Tag Archives: 2022

Robert C. Ochs v. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222048-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-10-04
Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Robert C. Ochs Counsel —
Respondent The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association Counsel Ashley Moscarello, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805, concluding that the requested materials lists and specifications were not 'financial and other records of the association' that the HOA was legally required to possess and provide within 10 business days.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent violated the records request statute.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of records request statute (failure to timely provide materials lists/specifications related to roof replacement/repairs).

Petitioner requested materials lists and specifications regarding recent (Sept 2021) and past (since 1986) roof work on February 27, 2022. The Association provided a scope of work document from the vendor on May 11, 2022, after the petition was filed. The ALJ determined the requested documents were not established to be 'financial and other records of the association' as contemplated by the statute, and TMT was not in possession of them at the time of the request.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request for a civil penalty were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02 A
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA records request, Planned Community Act, Roof Repair/Replacement, Condominium, Burden of Proof
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 1003691.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:15 (160.6 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:17 (49.4 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 979959.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:18 (7.1 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 985762.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:20 (52.8 KB)

22F-H2222048-REL Decision – 986375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:22 (52.8 KB)





Study Guide – 22F-H2222048-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 22F-H2222048-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222048-REL”, “case_title”: “Robert C. Ochs vs. The Camelview Greens Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2022-10-04”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “If my HOA does not have a specific document I requested, are they required to obtain it from a vendor to fulfill my request?”, “short_answer”: “No. The HOA is not obligated to produce records it does not possess or keep in the ordinary course of business.”, “detailed_answer”: “If an HOA management company is not in possession of a specific document (such as a materials list held by a third-party contractor) at the time of the request, they are not legally obligated to obtain it or provide it within the 10-day statutory window. A failure to provide a document the HOA never possessed is not a statutory violation.”, “alj_quote”: “What the record reflects is that TMT was never in possession of the documents in Petitioner’s request. While TMT could have provided notice of such within 10 business days, they were under no legal obligation to do so. No statutory violation(s) exist.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “vendor documents”, “HOA obligations” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to mail or email me copies of the records I request?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily. The primary statutory requirement is to make records available for examination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge clarified that the statute strictly requires the HOA to reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records. While providing copies is common, the explicit statutory requirement is for examination.”, “alj_quote”: “Notably, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805 does not require a Homeowner’s Association to provide copies of records upon request of a homeowner. Rather, the statute requires only that the association reasonably permit a homeowner to examine records.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “records request”, “procedural requirements”, “copies vs examination” ] }, { “question”: “Can I request historical records dating back several decades?”, “short_answer”: “Requests for very old records may be deemed unreasonable, especially if management companies have changed.”, “detailed_answer”: “A request for records spanning 35 years was found to be unreasonable in this case, particularly because the current management company testified they did not receive such records from the previous management company.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s secondary request for 35 years’ worth records was unreasonable, as uncontroverted testimony established that TMT did not obtain any records from its predecessor upon the commencement of its position.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “historical records”, “reasonableness”, “management transition” ] }, { “question”: “How many days does the HOA have to fulfill a request to examine records?”, “short_answer”: “The HOA has ten business days.”, “detailed_answer”: “Under Arizona law, an association must allow a member to examine financial and other records within ten business days of the request.”, “alj_quote”: “The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “deadlines”, “statutory requirements” ] }, { “question”: “Do detailed materials lists from contractors count as ‘official records’ of the association?”, “short_answer”: “Not automatically. If they are not kept in the ordinary course of business, they may not be considered association records.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that specific materials lists and specifications from a vendor, which were not kept by the HOA in the ordinary course of business, did not constitute ‘financial’ or ‘other records of the association’ that the HOA was mandated to provide.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner did not establish that the documents in his records request were ‘financial’ or constituted ‘other records of the association’ as required by law.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1805”, “topic_tags”: [ “definition of records”, “contractor documents” ] }, { “question”: “Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition must prove by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the HOA violated the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert C. Ochs (petitioner)
    Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

  • Ashley N. Moscarello (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Appeared on behalf of respondent
  • Carl Westlund (witness)
    The Management Trust
    Division Vice President of Community Management at TMT
  • Shauna Carr (property manager)
    The Management Trust
    Former executive community manager for Camel View Greens
  • Dameon Cons (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Sent response letter to Petitioner
  • Mark A. Holmgren (HOA attorney)
    Goodman Holmgren
    Counsel for Respondent listed on transmittals

Neutral Parties

  • Jenna Clark (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH
    Transmitted orders/minute entries
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    ADRE
    Recipient of official documents

Other Participants

  • Jeff Centers (vendor/project manager)
    Vendor
    Contractor hired by the community

Kathy J Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222064-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-29
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Kathy J. Green, MD Counsel —
Respondent Cross Creek Ranch Community Association Counsel Nick Eicher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge affirmed the petition, finding that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by improperly holding a closed executive session primarily focused on reviewing homeowner comments on design guidelines that did not meet the statutory exceptions for closure. The ALJ ordered the HOA to reimburse the petitioner's filing fee and comply with the statute in the future.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meetings requirements regarding closed executive session.

