Nancy L Babington v. Park Scottsdale II Townhouse Corporation

Posted on March 24, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	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.,

Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association,

Posted on March 23, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120002-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-08-09
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford Burnes and Maria Burnes	Counsel	Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.
Respondent	Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	John Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Outcome Summary

The final decision affirmed the denial of Issues 1, 2, and 3, and the granting of Issue 4. The Association was found to have violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 for failing to provide complete records in a timely manner, resulting in the reimbursement of 1/4 of the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Section 5, Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0, and A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of CC&Rs Section 5

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), Section 5, by allowing construction on Lot 7 without prior ARC approval of required documents.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 5

Alleged violation of Community Agricultural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Petitioners alleged that the HOA violated the Architectural Design Guidelines, Section 4.0, by failing to require the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit for Lot 7.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), (D), and (E)

Petitioners alleged that the Board conducted an unnoticed closed meeting in violation of Arizona open meeting statutes.

Orders: Petition denied.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT § 10-3821

Alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805

Petitioners alleged that the HOA failed to timely and completely fulfill a records request submitted on June 04, 2020, specifically by failing to provide missing email attachments.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse 1/4 of Petitioners' filing fee ($125.00). Respondent must henceforth comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 and provide the missing email attachments within 10-business days.

Filing fee: $125.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Statute Violation, Records Request, Filing Fee Refund, Architectural Review, Open Meetings

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804(E)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821
CC&Rs Section 5
Architectural Design Guidelines Section 4.0

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 866263.pdf

Uploaded 2025-12-09T10:06:10 (268.5 KB)

21F-H2120002-REL Decision – 902726.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:35:42 (239.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120002-REL

Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Final Decision

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes (“Petitioners”) versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association (“Respondent”), case number 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG. The dispute centered on a four-issue petition alleging violations by the Association related to new construction on a neighboring property (Lot 7), an unnoticed Board meeting, and the fulfillment of a records request.

Following an initial hearing and a subsequent rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) largely affirmed the original decision. The Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on three of the four issues, with the judge finding no violations by the Association regarding architectural controls, the waiver of a construction deposit, or the conduct of a Board meeting.

However, the Petitioners successfully proved that the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute § 33-1805 by failing to timely and completely fulfill a comprehensive records request. The final order requires the Association to reimburse the Petitioners for a portion of their filing fee ($500), comply with the records statute moving forward, and provide the specific missing documents (email attachments) from the original request. The rehearing was granted on the basis of “newly discovered evidence,” but the Petitioners conceded during the proceeding that they possessed no new evidence, leading the ALJ to rely solely on the record from the first hearing.

I. Background and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between property owners Clifford and Maria Burnes and their homeowners’ association, Saguaro Crest, located in Tucson, Arizona. The Association is governed by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in 2006 and Architectural Design Guidelines adopted in 2018.

Procedural Timeline

July 17, 2020

Petitioners file a 4-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

August 11, 2020

Respondent (HOA) denies all claims in its answer.

Dec 11, 2020 & Mar 1-2, 2021

An evidentiary hearing is held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

March 22, 2021

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the initial decision.

April 28, 2021

Petitioners file a dispute rehearing request, alleging newly discovered evidence.

May 21, 2021

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

July 20, 2021

The rehearing is held. Petitioners concede they have no “new” evidence.

August 09, 2021

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the initial ruling.

Key Parties

Name / Entity

Clifford & Maria Burnes

Petitioners; owners of Lot 6.

Cynthia F. Burnes, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioners.

Saguaro Crest HOA, Inc.

Respondent.

John Crotty, Esq.

Counsel for Respondent.

Norm Burnes

Petitioner; appointed to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in 2017.

Raul & Ramona Martinez

Owners of Lot 7, the property under construction.

Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

II. Analysis of Allegations and Findings

The petition presented four distinct issues for adjudication. The Petitioners bore the burden of proving each violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of CC&Rs Section 5 (Architectural Control)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association improperly allowed construction on Lot 7 to proceed without required documents being submitted to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for approval.

• Factual Record:

◦ The ARC, which included Petitioner Norm Burnes, unanimously approved construction plans for Lot 7 on January 3, 2018.

◦ Construction began sometime in 2018. Pima County approved the plans on May 4, 2018.

