale II formally requesting records per ARS 33-1258 and to date, May 25, 2020, I have not received anything.”

Respondent’s Defense

The Respondent’s primary defense was that it could not provide documents that were not in its possession.

• Withheld Records: Joseph Silberschlag, Secretary of the Board of Directors, testified that due to ongoing issues with the former management company (CMC), neither the association nor Associa had possession of many documents, including previous financial records.

• Inability to Create Documents: Mr. Silberschlag stated that without the starting balances from CMC, it was not possible to create current financial statements.

• No Obligation to Create: The Respondent argued it was “under no statutory obligation to create documents to respond to Petitioner’s request.”

Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ sided with the Respondent in the initial decision. The judge noted that while there was no dispute that the documents were not provided within the 10-day statutory period, the Petitioner had not provided any authority showing the Respondent was required to create a document responsive to her request. The ruling concluded:

“Respondent did not have possession of any of the documents requested at the time of Petitioner’s request… Thus, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

The petition was subsequently denied on September 17, 2020.

The Rehearing: Decision Reversed

A rehearing was granted after the Petitioner discovered that, contrary to the testimony at the initial hearing, the Respondent had possessed several of the requested documents. The rehearing on March 4, 2021, introduced new evidence that fundamentally changed the outcome of the case.

New Evidence and Testimony

The Petitioner presented evidence focusing on three categories of documents she had requested:

• Bank Statements: Petitioner testified that bank statements she received after the initial hearing showed they had been sent to Associa starting in August 2019. Evelyn Shanley, Community Director for Associa, testified that the statements were sent to a national office in Richardson, Texas, and admitted she did not contact that office to obtain them in response to the Petitioner’s request.

• Contracts: Petitioner received two contracts signed by board members on March 27 and March 31, 2020, which were in existence prior to her request. Ms. Shanley admitted these were not provided because the board members had not given them to Associa.

• 1099s: Petitioner noted a document indicating four vendors were eligible for 1099s for 2019. Ms. Shanley denied that any 1099s had been issued.

Respondent’s Evolved Arguments

Faced with the new evidence, the Respondent’s arguments shifted:

• “Immediate Possession”: Counsel argued that the requested documents were not in the “immediate possession” of Associa’s local office.

• Concession on Bank Statements: During closing arguments, Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “‘one could concede’ the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.”

• Mootness and Penalties: Counsel argued the matter was now moot because the documents had been provided. It was further argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one on her initial petition form.

Final Ruling and Rationale

The ALJ found the new evidence compelling and decisive.

• Direct Contradiction: The ruling stated that “the evidence presented during the rehearing was directly contradictory” to the representation made at the initial hearing that Respondent did not have possession of the documents.

• Violation Established: The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner successfully “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).”

• Authority for Civil Penalty: The ALJ firmly rejected the Respondent’s argument against a civil penalty. The decision cited A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, noting that the plain language of the statute grants the judge the authority to levy a penalty for established violations. The judge wrote, “Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.”

Final Order and Penalties

Given the established violation, the ALJ found that a civil penalty was appropriate. The final order, issued March 24, 2021, mandated the following actions by the Respondent within 30 days of the decision’s mailing date:

1. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Pay the Petitioner, Nancy L. Babington, her filing fee of $500.00.

2. Payment of Civil Penalty: Pay the Arizona Department of Real Estate a civil penalty of $2,500.00.






Study Guide – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case Nancy L. Babington vs. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. It covers the initial hearing, the subsequent rehearing, the key arguments presented by both parties, and the final legal outcome. The materials are designed to test and deepen understanding of the case’s facts, legal principles, and timeline.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three complete sentences, using only information provided in the case documents.

1. What specific Arizona statute did Petitioner Nancy L. Babington allege that the Respondent, Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, had violated?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary defense during the initial hearing for not providing the requested documents within the statutory timeframe?

3. What was the official outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on September 17, 2020?

4. On what legal grounds did the Petitioner successfully request a rehearing of the case?

5. What new evidence regarding the requested bank statements was introduced during the rehearing?

6. How did the Respondent’s management company, Associa Arizona, explain its failure to produce the two contracts signed in March 2020?

7. What was the Respondent’s counsel’s argument at the rehearing for why a civil penalty should not be levied?

8. How did the Administrative Law Judge counter the Respondent’s argument regarding the imposition of a civil penalty?

9. What two financial penalties were included in the final order issued on March 24, 2021?

10. What is the standard of proof the Petitioner was required to meet, and what is its definition according to the case file?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent had violated A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1258. This statute requires a condominium owners association to make its financial and other records reasonably available for examination by any member within ten business days of a request.

2. During the initial hearing, the Respondent argued that it was unable to provide the documents because they were not in its possession. This was attributed to a financial disagreement with its former management company, Community Management & Consulting (CMC), which was withholding records.

3. The first decision, issued on September 17, 2020, was in favor of the Respondent. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioner’s petition, concluding she had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the statute, as it was not required to create or provide documents it did not possess.