The Respondent HOA held a closed executive session on June 9, 2022, noticed under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) (legal advice), to discuss approximately 72 homeowner comments on proposed design guideline revisions. The ALJ found that the meeting did not qualify under exceptions (A)(1) or (A)(2) as no legal advice was given and the discussion of most comments did not constitute pending or contemplated litigation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is affirmed. Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1804 going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(B)
  • 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meetings, Executive Session, Legal Advice, Contemplated Litigation, Design Guidelines
Additional Citations:

  • 33-1804
  • 33-1804(A)
  • 33-1804(A)(1)
  • 33-1804(A)(2)
  • 33-1804(F)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3XtSYMRtgvLrHJNNS3sJMi

Decision Documents

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 1003060.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:38 (149.0 KB)

22F-H2222064-REL Decision – 989940.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:41 (49.8 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA board hold a closed meeting to discuss homeowner feedback on design guidelines?

Short Answer

No, discussing general homeowner feedback does not qualify for a closed executive session unless it meets specific statutory exceptions like pending litigation.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that reviewing general comments from homeowners regarding proposed changes to design guidelines is not a valid reason to close a meeting. Even if some comments are critical, the board must discuss them in an open meeting unless they specifically relate to pending or contemplated litigation or legal advice.

Alj Quote

The Administrative Law Judge concludes… that the issue discussed at the June 9, 2022 executive session does not fall under the exceptions listed in A.R.S. §§ 33-1804(A)(1) or (A)(2), and Respondent did not properly consider the issue in an executive session closed to its members.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804

Topic Tags

  • open meetings
  • design guidelines
  • executive session

Question

Does a homeowner saying they 'can and will challenge' a rule in court count as pending litigation?

Short Answer

No, vague statements about potential legal challenges do not necessarily constitute 'contemplated litigation' sufficient to close a meeting.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that comments stating changes 'can and will be challenged in court' did not put the Board on notice of imminent lawsuits. Therefore, such comments did not justify closing the meeting under the 'pending or contemplated litigation' exception.

Alj Quote

Further, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that none of the comments can be reasonably construed as contemplating litigation.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • litigation
  • definitions
  • executive session

Question

Can the board close an entire meeting if they receive just one threat of litigation?

Short Answer

No, the board should only close the portion of the meeting dealing with the specific threat.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA receives many comments and only one contains a potential legal threat (e.g., copying an attorney), the board should hold an executive session for that specific item and discuss the remaining general business in an open meeting.

Alj Quote

As acknowledged by Mr. Chambers, the Board could have held an executive session to discuss only that one comment/letter in which an attorney was copied, and held an open meeting to discuss the other solicited comments.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(2)

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • litigation
  • open meetings

Question

Can the HOA claim 'legal advice' as a reason to close a meeting if no attorney is present?

Short Answer

No, the 'legal advice' exception generally requires actual advice being given or discussed from an attorney.

Detailed Answer

The board cannot use the 'legal advice' exception to close a meeting if they are simply preparing questions for an attorney or reviewing documents before sending them to counsel. In this case, the attorney had not yet reviewed the documents, so no legal advice could be discussed.

Alj Quote

Prior to the June 9, 2022 executive session, an attorney had not yet reviewed the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and therefore, did not provide feedback for discussion at that meeting.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)

Topic Tags

  • legal advice
  • attorney
  • executive session

Question

How should HOA board members and managers interpret open meeting laws?

Short Answer

They must interpret the laws in favor of open meetings.

Detailed Answer

Arizona statute explicitly states that the policy of the state is to conduct meetings openly. Any ambiguity in the law should be construed by board members and managers to support openness rather than secrecy.

Alj Quote

Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Topic Tags

  • statutory interpretation
  • policy
  • open meetings

Question

Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) has the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated the statute. This means they must show it is more probable than not that the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • burden of proof
  • hearing procedure
  • evidence

Question

Can I get my filing fee back if I win my case against the HOA?

Short Answer

Yes, the ALJ has the authority to order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

If the homeowner prevails in showing a violation occurred, the judge may order the association to pay back the cost of filing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee.

Legal Basis

Order

Topic Tags

  • remedies
  • fees
  • penalties

Question

Will the HOA always be fined if they violate open meeting laws?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge has discretion on whether to impose a civil penalty.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is found, the judge may decide not to issue a civil penalty based on the specific facts of the case.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • enforcement
  • fines

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222064-REL
Case Title
Kathy J. Green v. Cross Creek Ranch Community Association
Decision Date
2022-09-29
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Kathy J. Green (petitioner)
    Cross Creek Ranch Owner
    Also referred to as Dr. Green, Colonel (retired),
  • Peter Calogero (witness)
    Spouse of Petitioner,

Respondent Side

  • Cross Creek Ranch Community Association (respondent)
  • Nick Eicher (HOA attorney)
    Cross Creek Ranch Community Association,
    Also referred to as Nick Iker
  • Greg Chambers (board president)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also appeared as a witness,
  • Charles Olden (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood
  • Steve Germaine (board member/ARC chair)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board/ARC,
    Subpoenaed individual,,
  • John Kinich (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
    Also referred to as John Halenich
  • Lynn Grigg (ARC member)
    Cross Creek Ranch ARC,
  • Dan Donahghue (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board,
  • Lisa Henson (board member)
    Cross Creek Ranch Board
  • Laura Malone (property manager)
    Community association manager,,
  • Edith I. Rudder (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order
  • Edward D. O'Brien (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP,
    Recipient of final order

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    OAH
    Presided over the matter,
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE),

Other Participants

  • Brian (regional manager)
    Homeco/Property Management
    Provided guidance to Laura Malone
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner M&T Properties LLC Counsel Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association Counsel David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FXJWGa1ZgJsdQCw7AE6RR

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:47 (87.5 KB)

Questions

Question

If my HOA fixes a violation after I file a formal complaint, do I still win the case?