◦ On April 14, 2020, Petitioner Burnes sent a formal letter of concern to the Board, stating the placement of the home on Lot 7 was not per the approved plan and had destroyed their view and privacy. The letter included the following statement:

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ determined that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans the ARC approved on January 3, 2018, no subsequent or modified plans were ever submitted to the ARC for review. The decision states, “The ARC cannot approve or deny proposed plans unless they are submitted for review.” Furthermore, the record shows the construction complies with the local government’s building authority.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Design Guidelines Section 4.0 (Construction Deposit)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association allowed construction on Lot 7 without collecting the required $5,000.00 Construction Compliance Deposit.

• Factual Record:

◦ On May 3, 2020, the Board of Directors decided to honor a Construction Compliance Deposit waiver that had been previously granted to the Martinez family.

◦ This discretionary waiver was reportedly granted during an economic downturn to incentivize property purchases.

◦ Critically, the Association “does not possess a corporate record that any such Construction Compliance Deposit Waiver was previously granted to the Martinez family.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The ALJ concluded it was “clear that Lot 7 was granted a construction compliance deposit waiver.” The lack of a documented record was noted, but the inquiry was deemed moot as it was not a noticed issue in the petition.

Issue 3: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Unnoticed Meeting)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Board of Directors conducted an unnoticed meeting on or about May 20, 2020, to consider matters relevant to Petitioner Norm Burnes.

• Factual Record:

◦ On April 18, 2020, Petitioner requested an urgent meeting with the Board, which was held the next day.

◦ On May 20, 2020, the Board acted with unanimous consent (obtained via individual signatures) to restrict Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member “regarding all issued related to the construction of Lot 7.”

◦ The Board’s notes state: “[T]he Board of Directors hereby unanimously agree that [Petitioner] be removed as an ARC Member for all ARC related matters concerning Lot 7.”

• Conclusion of Law: No violation found. The judge ruled that the Board’s failure to notice the April 19 meeting was excused as an exception because the Petitioner himself had requested it on an urgent basis. Regarding the May 20 action, the record shows Mr. Burnes was not removed from the ARC entirely, but only recused from matters concerning the Lot 7 dispute in which he had a direct conflict of interest.

Issue 4: Alleged Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805 (Records Request)

• Petitioners’ Allegation: The Association failed to properly fulfill a records request.

• Factual Record:

◦ On June 4, 2020, Petitioners submitted a comprehensive, 17-point records request and demanded fulfillment within the statutory 10-day period.

◦ On June 16, 2020, the Association made 342 pages of documents available for in-person review but prohibited Petitioners from using their own scanning equipment.

◦ The statutory deadline for compliance was June 18, 2020.

◦ On June 24, 2020, after Petitioners paid a $51.30 fee, the Association provided copies of the documents.

◦ Later that day, Petitioners notified the Association that the document package was incomplete, as “attachments for some emails are not included.”

• Conclusion of Law: Violation established. The ALJ found that the Association failed to comply with the statute. The documents were made available for review within the 10-day window, but the copies were not provided until June 24, after the deadline. More importantly, the copies provided were incomplete. The judge rejected the Association’s argument that a clarification from the Petitioner reset the statutory clock.

III. Final Order and Directives

The Final Administrative Law Judge Decision, issued after the rehearing, affirmed the conclusions of the initial March 22, 2021 decision.

• Petition Status: The petition was granted in part (on Issue 4) and denied in part (on Issues 1, 2, and 3).

• Financial Reimbursement: The Respondent (Saguaro Crest HOA) is ordered to reimburse the Petitioners for one-quarter of their filing fee, amounting to $500.00.

• Statutory Compliance: The Respondent is ordered to henceforth comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805 regarding records requests.

• Document Production: The Respondent is ordered to provide the Petitioners with the missing email attachments related to the June 4, 2020 records request within 10 business days of the final order’s effective date.

Study Guide – 21F-H2120002-REL

Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a detailed review of the Final Administrative Law Judge Decision in the case of Clifford and Maria Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2120002-REL-RHG). The guide includes a short-answer quiz with an answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms used in the legal proceedings.

Short-Answer Quiz

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

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

2. List the four distinct issues the Petitioners alleged against the Respondent in their initial petition.

3. On what grounds did the Petitioners request and receive a rehearing after the initial decision was issued on March 22, 2021?

4. What was the outcome of the Petitioners’ attempt to present new witnesses and exhibits during the rehearing on July 20, 2021?

5. Why did the Administrative Law Judge conclude that the Respondent had not violated Section 5 of the CC&Rs regarding the construction on Lot 7?

6. Explain the controversy surrounding the $5,000 Construction Compliance Deposit and the court’s ultimate finding on the matter.

