Briefing: Keith Jackson v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Case No. 23F-H006-REL)

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision in Case Number 23F-H006-REL, involving Petitioner Keith Jackson and Respondent Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The central conflict revolved around the proper interpretation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1813, which governs the process for recalling members of a homeowner association’s board of directors.

The dispute was initiated after an initial recall petition, containing an insufficient number of signatures, was submitted to the Association’s board on July 12, 2022. A second, supplemented petition with a sufficient number of signatures was submitted on July 19, 2022. The Petitioner argued that the first submission was incomplete and therefore not a legally valid petition, meaning it should not have triggered the statute’s “one petition per term” limitation. The Respondent contended that the statute is unambiguous: once a petition is submitted, regardless of its numerical sufficiency, a second petition to recall the same board members is barred for the remainder of their terms.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision concluded that the Association did not violate the statute by rejecting the first petition for having insufficient signatures. Furthermore, the ALJ found that A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) clearly and unequivocally prohibits submitting more than one recall petition for the same board member during a single term of office. Consequently, the second petition was statutorily barred, and the Petitioner’s case was dismissed.

Case Overview

Parties and Key Individuals

Affiliation

Keith Jackson

Petitioner

Homeowner, Val Vista Lakes

Eric Cook

Attorney for Respondent

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaad & Smith LLP

Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Doug Keats

Witness for Respondent; Treasurer

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

K. Adams

Witness for Respondent; Secretary

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Andy Ball

Individual who submitted the initial petition

Friend of Petitioner, Association Member

Kirk Kowieski

Vice President of Management Company

First Service Residential (FSR)

Bill Suttell

Board President; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Sharon Maiden

Board Vice President; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Steve Nielson

Board Member; target of recall petition

Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors

Core Legal Issue

The case centered on the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813, specifically the relationship between two subsections:

1. Subsection (A)(4)(b): This section establishes the signature threshold required to compel a board to call a special meeting for a recall vote. For an association with over 1,000 members, this is “at least ten percent of the votes in the association or…at least one thousand votes…whichever is less.”

2. Subsection (A)(4)(g): This section states, “A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.”

The central question before the court was whether an initial petition that fails to meet the signature threshold of (4)(b) still constitutes a formal submission that triggers the “one petition per term” limitation of (4)(g).

Chronology of Events

July 12, 2022

At a board meeting, Andy Ball submits an initial recall petition targeting four board members. The petition contains approximately 211-214 signatures, below the required threshold.

July 15, 2022

Board President Bill Suttell notifies Association members via email that the petition has been turned over to the management company, First Service Residential (FSR), for signature vetting.

July 18, 2022

The Association officially notifies its members that the initial recall petition has been rejected “for not meeting the criteria of the law.”

July 19, 2022

Kirk Kowieski of FSR informs an Association member that “a ‘new’ (amended) petition” could be submitted.

July 19, 2022

Keith Jackson submits a second, supplemented petition containing the original signatures plus additional ones, totaling over 250 signatures.

July 25, 2022

The Board of Directors votes to reject the second petition. FSR sends an email to members stating it was rejected based on A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g).

July 30, 2022 (approx.)

Keith Jackson files a single-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the Board improperly rejected the recall petition.

October 24, 2022

An administrative hearing is held before ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn.

November 8, 2022

The ALJ issues a final decision, ruling in favor of the Respondent and dismissing the Petitioner’s case.

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Keith Jackson)

Grievances Leading to Recall Effort

Mr. Jackson testified that the recall effort was initiated due to significant community dissatisfaction with the Board’s direction. The primary concerns articulated during the hearing included:

• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: A general sentiment among members that the Board was not operating openly.

• Financial Mismanagement: The Association’s financial reserves had allegedly plummeted from $3.4 million to a projected “well under a million dollars” within the year.

• Loss of Revenue: The Board terminated the Association’s largest non-dues revenue source in an executive session without member input. Members reportedly learned of this decision through the media after a wedding was cancelled.

• Toxic Workplace Environment: The community manager and several employees had reportedly quit due to micromanagement and a poor work environment created by the Board.

Legal Argument

The Petitioner’s legal argument was founded on the principle that a petition is not legally cognizable until it meets the statutory requirements for action.

• Concept of a “Valid” Petition: Jackson argued that the initial July 12 submission was an “incomplete petition” and therefore not a “valid petition” under A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(b) because it failed to meet the signature threshold.

• Triggering the Statute: He contended that an invalid, incomplete petition should not be officially “considered” and thus should not trigger the one-petition-per-term limit in subsection (g).

• The “Amended” Petition: The only legally valid petition, in his view, was the completed version submitted on July 19, which contained over 250 signatures. He argued this was the first and only valid submission that the Board was required to act upon.

• Statutory Loophole: Jackson warned that the Association’s interpretation creates a dangerous loophole: “anyone on the board could never get recalled with the way the stat was being interpreted…you could submit any incomplete petition for anyone on the board and they would never get…recalled during their term.”

• Reliance on Management Company: Jackson pointed to Exhibit C, an email from Kirk Kowieski of FSR, stating that an “amended petition” could be submitted. Since the Board had delegated the vetting process to FSR, Jackson argued this communication affirmed the legitimacy of his second submission.

Respondent’s Position and Arguments (Val Vista Lakes Community Association)

Legal Argument

The Respondent’s counsel, Eric Cook, argued for a plain-language reading of the statute, asserting that the law is clear and binding.

• Plain Meaning of the Statute: The core of the argument was that A.R.S. § 33-1813 says what it means. It refers to “a petition,” not a “valid petition” or a “complete petition,” when establishing the one-submission limit.

• Standalone Provision: A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g) was presented as a standalone provision. It is not contingent on whether a petition meets the signature requirements of subsection (b). Its purpose is to prevent repeated recall efforts against the same board member.

• One Chance Rule: “Section G is a standalone provision that says if you file that petition, you get that one chance.”

• Chronology is Key: A petition was submitted on July 12. It was considered and rejected. The second petition, submitted on July 19, sought to remove the same four board members. This second submission was a clear violation of subsection (g).

• Function of Subsection (b): Respondent argued that the signature threshold in subsection (b) only determines whether the Board is obligated to call a special meeting. It does not define whether a document submitted as a petition constitutes “a petition” for the purposes of the one-per-term rule.

Witness Testimony

• Doug Keats (Treasurer) and K. Adams (Secretary) both testified that they were present at the July 12 meeting when Andy Ball submitted the initial petition directly to the Board President, Bill Suttell. They affirmed this petition was the one the Board officially considered and rejected for having an insufficient number of signatures.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

On November 8, 2022, ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jackson’s petition, finding no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1813 by the Association.

Key Findings of Fact

• The Association has more than 1,000 members.

• The initial petition submitted on July 12, 2022, contained an insufficient number of signatures to meet the statutory threshold for compelling a recall vote.

• The second petition submitted on July 19, 2022, petitioned for the removal of the same four board members named in the first petition.

Conclusions of Law

1. Rejection of the First Petition: The ALJ concluded that the Board did not violate the statute when it rejected the July 12 petition. Since the petition did not contain the required number of signatures, the Board was under no obligation to call a special meeting.

2. Rejection of the Second Petition: The central conclusion rested on a direct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(g). The decision states: “a petition which calls for the removal of the same member of the board of directors ‘shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office for that member.’ Therefore, in this case, the July 19, 2022 ‘second’ petition which petitioned for the removal of the same four Board members…was not permitted by statute.”

3. Final Ruling: Because the second petition was statutorily prohibited, the Board did not violate the law by rejecting it. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish any violation by the Association, and the petition was therefore dismissed.