Short Answer

Yes. If the violation existed at the time the petition was filed, the homeowner can still prevail.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA corrects the issue before the hearing date, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looks at whether the violation existed at the time the legal action commenced. The homeowner is entitled to a finding in their favor and reimbursement of fees if the violation was active when filed.

Alj Quote

Respondent is asserting that they have since hired a management company. That's great. There's still a admitted violation at the time of the petition which results in the finding against respondent and the requirement to repay the filing fee.

Legal Basis

Admission of violation at time of filing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • mootness
  • remedies

Question

Can I bring up new issues during the hearing that I forgot to include in my written petition?

Short Answer

No. The hearing is strictly limited to the issues specifically raised in the original petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ will typically refuse to hear arguments regarding issues that were not included in the initial filing. If a homeowner has additional complaints, they must file a separate petition to address them.

Alj Quote

The parties attempted to raise and discuss numerous issues unrelated to the single issue raised in the Petition. … In the event there is a subsequent petition raising other issues that will be dealt dealt with in a separate proceeding.

Legal Basis

Scope of hearing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • due process
  • hearing scope

Question

Is the HOA Board allowed to use 'we didn't know' as a defense for violating the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No. Ignorance of the CC&R requirements is not a valid defense against a violation finding.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Board asserted they were unaware of the requirement to hire a professional manager. The ALJ noted this assertion but still found them in violation of the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Mr. Rivandi asserted the Board did not know they were required to have a professional management company… The failure to retain and maintain a Managing Agent was a violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Strict liability for CC&R compliance

Topic Tags

  • board defenses
  • compliance
  • fiduciary duty

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if the HOA admits they were wrong?

Short Answer

Yes. If the homeowner prevails on the issue, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

When a violation is found (or admitted to) regarding the issue raised in the petition, the standard remedy includes ordering the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner for the cost of filing the action.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a penalty if they are found guilty of a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ has the discretion to decide whether a civil penalty is appropriate based on the facts.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is proven, the judge may choose not to impose a civil penalty (fine) against the HOA, potentially if the HOA has already taken steps to correct the issue.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Judicial discretion on penalties

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must show that their claim is 'more probable than not' based on the evidence provided. This is the standard burden of proof in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title
M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2022-09-06
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fixes a violation after I file a formal complaint, do I still win the case?

Short Answer

Yes. If the violation existed at the time the petition was filed, the homeowner can still prevail.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA corrects the issue before the hearing date, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looks at whether the violation existed at the time the legal action commenced. The homeowner is entitled to a finding in their favor and reimbursement of fees if the violation was active when filed.

Alj Quote

Respondent is asserting that they have since hired a management company. That's great. There's still a admitted violation at the time of the petition which results in the finding against respondent and the requirement to repay the filing fee.

Legal Basis

Admission of violation at time of filing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • mootness
  • remedies

Question

Can I bring up new issues during the hearing that I forgot to include in my written petition?

Short Answer

No. The hearing is strictly limited to the issues specifically raised in the original petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ will typically refuse to hear arguments regarding issues that were not included in the initial filing. If a homeowner has additional complaints, they must file a separate petition to address them.

Alj Quote

The parties attempted to raise and discuss numerous issues unrelated to the single issue raised in the Petition. … In the event there is a subsequent petition raising other issues that will be dealt dealt with in a separate proceeding.

Legal Basis

Scope of hearing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • due process
  • hearing scope

Question

Is the HOA Board allowed to use 'we didn't know' as a defense for violating the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No. Ignorance of the CC&R requirements is not a valid defense against a violation finding.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Board asserted they were unaware of the requirement to hire a professional manager. The ALJ noted this assertion but still found them in violation of the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Mr. Rivandi asserted the Board did not know they were required to have a professional management company… The failure to retain and maintain a Managing Agent was a violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Strict liability for CC&R compliance

Topic Tags

  • board defenses
  • compliance
  • fiduciary duty

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if the HOA admits they were wrong?

Short Answer

Yes. If the homeowner prevails on the issue, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

When a violation is found (or admitted to) regarding the issue raised in the petition, the standard remedy includes ordering the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner for the cost of filing the action.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a penalty if they are found guilty of a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ has the discretion to decide whether a civil penalty is appropriate based on the facts.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is proven, the judge may choose not to impose a civil penalty (fine) against the HOA, potentially if the HOA has already taken steps to correct the issue.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Judicial discretion on penalties

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must show that their claim is 'more probable than not' based on the evidence provided. This is the standard burden of proof in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title
M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2022-09-06
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lucas Thomas (Petitioner Representative)
    M&T Properties LLC
    Owner, appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Respondent Side

  • David Rivandi (Board Member/Respondent Representative)
    Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
    Director, appeared on behalf of Respondent. Confirmed being on the board of directors.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Tammy Idier, Administrative Law Judge.
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitted the order.