7. What action did the Board of Directors take against Petitioner Norm Burnes on May 20, 2020, and why was this action not considered a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804?

8. Which of the four allegations was ultimately successful for the Petitioners, and what specific failures by the Respondent led to this finding?

9. What were the four key orders issued by the Administrative Law Judge in the Final Order?

10. What was Petitioner Norm Burnes’s official role within the Saguaro Crest community, and how did this position create a conflict of interest in the dispute?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. The Petitioners are Clifford and Maria Burnes, who are property owners in the Saguaro Crest subdivision and members of the homeowners’ association. The Respondent is the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA), which is the governing body for the subdivision.

2. The four issues were: (1) The HOA allowed construction on Lot 7 without required ARC document submission in violation of CC&Rs Section 5; (2) The HOA allowed construction without a required Construction Compliance Deposit; (3) The Board conducted an unnoticed meeting in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804; (4) The HOA failed to fulfill a records request in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1805.

3. The Petitioners requested a rehearing on the grounds of having “Newly discovered material evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at the original hearing.” They also alleged that the original decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

4. At the rehearing, the Petitioners conceded they possessed no “newly discovered” evidence, but rather evidence they had strategically chosen not to present previously. Because they did not provide a satisfactory offer of proof for new evidence, they were precluded from recalling witnesses or offering additional exhibits.

5. The Judge found that while the construction on Lot 7 was not per the plans approved by the ARC on January 3, 2018, no additional plans had been submitted for the ARC’s consideration. The Judge reasoned that the ARC cannot approve or deny plans that are not submitted, and the build complied with the local government’s building authority.

6. The Architectural Design Guidelines required a $5,000 deposit, but the owners of Lot 7 had been granted a waiver. Although the HOA did not possess a corporate record of the waiver, the Board voted to honor it. The court found no violation because the waiver had been granted, and the lack of documentation was not the specific issue being litigated.

7. On May 20, 2020, the Board held an unnoticed meeting and, via unanimous consent, restricted Petitioner Burnes’s participation as an ARC member for all matters related to Lot 7. This was not a violation because the failure to notice was excused as an exception, and the Board only removed him from matters concerning Lot 7, not from the ARC entirely.

8. Issue #4, the records request violation, was successful for the Petitioners. The Respondent failed to provide copies of the requested documents within the statutory 10-day deadline, providing them on June 24, 2020, when the deadline was June 18, 2020. Furthermore, the documents provided were incomplete, as they were missing email attachments.

9. The Final Order affirmed the previous decision, ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioners for 1/4 of their filing fee ($500.00), ordered the Respondent to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 going forward, and ordered the Respondent to provide the missing email attachments within 10 business days.

10. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This created a conflict of interest because he was part of the committee that initially approved the Lot 7 construction plans, but he later raised formal complaints against that same construction project due to its impact on his own property (Lot 6).

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth analysis of the case. No answers are provided.

1. Analyze the concept of “burden of proof” by a “preponderance of the evidence” as it applies to this case. How did the Petitioners succeed in meeting this burden for Issue #4 but fail for the other three issues?

2. Discuss the powers and limitations of a Homeowners’ Association Board and its Architectural Review Committee as illustrated in this case, specifically concerning construction approval, enforcement authority, and the management of member conflicts of interest.

3. The Petitioners’ request for a rehearing was based on “newly discovered material evidence.” Explain why this request ultimately failed to change the outcome and discuss the strategic decisions made by the Petitioners regarding the presentation of evidence.

4. Examine the conflict between a homeowner’s desire for privacy and unobstructed views (as expressed by the Petitioners) and the rights of a neighboring property owner to develop their land. How did the community’s governing documents and the final legal decision address this conflict?

5. Trace the timeline of the records request dispute (Issue #4). What were the specific actions and inactions by the Respondent that led to a finding of a statutory violation, and what does this illustrate about an HOA’s administrative and statutory responsibilities to its members?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

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

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

A committee charged by an HOA’s CC&Rs with implementing architectural guidelines to maintain aesthetic standards and preserve property values. Petitioner Norm Burnes was a member of this committee.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

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

Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT. or A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the State of Arizona. Specific statutes cited include § 33-1804 (regarding open meetings) and § 33-1805 (regarding association records).