4. A rehearing was granted based on the Petitioner’s claim of “newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” After the initial ruling, the Respondent provided some documents, which revealed that it had, in fact, been in possession of them prior to the Petitioner’s formal request.

5. During the rehearing, it was revealed that bank statements were being sent to Associa’s national central office in Richardson, Texas, starting in August 2019. An Associa representative admitted that the local office never contacted the central office to obtain these statements in response to the Petitioner’s request.

6. Associa’s representative, Evelyn Shanley, admitted that two signed contracts existed but had not been provided to the Petitioner. She stated this was because the members of the Board of Directors who signed them had not yet provided the contracts to Associa.

7. The Respondent’s counsel argued that a civil penalty was not appropriate because the Petitioner did not specifically request one by checking the corresponding box on the initial petition. Counsel asserted that the rehearing process was not designed for the Petitioner to change the relief requested.

8. The Judge rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating it was an erroneous interpretation of A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. The Judge clarified that the plain language of the statute allows the Administrative Law Judge to levy a civil penalty for established violations, and nothing in the statute limits available remedies to only those specifically requested by a petitioner.

9. The final order required the Respondent to pay the Petitioner her filing fee of $500.00. Additionally, the Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.00 to the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

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

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-style responses. Formulate a comprehensive argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the concept of “possession” as it applied to the association’s records in this case. How did the distinction between Associa’s local Arizona office and its national central office in Texas impact the initial ruling versus the outcome of the rehearing?

2. Trace the evolution of the Respondent’s legal arguments from the first hearing to the second. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their positions at each stage, including the “mootness” argument, and explain why their defense ultimately failed.

3. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner fail to meet this standard in the initial hearing but succeed in the rehearing? Use specific examples of evidence related to the bank statements and contracts to support the analysis.

4. Examine the role and authority of the Administrative Law Judge in this case, particularly concerning the decision to grant a rehearing and the authority to levy a civil penalty even when not explicitly requested by the petitioner.

5. Evaluate the significance of A.R.S. § 33-1258 for condominium owners. Using the facts of this case, explain the rights it grants to members and the obligations it places on associations and their management companies regarding record-keeping and transparency.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

A.R.S. § 33-1258

The specific Arizona Revised Statute that requires condominium associations to make all financial and other records reasonably available for examination by a member within ten business days of a request.

Associa Arizona (Associa)

The management company hired by Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation after the termination of the previous management agreement. Associa was responsible for handling the Petitioner’s records request on behalf of the association.

Civil Penalty

A monetary penalty levied by a government agency or administrative judge for a violation of a statute or regulation. In this case, a $2,500 penalty was levied against the Respondent for violating A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Community Management & Consulting, LLC (CMC)

The previous management company for Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation. CMC terminated its agreement in 2019 and was withholding records from the association due to a financial disagreement.

Department of Real Estate

The Arizona state agency with jurisdiction to hear disputes between property owners and condominium owners associations. The Petitioner filed her initial petition with this department.

HOA Dispute Rehearing Request

The formal request filed by the Petitioner with the Department of Real Estate to have the case reheard. It was granted based on the discovery of new material evidence.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, the Petitioner was Nancy L. Babington, a member of the condominium association.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative hearing. It is defined as evidence that is more convincing and shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Respondent was Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation, the condominium owners association.






Blog Post – 20F-H2020064-REL-RHG


She Sued Her HOA and Lost. What Happened Next Reversed Everything: 4 Lessons from a Homeowner’s Fight for Records

For too many homeowners, the Homeowner’s Association is a black box. Simple requests for financial records or board contracts—information you are legally entitled to—are met with delays, excuses, or outright silence. This isn’t just an annoyance; it’s an abuse of power that can leave residents feeling helpless against a secretive body that controls their property and their money. But what happens when one homeowner refuses to accept the stonewalling?

The case of Nancy L. Babington versus her Scottsdale, Arizona HOA provides a powerful playbook for fighting back. Documented in public legal records, her journey began with a standard request for records, escalated to a legal petition that she initially lost, and ended with a stunning reversal that holds critical lessons for every homeowner in America. Her fight demonstrates how persistence, diligence, and an understanding of the law can turn a seemingly hopeless situation into a victory for transparency.

Here are the four essential lessons from her successful battle for accountability.

1. Lesson One: An Initial Loss Isn’t the Final Word

Nancy Babington’s initial petition against her HOA was denied. At the first hearing on August 28, 2020, the HOA presented a seemingly plausible defense: they couldn’t provide the records because of an ongoing dispute with a former management company, CMC, which they claimed was withholding the documents.

The judge sided with the HOA. In a decision issued on September 17, 2020, the judge ruled against Babington, stating she had not sufficiently proven her case. The official ruling found she “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258(A).” For most people, this would have been the end of the story.