Evin Abromowitz v. The Meadows Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222038-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Evin Abromowitz Counsel —
Respondent The Meadows Homeowners Association Counsel Nicholas Nogami, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs, Section 3.5 and 3.6

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the homeowner's petition, finding that the homeowner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&Rs Sections 3.5 or 3.6 regarding its authority to enact or enforce the rules and regulations that were at issue.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated CC&Rs Section 3.5 or 3.6. The ALJ concluded that the HOA was authorized to enact rules relating to the operation of the association and to enforce them.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner claimed Respondent violated CC&Rs 3.5 and 3.6 regarding its power to adopt and enforce rules by applying rules allegedly unrelated to the operation of the association and/or failing to follow protocol.

Petitioner challenged the HOA's authority to enact (3.5) and enforce (3.6) specific rules, arguing they were not related to association operation (e.g., controlling off-site email communication or fining for vendor interaction) and that enforcement protocols were violated. The ALJ denied the petition, finding the HOA was authorized to enact and enforce rules related to the operation of the association, and Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

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

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA rules and regulations, CC&Rs, Enforcement authority, Burden of Proof, Planned community association dispute
Additional Citations:

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

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 966844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:56 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 969590.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:01 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222038-REL Decision – 994145.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:05 (145.3 KB)

Questions

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs are an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

When a person purchases a property within an HOA, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs. The decision explicitly states that this document constitutes a contract.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between Respondent and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Legal Status
  • Contract

Question

Can an HOA create rules regarding behavior toward staff and board members?

Short Answer

Yes, rules prohibiting harassment or abuse of staff and board members are valid.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that rules governing conduct towards the board and management relate to the operation of the association and are therefore within the HOA's authority to enact.

Alj Quote

Respondent was authorized to enact rules and regulations relating to the operation of the association. The rules at issue in this matter relate to the operation of the association.

Legal Basis

Authority to Adopt Rules

Topic Tags

  • Rules and Regulations
  • Harassment
  • Board Authority

Question

Must the HOA provide a hearing before assessing a fine?

Short Answer

Yes, due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing are generally required.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the HOA's specific fine guidelines which mandate that a member must be given notice and a chance to be heard before a fine is assessed.

Alj Quote

No fine shall be assessed until the Member who has committed a violation has been given due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

Legal Basis

Due Process / Fine Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Due Process
  • Hearings

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their contention is more likely true than not. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the HOA violated its documents.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA fine me for interrupting or hindering vendors?

Short Answer

Yes, rules prohibiting the hindering of vendors are enforceable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ upheld the HOA's authority to enforce rules that include fines for hindering hired vendors, as these rules relate to the association's operations.

Alj Quote

Hindering a hired vendor from their work at another property in The Meadows. This violation carries a $100.00 fine.

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Rules

Topic Tags

  • Vendors
  • Interference
  • Fines

Question

If I challenge the validity of a rule, will the judge also decide if I am guilty of the specific violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge only decides the issues raised in the petition.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner's petition only challenges the HOA's authority to make a rule, the ALJ will not rule on the facts of the specific violation (e.g., whether the conduct actually happened) if that issue was not explicitly raised.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner may have wanted to argue that the alleged violations brought against her were not proper, she did not raise that issue in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Scope of Hearing

Topic Tags

  • Petition Scope
  • Legal Procedure
  • Defense

Question

Does the HOA have the power to enforce rules that are not explicitly detailed in the original CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the power to adopt and enforce new rules.

Detailed Answer

The CC&Rs in this case allowed the Association to adopt new rules deemed necessary for the operation of the association, and gave them the same force as the Declaration.

Alj Quote

The Association shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Declaration and of Rules & Regulations by any lawful remedy or means…

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Rulemaking
  • Enforcement
  • Governing Documents

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222038-REL
Case Title
Evin Abromowitz vs The Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-08-22
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Are the CC&Rs considered a legally binding contract?

Short Answer

Yes, CC&Rs are an enforceable contract between the HOA and the homeowner.

Detailed Answer

When a person purchases a property within an HOA, they agree to be bound by the terms of the CC&Rs. The decision explicitly states that this document constitutes a contract.

Alj Quote

Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between Respondent and each property owner.

Legal Basis

Contract Law Principles / CC&Rs

Topic Tags

  • CC&Rs
  • Legal Status
  • Contract

Question

Can an HOA create rules regarding behavior toward staff and board members?

Short Answer

Yes, rules prohibiting harassment or abuse of staff and board members are valid.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that rules governing conduct towards the board and management relate to the operation of the association and are therefore within the HOA's authority to enact.

Alj Quote

Respondent was authorized to enact rules and regulations relating to the operation of the association. The rules at issue in this matter relate to the operation of the association.

Legal Basis

Authority to Adopt Rules

Topic Tags

  • Rules and Regulations
  • Harassment
  • Board Authority

Question

Must the HOA provide a hearing before assessing a fine?

Short Answer

Yes, due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing are generally required.

Detailed Answer

The decision cites the HOA's specific fine guidelines which mandate that a member must be given notice and a chance to be heard before a fine is assessed.

Alj Quote

No fine shall be assessed until the Member who has committed a violation has been given due written notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

Legal Basis

Due Process / Fine Guidelines

Topic Tags

  • Fines
  • Due Process
  • Hearings

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove that their contention is more likely true than not. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the HOA violated its documents.

Alj Quote

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

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

  • Legal Standards
  • Burden of Proof
  • Evidence

Question

Can the HOA fine me for interrupting or hindering vendors?