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a legal case to prove their allegations. In this proceeding, the Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

The governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community. They form an enforceable contract between the HOA and each property owner.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

The organization that makes and enforces rules for a subdivision or planned community. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

Offer of Proof

A presentation of evidence made to a judge to demonstrate the substance and relevance of evidence that a party seeks to introduce. The Petitioners’ offer of proof regarding new evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for other state agencies. This matter was referred to the OAH by the Department of Real Estate.

Petitioners

The party that initiates a legal action or petition. In this case, Clifford and Maria Burnes are the Petitioners.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases. It means that the evidence presented is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that a contention is more probably true than not.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. is the Respondent.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120002-REL

🧑‍⚖️

21F-H2120002-REL-RHG

1 source

The provided text is a Final Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, detailing a dispute between petitioners Clifford and Maria Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. The case involved four specific allegations of violations by the Association, including allowing unapproved construction on Lot 7, failing to collect a required construction deposit, conducting an unnoticed meeting, and failing to fulfill a records request. This document affirms an earlier decision, concluding that the Petitioners failed to sustain the burden of proof for the first three issues but succeeded on the fourth issue regarding the violation of Arizona law concerning records requests. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with the relevant statute, provide missing email attachments, and reimburse a portion of the Petitioners’ filing fee.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes (petitioner)
Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner; ARC Member
Maria Burnes (petitioner)
Saguaro Crest subdivision property owner
Jacob A. Kubert (attorney)
Cynthia F. Burnes (attorney)
Debora Brown (witness)

Respondent Side

John Crotty (attorney)
Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Kelsea Dressen (attorney)
Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Martinez (board president; witness)
Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
President of the Board
Dave Madill (board member)
Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
Vice President of the Board
Julie Stevens (board member)
Saguaro Crest HOA Board of Directors
Treasurer of the Board
Raul Martinez (property owner)
Owner of Lot 7 and 13
Construction on his property (Lot 7) is subject of the dispute
Ramona Martinez (property owner)
Owner of Lot 7

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Sadot Negreté (observer)
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Dan Gardener (ADRE contact)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Also listed as DGardner
c. serrano (administrative staff)
Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

Jamie Argueta (ARC member; property seller)
Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Sold Lots 7 and 13 to Martinez family
Joseph Martinez (ARC member)
Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Jesus Carranza (substitute ARC member)
Saguaro Crest HOA Architectural Review Committee
Substitute for Petitioner during Lot 7 discussion

Debra K Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Posted on March 17, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2120001-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-17
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	partial
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Debra K. Morin	Counsel	—
Respondent	Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.	Counsel	Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's petition was affirmed in part and denied in part. Petitioner prevailed on Complaint #1 (improper use of email/unanimous written consent for non-privileged business), but lost on Complaint #2 (alleged improper emergency executive session). Respondent was ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 and reimburse the $500 filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the emergency executive session (Complaint #2).

Key Issues & Findings

Non-privileged Association Business Conducted in Closed Session (Complaint #1)

The HOA used unanimous written consents obtained via individual emails from board members to approve association business (such as approving repairs, replacement of equipment, and pruning) outside of open meetings, violating the requirement that all meetings of the board of directors must be open to members.

Orders: Respondent ordered to reimburse the $500.00 filing fee and comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward. No civil penalty assessed due to the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 10-3821

Association Business Conducted in an Emergency Executive Session (Complaint #2)

Petitioner alleged misuse of emergency executive sessions. Respondent represented that the sessions only addressed issues under statutory exceptions. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this violation occurred.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Executive Session, COVID-19

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1804
A.R.S. § 10-3821
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – 864802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:10 (101.9 KB)

21F-H2120001-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2120001-REL/838004.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:34:13 (125.4 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG

Administrative Hearing Brief: Morin vs. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the findings and rulings from an administrative case (No. 21F-H2120001-REL) involving homeowner Debra K. Morin (Petitioner) and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Respondent). The core issue revolved around the association’s adherence to Arizona’s open meeting laws for planned communities, as stipulated in A.R.S. § 33-1804.

The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the Solera Chandler HOA violated this statute by conducting non-privileged association business without an open meeting. The Board of Directors made numerous decisions between March and July 2020—including approving contracts for repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines—through a process of “unanimous written consent” executed via individual emails. This method circumvented statutory requirements for 48-hour notice to members, published agendas, and the opportunity for homeowners to speak before a vote.

The HOA defended its actions by citing the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and a separate statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which permits non-profit corporations to act without a meeting. However, the Judge ruled that the specific requirements of the HOA open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) take precedence, emphasizing the state’s explicit policy in favor of transparency and open meetings for homeowners’ associations.