But then the HOA made a critical, almost theatrical, miscalculation. After their victory, they provided Babington with some of the documents she had requested. As she reviewed them, she discovered the bombshell: the records proved the HOA had possessed crucial documents like bank statements and signed board contracts all along. These documents had nothing to do with the former management company, CMC, making the HOA’s initial defense appear to be a deliberate misdirection. This was the “newly discovered material evidence” she needed. The homeowner turned the HOA’s own actions against them, securing a rehearing on March 4, 2021, that would unravel their entire case.

2. Lesson Two: “Possession” Is More Than What’s in the Local Office

During the rehearing, the HOA pivoted to a new excuse, this time concerning bank statements. Their national management company, Associa, had its bank statements sent to a central office in Richardson, Texas. Because the records weren’t physically in the local Arizona office, the HOA argued they were not in their “immediate possession” and therefore not subject to the production deadline.

Under questioning, the Community Director, Evelyn Shanley, admitted she never even contacted the Texas office to get the statements for the homeowner. The HOA’s legal argument rested on the idea that their own corporate geography could shield them from transparency laws.

The judge flatly rejected this logic. An organization is responsible for its own records, no matter where they are stored. The argument was so weak that the HOA’s own lawyer was forced to backpedal during the hearing. The final decision noted:

Counsel acknowledged during closing arguments that “one could concede” the bank statements located in Richardson, Texas were in the possession of Associa and should have been provided to Petitioner in response to her request.

This ruling is a critical precedent: Your HOA cannot hide records in a corporate vault in another state and claim they are out of reach. If the documents belong to the association, they are in its possession, period.

3. Lesson Three: The Board Is the HOA, Not a Separate Entity

The next fight was over two contracts signed by board members in March 2020—documents that were created months after the dispute with the old management company. The excuse for not providing them? The management company claimed the contracts “had not been provided by the members of the Board of Directors to Associa.”

This was an attempt to create a legal fiction—that the Board of Directors and the HOA’s management company are separate entities, and that if the Board withholds a document from its own agent, the HOA can claim ignorance. The court did not buy it. By holding the HOA (the Respondent) responsible for the failure to produce the documents, the judge made it clear that this distinction is invalid.

For the purposes of records law, the Board is the HOA. The lesson is clear: The buck stops with the HOA. Board members cannot play a shell game with documents to evade their legal duty.

4. Lesson Four: Justice Doesn’t Require You to Check the Right Box

Having lost on the facts, the HOA’s counsel made one last-ditch effort to avoid a penalty. They argued that a civil penalty was inappropriate because the petitioner “did not indicate in her petition that she was seeking a civil penalty.” In essence, they claimed that because she hadn’t checked the right box on a form, the judge was powerless to punish them for breaking the law.

The Administrative Law Judge swiftly dismantled this procedural excuse. The judge’s final decision, issued on March 24, 2021, explicitly called out the HOA’s flawed logic:

Respondent erroneously interpreted A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to require a petitioner to identify the requested relief in the petition when the plain language of the statute provides that the Administrative Law Judge may levy a civil penalty for violations that are established. Nothing in the statute limits the available remedies to those specifically requested by a petitioner.

The final ruling was the tangible consequence of the HOA’s failed arguments and lack of transparency. The judge ordered the HOA to reimburse Babington’s $500 filing fee and levied a separate $2,500 civil penalty payable to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. The message was unmistakable: the law has teeth, and a judge can use them based on the facts, regardless of which boxes were checked on a form.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

Nancy Babington’s fight is a masterclass in homeowner advocacy. Her journey from a seemingly hopeless loss to a precedent-setting victory proves that a single resident, armed with facts and relentless persistence, can force an HOA to follow the law. This case affirms that transparency is a legal requirement, not an optional courtesy. It serves as a powerful reminder that while the law is on the side of transparency, it often falls to diligent homeowners to hold their associations accountable.

This case was won because the facts came to light—do you know what your rights are, and what records you’re entitled to see from your own HOA?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Nancy L. Babington (petitioner)
    Appeared on her own behalf at both the initial hearing and the rehearing.,

Respondent Side

  • Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the initial hearing.,
  • Mark K. Sahl (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Scott B. Carpenter (HOA attorney)
    CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
    Represented Respondent at the rehearing.,
  • Joseph Silberschlag (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Secretary of the Board of Directors; testified at the initial hearing; also referred to as 'Joe Silberschlag' in the petition request.,,,
  • Debbie Schumacher (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Marty Shuford (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Angelina Rajenovich (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Dermot Brown (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Lori Nusbaum (board member)
    Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation
    Named in Petitioner's record request email.,
  • Linda Parker (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Director of Client Services; responded to Petitioner's record requests.,,,
  • Evelyn Shanley (property manager/witness)
    Associa Arizona
    Community Director; previously communicated with Petitioner; testified at the rehearing.,,,
  • Laura Smith (property manager)
    Associa Arizona
    Previously communicated with Petitioner regarding records.,

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Transmitted the initial decision.

Other Participants

  • Stephen Silberschlag (unknown)
    Petitioner requested proof of his liability insurance.,