Short Answer

Yes, rules prohibiting the hindering of vendors are enforceable.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ upheld the HOA's authority to enforce rules that include fines for hindering hired vendors, as these rules relate to the association's operations.

Alj Quote

Hindering a hired vendor from their work at another property in The Meadows. This violation carries a $100.00 fine.

Legal Basis

Enforcement of Rules

Topic Tags

  • Vendors
  • Interference
  • Fines

Question

If I challenge the validity of a rule, will the judge also decide if I am guilty of the specific violation?

Short Answer

Not necessarily; the judge only decides the issues raised in the petition.

Detailed Answer

If a homeowner's petition only challenges the HOA's authority to make a rule, the ALJ will not rule on the facts of the specific violation (e.g., whether the conduct actually happened) if that issue was not explicitly raised.

Alj Quote

While Petitioner may have wanted to argue that the alleged violations brought against her were not proper, she did not raise that issue in her Petition.

Legal Basis

Scope of Hearing

Topic Tags

  • Petition Scope
  • Legal Procedure
  • Defense

Question

Does the HOA have the power to enforce rules that are not explicitly detailed in the original CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the power to adopt and enforce new rules.

Detailed Answer

The CC&Rs in this case allowed the Association to adopt new rules deemed necessary for the operation of the association, and gave them the same force as the Declaration.

Alj Quote

The Association shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Declaration and of Rules & Regulations by any lawful remedy or means…

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 3.6

Topic Tags

  • Rulemaking
  • Enforcement
  • Governing Documents

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222038-REL
Case Title
Evin Abromowitz vs The Meadows Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-08-22
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Evin Abromowitz (petitioner)
    Property owner and member of The Meadows Homeowners Association.
  • Carolyn C. E. Davis (witness)
    Known as Carrie Davis.
  • Shannon Kelsey (witness)
    Former employee of the association.
  • Patrick Scott (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner.

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Represented The Meadows Homeowners Association.
  • Lynn Mater (HOA President/manager/witness)
    The Meadows Homeowners Association/ADAM LLC
    Testified for Respondent.
  • Jacqueline Conoy (assistant community manager)
    ADAM LLC/The Meadows Homeowners Association
    Recipient of emails from Petitioner.
  • Omid (board member)
    The Meadows Homeowners Association
    Mentioned in relation to drafting rules with Lynn.
  • Hiker (attorney associate)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP (implied)
    Appeared on the call with Nicholas Nogami.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Administrative Law Judge.
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH administrative staff)
    OAH
    Signed transmission.
  • Miranda Alvarez (legal secretary)
    Signed transmission.

Anthony T Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

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

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-22
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Anthony T Horn Counsel —
Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. Counsel Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's single-issue petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) regarding the July 6, 2021 board meeting, and alternatively, any potential violation was cured by the proper notice and vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Why this result: The ALJ concluded that the HOA properly notified members of the matter to be discussed at the July 6, 2021 meeting (tennis court upgrade/repair). Furthermore, any potential violation was cured by the explicit notice and second unanimous vote taken at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Open Meetings/Notice/Ability to Speak (July 6, 2021 Board Meeting)

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated ARS 33-1804(F) because the July 6, 2021 agenda item 'Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair' did not adequately disclose the conversion of one tennis court into four pickleball courts. The ALJ found the initial notice was sufficient, and alternatively, any violation was cured by a subsequent November 9, 2021 meeting with explicit notice and a second vote.

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARS 33-1804(F)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Violation, Notice and Agenda Requirement, Cure Doctrine, Tennis Court Conversion, Pickleball
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 964044.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:32 (50.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 970320.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:36 (58.5 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 974011.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:41 (58.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982006.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:46 (54.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 982097.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:53 (7.7 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – 994010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:41:57 (108.6 KB)

22F-H2221017-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2221017-REL/948254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:00 (68.7 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the legal dispute, procedural history, and final judgment in the case of Anthony T. Horn (Petitioner) versus Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. (Respondent), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The core of the dispute centers on the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F) by failing to provide adequate notice for its July 6, 2021, Board of Directors meeting.

The petitioner claimed that the agenda item “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” was insufficient to inform members of the board’s plan to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, a decision that “blindsided” affected homeowners. In response, the HOA maintained a two-pronged defense: first, that the notice was legally sufficient, and second, that any potential procedural error was “unequivocally cured” by a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which featured an explicit agenda item detailing the conversion and at which the petitioner was present.

Following an initial dismissal and a subsequent rehearing, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the single alleged statutory violation. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition, issuing a definitive two-part ruling: 1) the notice for the July 6, 2021, meeting did comply with state law, and 2) even if it had not, the violation was cured by the actions taken for the November 9, 2021, meeting.

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Name / Entity

Petitioner

Anthony T. Horn

Respondent

Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Respondent Counsel

Emily H. Mann, Esq.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson

Case Chronology

• July 6, 2021: The HOA Board of Directors holds an open meeting and unanimously approves “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair,” which includes the conversion of one tennis court to four pickleball courts.

• August 2021: Petitioner Anthony T. Horn files a dispute regarding the meeting.

• October 13, 2021: The Arizona Department of Real Estate receives Horn’s formal petition alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).

• November 9, 2021: The HOA holds a second board meeting to vote again on the conversion. The agenda explicitly details the plan, and the board unanimously re-approves it. Horn attends this meeting.