While the petitioner’s primary complaint was affirmed, a second allegation regarding the misuse of emergency executive sessions was denied due to insufficient evidence. The final order directed the HOA to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1804 in the future and to reimburse the petitioner’s $500 filing fee. No civil penalty was assessed, with the judge acknowledging the “unprecedented global pandemic” as a mitigating circumstance.

Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2120001-REL

Petitioner

Debra K. Morin

Respondent

Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer

Jurisdiction

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Timeline of Adjudication

• July 10, 2020: Debra Morin files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

• October 29, 2020: The initial administrative hearing is held.

• November 18, 2020: The first Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued.

• February 25, 2021: A rehearing is held at the Respondent’s request to clarify a finding of fact.

• March 17, 2021: The final Administrative Law Judge Decision is issued, affirming the original conclusion with a factual correction.

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner, Debra K. Morin, focused her case on two specific complaints alleging violations of Arizona’s open meeting law for HOAs (A.R.S. § 33-1804).

Complaint #1: Improper Use of Closed Sessions and Unanimous Written Consent

The petitioner alleged that the Solera HOA Board of Directors conducted non-privileged association business in closed sessions without proper procedure. Specifically, the Board was accused of:

• Failing to provide members with 48-hour notice of meetings.

• Failing to provide agendas for the business being conducted.

• Denying members the opportunity to speak prior to the Board taking action on key issues.

• Using “unanimous written consent” to bypass open meeting requirements.

Complaint #2: Misuse of “Emergency Executive Sessions”

The petitioner further alleged that the Board conducted privileged association business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” improperly by:

• Failing to identify the specific statutory exception to the open meeting law that permitted the closed session.

• Failing to provide an agenda and 48-hour notice where possible.

• Failing to produce minutes stating the reason for the emergency and submitting them at the next board meeting.

Respondent’s Actions and Defense

The Solera Chandler HOA acknowledged using unanimous written consents but argued its actions were a necessary response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented in-person meetings. The Board asserted its actions were legally authorized under A.R.S. § 10-3821, a statute governing non-profit corporations.

Use of Unanimous Written Consent

Evidence presented at the rehearing established the Board’s procedure. For each action, an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to solicit a “yes” or “no” vote. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, and the Board President would sign the formal consent document. The HOA stated it had not used this method before the pandemic and did not intend to continue its use.

The following actions were taken by the Board using this method and were later ratified at the August 5, 2020, open Board meeting:

Action Taken via Unanimous Written Consent

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of sidewalk and community center entrance.

March 30, 2020

Approve repair and replacement of cool decking around both pools.

April 30, 2020

Approve Kirk Sandquist as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

April 30, 2020

Approve Tom Dusbabek as a member of the Architectural Review Committee.

May 5, 2020

Approve Gilbert Road retention basin project, related irrigation replacement, and addition of 420 tons of granite.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of a Carrier 6-ton heat pump.

May 8, 2020

Approve replacement of two Carrier 5-ton heat pumps.

May 27, 2020

Approve hiring Ken Eller to draft architectural drawings.

June 4, 2020

Approve a change to the Design Guidelines at the request of the Architectural Review Committee.

July 1, 2020

Approve the 2020 summer hardwood pruning and removal of trees.

Chronology of Executive Sessions

In addition to the actions taken by written consent, the Board held numerous executive (closed) sessions between March and August 2020, citing specific exceptions in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A). Minutes for these meetings were approved at the August 5, 2020 executive session but were redacted to conceal the substance of the discussions.

Date of Session

Cited Statutory Exceptions for Closed Session (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))

March 13, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

March 16, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation

March 19, 2020

(1) Legal advice

March 24, 2020

(4) Employee matters

April 6, 2020

(4) Employee matters

April 10, 2020

(4) Employee matters

May 4, 2020

(4) Employee matters

May 12, 2020*

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

May 15, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation

May 27, 2020

(2) Pending litigation, (4) Employee matters

June 24, 2020

(2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information

August 5, 2020

(1) Legal advice, (2) Pending litigation, (3) Personal/health/financial information

*Designated an “emergency executive session.”

Adjudication and Legal Rulings

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision rested on the interpretation and primacy of Arizona’s statutes governing homeowners’ associations.

Statutory Conflict and Interpretation

The central legal question was the conflict between two state laws:

• A.R.S. § 33-1804: Specifically requires all HOA Board meetings to be open to all members, with limited exceptions for closed executive sessions. It explicitly states a policy that statutes should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• A.R.S. § 10-3821: A general corporate law that allows boards of non-profit corporations to take action “without a meeting” if there is unanimous written consent from all directors.