• February 15, 2022: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) grants the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the petition due to a lack of response from the petitioner.

• Post-February 15, 2022: Horn files a timely request for a rehearing.

• May 26, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and the scope of the rehearing.

• July 6, 2022: The ALJ issues an order limiting the rehearing to the single alleged violation concerning the July 6, 2021, meeting, while allowing the HOA’s “cure” defense related to the November 9 meeting.

• August 1, 2022: The evidentiary rehearing is conducted.

• August 22, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision dismissing the petitioner’s petition.

Core Legal Dispute: A.R.S. § 33-1804(F)

The central legal question revolved around compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), which establishes the state’s policy on open meetings for planned communities. The statute requires 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.”

The statute further mandates that its provisions be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

Petitioner’s Position and Arguments (Anthony T. Horn)

Primary Allegation: Insufficient Notice

The petitioner’s case was predicated on the argument that the agenda for the July 6, 2021, meeting was misleading. The motion was described as: Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund. Horn contended that this language failed to inform homeowners of the board’s intent to make a “major change” by converting a tennis court to pickleball courts.

• Key Quote: During the rehearing, Horn described his reaction at the July 6 meeting: “We were shocked. Just a complete uh something coming from the left field. We had no idea that anything like this was planned.”

Argument Against the “Cure” Defense

Horn argued that the November 9, 2021, meeting should not be considered a valid cure because it only occurred as a direct result of his formal dispute. He framed this as an unfair “catch 22.”

• Key Quote: In his closing argument, Horn stated: “The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. Uh you in other words, I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.”

Ancillary Issues Ruled Out of Scope

Throughout the proceedings, Horn attempted to introduce several related grievances, which the ALJ consistently ruled were outside the narrow scope of his single-issue petition. These included:

• Allegations of discrimination, claiming pickleball members were included in vendor discussions while tennis club members were excluded.

• Concerns about the HOA’s method of communication, arguing that “eblasts” are inappropriate for a senior community and that mail or hand delivery should be used.

• Disagreement with the soundness of the board’s decision itself.

Respondent’s Position and Defense (Sun Lakes HOA)

Defense of the July 6 Meeting

The HOA, through its counsel Emily Mann and witness Kelly Haynes, argued that the notice for the July 6 meeting was fully compliant with the statute. The term “upgrade and repair” was deemed sufficient to encompass the conversion. They presented the petitioner’s own attendance at the meeting as prime evidence that the notice was effective in informing members that tennis courts would be a topic of discussion.

Affirmative Defense of “Cure”

The HOA’s primary defense was that, even assuming a procedural flaw in the first meeting’s notice, the error was “unequivocally cured” by the November 9, 2021, meeting. The notice for that meeting was explicit: Motion #3 – Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts. The petitioner attended, members were given the opportunity to speak, and the board voted again, removing any ambiguity.

Characterization of Petitioner’s Motive

Respondent’s counsel portrayed the petition as being driven by dissatisfaction with the board’s decision rather than a genuine concern for procedural integrity. It was noted that the association had spent thousands of dollars defending the petition and had twice offered to pay Horn $500—the maximum penalty available—to resolve the matter, both of which he rejected.

• Key Quote: In her opening statement, counsel stated: “This hearing today is about Mr. Horn seeking revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion. He couldn’t stop the conversion from taking place. So punishing the association by filing a meritless petition was the next best thing.”

Final Decision and Rationale

In the final decision dated August 22, 2022, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition. The ruling was based on a two-part conclusion that fully supported the respondent’s position.

1. The July 6 Notice Was Sufficient: The ALJ concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” showed the notice provided the “information that was reasonably necessary.” The decision explicitly states: “Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.”

2. The Violation, If Any, Was Cured: The decision further established that, even if the first notice had been deficient, the HOA rectified the situation. “Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.”

Based on these findings, the order was issued: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn’s petition against Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., is dismissed.”






Study Guide – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG


Study Guide: Horn v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

This guide provides a detailed review of the administrative case between Petitioner Anthony T. Horn and Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. It includes a quiz to test comprehension, essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each, based solely on the provided source documents.

1. What was the specific statute and section that Petitioner Anthony T. Horn alleged the Sun Lakes HOA violated?

2. Describe the central disagreement over the agenda for the July 6, 2021, board meeting.

3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal defense, arguing that even if a violation occurred, it was later corrected?

4. Why was Mr. Horn’s initial petition dismissed in February 2022, leading to a request for a rehearing?

5. What ruling did the Administrative Law Judge make during the pre-hearing conference regarding Mr. Horn’s desire to introduce evidence of discrimination?

6. According to testimony, what methods did the Sun Lakes HOA use to provide notice of its board meetings to the membership?

7. What key difference existed between the agenda for the July 6, 2021 meeting and the agenda for the November 9, 2021 meeting?

8. During the August 1, 2022 rehearing, what was the fate of subpoenas that had been issued for the original, vacated hearing?

9. What was the Administrative Law Judge’s final conclusion in the August 22, 2022 decision regarding the alleged violation?

10. What did the Respondent’s counsel, Emily Mann, suggest was Mr. Horn’s true motivation for pursuing the petition?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, alleged that the Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. had violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(F). This statute pertains to the policy of open meetings and the requirement that notices and agendas contain information reasonably necessary to inform members of matters to be discussed.

2. The central disagreement was whether the agenda item “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair” provided sufficient notice that the board would be discussing and voting on the conversion of a tennis court into four pickleball courts. Mr. Horn argued this description was misleading and withheld critical information, while the HOA contended it was adequate.

3. The Respondent’s primary defense was that any potential procedural error or lack of clarity in the July 6, 2021 meeting notice was “unequivocally cured.” They argued this cure was accomplished through a subsequent board meeting on November 9, 2021, which had a more explicit agenda item about the court conversion.

4. The initial petition was dismissed because the Petitioner, Anthony T. Horn, did not file a response to the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Summary Disposition. The Administrative Law Judge granted these motions, leading Mr. Horn to file for a rehearing.

5. The judge ruled that the issue of alleged discrimination was a separate legal matter from the alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). To include the discrimination claim, Mr. Horn would have to file a separate petition and pay an additional $500 filing fee.

6. General Manager Kelly Haynes testified that the HOA provided notice via e-blasts to members who signed up for them, posting on monitors in the clubhouse, inclusion in the monthly newsletter (“The Laker”), and posting on the association’s website.

7. The agenda for the July 6 meeting listed “Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair.” In contrast, the agenda for the November 9 meeting provided a much more specific item: “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.”

8. The Administrative Law Judge informed Mr. Horn that the subpoenas issued for the original hearing would not apply to the new rehearing. To compel witness testimony, Mr. Horn was required to request and serve new subpoenas, which would be a significant additional expense.

9. The ALJ concluded that the Sun Lakes HOA did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021 board meeting. The decision further stated that even if a violation had occurred, it was cured by the proper notice and subsequent vote at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

10. The Respondent’s counsel stated that Mr. Horn’s petition was not about seeking justice or ensuring compliance with statutes, but was an act of “revenge against the association for the tennis court conversion.” She argued that since he could not stop the conversion, he filed a “meritless petition” to punish the association.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed for longer-form analysis. Formulate your answers based on a comprehensive review of the case details and legal arguments presented in the source documents.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding the interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). Discuss how each party applied the statute’s requirement for “information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members” to the facts of the case.

2. Trace the procedural history of the case from the initial petition filing in 2021 to the final decision in August 2022. Identify at least three key procedural moments or rulings and explain their significance to the case’s progression and ultimate outcome.

3. Discuss the legal concept of a “cure” as it applied in this administrative hearing. Evaluate the strength of the Respondent’s argument that the November 9, 2021 meeting cured any potential defects from the July 6, 2021 meeting, and explain how the Petitioner attempted to rebut this defense.

4. The scope of the hearing was a contentious issue. Explain how the Administrative Law Judge limited the scope of the case and excluded certain topics, such as alleged discrimination and the soundness of the board’s business decision. Why are such limitations important in legal proceedings?

5. Based on the testimony and arguments presented in the August 1, 2022 rehearing, compare and contrast the remedies sought by the Petitioner with the relief available in the administrative hearing venue. What does this reveal about the limitations of this specific legal process for a homeowner’s grievances?

——————————————————————————–

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 disputes involving government agencies. In this case, Judge Velva Moses-Thompson from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statutes)

The collection of laws passed by the Arizona state legislature. The specific statute at issue was A.R.S. § 33-1804, which governs open meetings for planned communities.

A legal concept where a party corrects a prior procedural error or violation. In this case, the Respondent argued that any deficiency in the July 6 meeting notice was corrected, or “cured,” by holding the November 9 meeting with a more explicit agenda.

Motion to Dismiss

A formal request made by a party to a court or tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed this motion, which was initially granted.

Motion for Summary Judgment

A request made by a party for a decision on the merits of a case before a full hearing, arguing that there are no genuine disputes as to material facts and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Motion for Summary Disposition

A request, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the tribunal to rule in a party’s favor without a full hearing.

Petitioner

The party who initiates a legal action or files a petition. In this matter, Anthony T. Horn was the Petitioner.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that their contention is more probably true than not.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted after an initial decision has been made. Mr. Horn was granted a rehearing after his petition was initially dismissed.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. was the Respondent.

Sua Sponte Order

An order made by a judge on their own initiative, without a request from either party. The order to continue the rehearing to August 1, 2022, was a sua sponte order due to the judge’s jury duty.

Subpoena

A legal order compelling a person to attend a hearing to give testimony. The Petitioner had to request new subpoenas for the rehearing as the original ones were no longer valid.






Blog Post – 22F-H2221017-REL-RHG


Your HOA Did What? 4 Shocking Lessons from One Homeowner’s Fight Over a Tennis Court

Introduction: The Notice on the Bulletin Board

Anyone who lives in a planned community is familiar with the official notices from their Homeowners Association (HOA). Often tacked onto a bulletin board or sent in a mass email, these communications can be models of bureaucratic brevity, full of formal language that is both vague and oddly specific. It’s easy to glance at an agenda item and assume you know what it means. But what happens when you’re wrong?

This was the situation faced by Anthony T. Horn, a homeowner in Sun Lakes, Arizona. In 2021, he filed a formal dispute against his HOA over a meeting notice he believed was deceptive, kicking off a year-long legal battle. His story provides a rare look “under the hood” of HOA procedures and power dynamics. Here are four surprising and impactful takeaways from his fight that every homeowner should understand.