The Judge concluded that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 may apply to non-profits generally, the more specific statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, governs the conduct of HOA boards. The requirement for open meetings in the HOA statute overrides the provision allowing for action without a meeting in the general non-profit statute.

Ruling on Complaint #1 (Improper Closed Business)

Finding: In favor of the Petitioner.

• The Judge ruled that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed the violation.

• The decision states, “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via email rather than in meetings open to the members.”

• An initial finding that the business was conducted via “conference calls” was corrected after the rehearing to specify the method was individual emails, but this did not change the outcome.

• The Judge gave “consideration to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic” and found that no civil penalty was appropriate under the circumstances.

Ruling on Complaint #2 (Misuse of Executive Sessions)

Finding: In favor of the Respondent.

• The Judge found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof for this allegation.

• The decision notes, “Nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed other issues that did not fall under the exceptions listed and/or that the May 12, 2020 executive session was not an emergency.”

Final Order and Directives

The Administrative Law Judge’s final, binding order issued on March 17, 2021, included the following directives:

1. Petition Affirmed in Part: The petitioner’s petition was affirmed on the issue of Complaint #1 and denied on the issue of Complaint #2.

2. Reimbursement of Filing Fee: Respondent (Solera Chandler HOA) was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner (Debra Morin) her $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which she prevailed.

3. Compliance Mandate: Respondent was directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Study Guide – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Morin v. Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Debra K. Morin and the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc. It includes short-answer questions with an answer key, essay questions for further analysis, and a comprehensive glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information from the source documents.

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

2. What were the two main complaints filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent’s Board of Directors?

3. Which specific Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what is the general policy purpose of this statute?

4. How did the Respondent justify its use of unanimous written consents and its decision to forgo open meetings from March to July 2020?

5. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final ruling on Complaint #1, which concerned conducting non-privileged association business?

6. What was the ruling on Complaint #2, which concerned the use of emergency executive sessions, and what was the reason for this outcome?

7. A rehearing was granted after the initial decision. What specific factual conclusion from the first decision was the focus of this rehearing?

8. How did the evidence presented at the rehearing clarify the method used by the Board of Directors to pass unanimous written consents?

9. Despite finding the Respondent in violation of state law, why did the Administrative Law Judge decide not to impose a civil penalty?

10. What two actions was the Respondent ordered to take as a result of the final ruling?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were Debra K. Morin, the Petitioner, and Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the Respondent. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging statutory violations by the Respondent homeowners’ association.

2. The Petitioner’s first complaint alleged that the Respondent conducted non-privileged business in closed sessions using unanimous written consent, without providing proper notice, agendas, or an opportunity for members to speak. The second complaint alleged the Respondent conducted privileged business under the guise of “emergency executive sessions” without proper justification or documentation.

3. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804. The stated policy of this statute is that all meetings of a planned community should be conducted openly, with notices and agendas provided to reasonably inform members and ensure they have the ability to speak before a vote is taken.

4. The Respondent argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, its Board of Directors was unable to meet in person to protect the health of its members and directors. The Respondent asserted that taking action via unanimous written consents was authorized under a different statute, A.R.S. § 10-3821, which applies to non-profit corporations.

5. The Judge affirmed the Petitioner’s first complaint, finding that she had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent improperly conducted association business. The Judge ruled that while A.R.S. § 10-3821 allows for action without a meeting, A.R.S. § 33-1804 specifically requires that HOA board meetings be open to members.

6. The Judge denied the Petitioner’s second complaint. The ruling stated that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the executive sessions were improper, as nothing in the record suggested the Board discussed issues outside of the legally permitted exceptions or that the May 12, 2020 session was not a true emergency.

7. The rehearing focused on Conclusion of Law 8 from the initial decision, which stated that the “Respondent improperly conducted association business in closed sessions via conference calls.” The Respondent disputed that the business related to the unanimous written consents was conducted via conference call.

8. Evidence at the rehearing established that an individual from the community management company would email each Board member individually to request a “yes” or “no” vote on a proposal. If all members voted “yes,” the action was considered passed by unanimous consent, which the Judge still found to be a violation of the open meeting law.

9. The Judge gave consideration to the fact that the Respondent was “faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes.” Because of these unique circumstances, the Judge found that no civil penalty was appropriate.

10. The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee for the complaint on which she prevailed. The Respondent was also directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for deeper analysis and discussion. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the statutory conflict between A.R.S. § 33-1804 (HOA open meetings) and A.R.S. § 10-3821 (non-profit action without a meeting) as presented in this case. Explain the legal reasoning the Administrative Law Judge used to determine that the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 took precedence for a homeowners’ association.

2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence.” How did the Petitioner successfully meet this evidentiary burden for Complaint #1 but fail to meet it for Complaint #2?

3. Evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the actions of the Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association and the final judgment of the Administrative Law Judge. How did this external event influence both the violation itself and the penalty phase of the ruling?

4. According to A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), what is the stated public policy of Arizona regarding meetings of planned communities? How did this explicit policy statement likely influence the judge’s interpretation of the law and the final decision regarding Complaint #1?

5. Describe the full procedural history of this case, from the initial petition through the rehearing and final order. What does the granting of a rehearing to correct a factual finding demonstrate about the legal process and the importance of accuracy in judicial decisions?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who presides over administrative hearings, in this case within the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ hears evidence and issues a decision based on the applicable laws and facts.

A.R.S. § 10-3821

An Arizona Revised Statute pertaining to non-profit corporations. It allows a corporation’s board of directors to take action without a meeting if the action is approved by a unanimous written consent signed by every director.

A.R.S. § 33-1804

An Arizona Revised Statute specifically governing planned communities (homeowners’ associations). It mandates that all board of directors meetings be open to association members, requires 48-hour notice and an agenda, and allows members to speak.

Executive Session

A portion of a board meeting that is closed to association members. A.R.S. § 33-1804 strictly limits these sessions to specific topics, such as receiving legal advice, discussing pending litigation, or reviewing confidential personal, health, or financial information of an individual.

Hearing

A formal proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge where parties present evidence and arguments related to a legal dispute. In this case, hearings were held on October 29, 2020, and February 25, 2021.

Jurisdiction

The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. In this matter, the Arizona Department of Real Estate had jurisdiction to hear disputes between a property owner and a homeowners’ association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Debra K. Morin was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this administrative case. It means the evidence presented must be more convincing and probable than the evidence offered in opposition, showing the fact sought to be proved is “more probable than not.”

Rehearing

A second hearing granted to re-examine an issue from an initial hearing. In this case, a rehearing was granted at the Respondent’s request to address the factual finding of how it conducted business (conference calls vs. email).

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Solera Chandler Homeowners’ Association, Inc., was the Respondent.

Statutory Construction

The process of interpreting and applying legislation. The primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent, beginning with the plain text of the statute.

Unanimous Written Consent

A procedure, authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821, where an action is approved in writing by all members of a board of directors without a formal meeting. The Respondent used this method for actions such as approving repairs, appointing committee members, and changing design guidelines.

Blog Post – 21F-H2120001-REL-RHG

4 Surprising Lessons from One Homeowner’s Legal Battle with Her HOA

Introduction: When Your HOA Goes Dark

In the chaos of early 2020, as the world shut down, many Homeowners’ Association boards faced a critical challenge: how to govern when gathering in person was impossible? For residents of the Solera Chandler community, the answer was alarming—their board went dark. Citing the global crisis, the board began making major community decisions in secret, bypassing open meetings entirely. This raised a crucial legal question for every homeowner in the state: can an HOA board use a pandemic as justification to govern by private email? The legal battle launched by one determined resident, Debra K. Morin, provides a fascinating and unexpected answer.

1. Your HOA Board Can’t Govern by Email—Even in a Pandemic

At first glance, the Solera Chandler HOA board’s actions seemed like a practical response to an unprecedented crisis. To keep community business moving, the board began approving actions through a series of votes conducted via email. Using this process, the board made several significant decisions, including:

• Approving repairs for sidewalks and the community center entrance.

• Approving the replacement of cool decking around both pools.

• Appointing two new members to the Architectural Review Committee.

• Approving a major retention basin project, including irrigation replacement and the addition of 420 tons of granite.

• Hiring an architect to draft drawings.

The board’s defense rested on a clever, but ultimately flawed, legal argument. They cited Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3821, which allows general non-profit corporations to take action via “unanimous written consent” without a formal meeting. It was a reasonable assumption. However, an Administrative Law Judge ruled their actions were a clear violation of state law.

The legal reasoning is a vital lesson in statutory interpretation. The judge affirmed that when two laws conflict, the more specific statute prevails. In this case, the highly specific HOA Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 33-1804), which explicitly requires board meetings to be open to all members, overrides the more general rule for non-profits. The ruling provided a clear interpretation of the law: even a global pandemic does not grant an HOA board the power to circumvent its duty of transparency. In fact, a rehearing in the case clarified the board was making decisions through a series of individual emails—a method that completely prevented any form of an open meeting.

2. The Law Prioritizes Transparency Above All Else

The judge’s decision was not a mere technicality. It was a firm defense of the core policy undergirding Arizona’s HOA laws. The statute itself contains a powerful mission statement that leaves no room for ambiguity. A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) declares:

It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken.

This principle is the bedrock of community governance. It ensures that homeowners can observe deliberations and have their say before a final decision is made. This right to be heard is lost when a board approves a costly pool deck repair or appoints a new committee member through a series of private emails, with homeowners only finding out after the fact. The court affirmed that this right is not a suggestion; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement.

3. A Legal “Win” Doesn’t Always Mean Punishment

After proving a clear violation of state law, the homeowner won… but the HOA received no punishment. Here’s why that isn’t a contradiction. Although Debra K. Morin successfully demonstrated that the board had broken the law, the Administrative Law Judge decided against imposing any civil penalty.

The judge’s reasoning highlights the law’s capacity for context. “Consideration is given to the fact that Respondent was faced with an unprecedented global pandemic while balancing the need to comply with the applicable statutes and conduct association business,” the decision stated.

Instead of a punitive fine, the consequences were corrective. The board was formally ordered to comply with the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) going forward, and the association was required to reimburse Ms. Morin for her $500 filing fee. This outcome reveals a surprising nuance in administrative law: a judgment can simultaneously vindicate a petitioner and uphold the law while acknowledging mitigating circumstances, focusing on future compliance rather than past punishment.

4. One Determined Homeowner Can Make a Difference

This entire legal challenge was initiated by a single resident: Debra K. Morin. Her story, however, is a realistic and therefore more empowering example of homeowner advocacy. Ms. Morin actually filed two separate complaints. While she won her landmark case regarding secret email voting, she did not prevail on a second, unrelated claim concerning the board’s use of “emergency executive sessions.”

This partial victory makes her success on the transparency issue even more significant. It shows that the legal system carefully parsed her arguments, affirming the one with the broadest implications for community governance. By filing her petition, she secured a formal order compelling her HOA to follow the law and was refunded the costs she incurred.

Morin’s petition demonstrates that community governance is not a spectator sport. It proves that one homeowner with a grasp of the rules and the determination to see them enforced can successfully realign a board with its fundamental duty of transparency.

Conclusion: Is Your HOA Playing by the Rules?

The case of Morin vs. Solera Chandler HOA delivers a sharp, unambiguous message: the legal requirement for transparency is absolute, even in the face of extraordinary circumstances. While the board’s pandemic-related pressures earned it leniency from fines, the foundational principle of open governance was decisively upheld. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the rights of homeowners and the duties of their elected boards. It sets a clear standard for openness—does your own HOA’s process for making decisions live up to it?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Debra K. Morin (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf,

Respondent Side

Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Also cited as Lydia Linsmeier,,,
Joshua M. Bolen (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN LLP
Gail Ryan (board member (President))
Solera Chandler Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Resigned August 5, 2020

Neutral Parties

Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
f. del sol (clerk/staff)
Signed transmission notice,
LDettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient
ncano (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Transmission recipient

Other Participants

Kirk Sandquist (committee member (ARC))
Approved to Architectural Review Committee
Tom Dusbabek (committee member (ARC))
Approved to Architectural Review Committee
Ken Eller (consultant)
Approved to draft architectural drawings

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Petitioner requested a rehearing based on actions taken by the Respondent after the initial decision. When informed that a rehearing could only address matters occurring prior to the initial petition filing, Petitioner chose to withdraw the request for rehearing and stated intent to file a new petition challenging Respondent’s denial of his submission to build an addition to his house.

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Decision Documents

20F-H2020063-REL-RHG Decision – 864308.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:28:11 (52.9 KB)

20F-H2020063-REL-RHG Decision – 864361.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:28:13 (8.2 KB)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020063-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-03-16
Administrative Law Judge	Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Vacating Hearing after the Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Request for Rehearing Withdrawal

Orders: The hearing in this matter is vacated from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: dismissed

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Rehearing, Withdrawal, Vacated Hearing, Procedural

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)