1. A Notice for “Repairs” Can Mean a Total Transformation

The dispute began simply enough. The HOA posted a notice for a July 6, 2021 board meeting with a specific agenda item: “Motion 3: Tennis Courts Upgrade & Repair – Fiscal Impact $76,439 from the Reserve Fund.”

Mr. Horn, an active tennis player, attended the meeting expecting a discussion about much-needed repairs to the community’s dangerous and unplayable courts. Instead, he testified that he was “shocked” when the board announced that the “upgrade” included permanently converting one tennis court into four pickleball courts.

His core legal argument was that this notice failed to provide information “reasonably necessary to inform the members” of the true matter being decided, a requirement under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). The final ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, however, was counter-intuitive.

Sun Lakes was not required to specify the method of upgrade: a conversion to pickleball courts.

This decision reveals a critical gap between a homeowner’s plain-language understanding and the law’s procedural interpretation. The ruling effectively places the burden on homeowners to be deeply skeptical of vague agenda items and to anticipate the broadest possible definition of terms like “upgrade.” As this case demonstrates, the law may not protect a resident’s more intuitive and narrow reading of a notice.

2. An HOA Can Get a “Mulligan” on Procedural Errors

After Mr. Horn filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the HOA board pursued a powerful defense strategy: a do-over. The board scheduled a second meeting for November 9, 2021.

The notice for this second meeting was far more specific. Its purpose was explicitly stated as a “Clarification of Motion 3 of the July 6, 2021 Board Meeting – Conversion of Court 1 to four Permanent Pickleball Courts.” At this meeting, the board held the vote again, and it passed again.

Legally, this is known as “curing” a potential violation. The HOA argued that even if their first notice was flawed (which they did not concede), this second, properly-noticed meeting made the original issue moot. The judge agreed.

Even if Sun Lakes had violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) with respect to the July 6, 2021, Sun Lakes cured the violation when it provided timely notice that the tennis court conversion would be discussed and voted on at the November 9, 2021 board meeting.

This reveals that “curing” is not just a simple correction; it is a powerful strategic tool for an HOA board. It creates a nearly risk-free path to test the limits of procedural compliance. A board can issue a vague notice, and only if a homeowner is willing to invest the time and money to file a formal complaint does the board need to “cure” the potential error with a more specific follow-up. This dynamic shifts the entire risk and cost of ensuring compliance onto the individual homeowner.

3. Fighting on Multiple Fronts Can Be Cost-Prohibitive

During the legal process, Mr. Horn wanted to introduce other arguments. He alleged discrimination against tennis players and claimed the board had ignored other viable locations for new pickleball courts.

The judge, however, repeatedly shut down these lines of argument. The hearing was strictly limited to the single issue identified in the original petition: the alleged violation of the open meeting notice statute. The reason for this limitation was procedural and financial. In the Arizona Department of Real Estate’s dispute system, each separate allegation requires its own petition and, crucially, a separate $500 filing fee.

This creates a significant financial barrier for the homeowner, as Mr. Horn explained during the hearing.

And I probably have five, six or seven of them inaccuracies and misstatements and what so would be $500 each.

This rule exposes a stark asymmetry of resources. The individual homeowner must pay out-of-pocket for each separate alleged violation, forcing them to pick only their single strongest—or most affordable—argument. The HOA, by contrast, defends itself using a legal fund paid for by the entire community, including the very homeowner who is filing the dispute.

4. You Can Win the Argument, Lose the Case, and Still Pay for It

The ultimate outcome presented a paradox, which Mr. Horn articulated in his closing argument. He laid out a sequence of events that created a frustrating “Catch-22” for the homeowner:

1. He identified what he believed was a clear procedural violation at the July 6th meeting.

2. He paid a $500 filing fee to formally dispute it.

3. His dispute directly caused the HOA to hold the second, more specific, and legally “cured” meeting on November 9th.

4. The HOA then used that very “cured” meeting as the legal basis to have his petition dismissed.

He saw it as a no-win situation where his own action to seek accountability provided the HOA with the tool to defeat his claim.

The only reason that November 9th meeting and that motion ever showed up there was because of my dispute. So, it’s kind of a catch 22. …I file a dispute and then they just change the language and then my dispute is nullified and I just lose my $500 and go away. That ain’t fair.

This outcome reveals the ultimate procedural paradox. It is a system where a homeowner’s successful action—forcing the HOA to correct its error—becomes the very instrument of their legal defeat. The legal system, in this context, prioritized the correction of a procedural flaw over the merits of the original grievance or the fairness of the outcome for the individual who forced the correction.

Conclusion: Knowledge is Power

The story of one homeowner’s fight over a tennis court reveals that the nuances of HOA law are complex and can often favor the established procedures of the board. From the broad interpretation of “reasonable notice” to the board’s ability to “cure” its own mistakes, the system contains mechanisms that can be challenging for an individual resident to overcome.

This case is not about taking sides on the issue of tennis versus pickleball. It is a valuable case study in the realities of community governance. It underscores the importance for homeowners to understand not just the rules, but the procedures that enforce them. This leads to a final, critical question for every member of an HOA to consider:

Given the systems in place, how can an individual homeowner ensure their voice is truly heard when the stakes feel this high?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Anthony T. Horn (petitioner)
    Appeared on behalf of himself
  • Ralph Howland (witness)
    Sun Lakes Homeowner
    Testified for Petitioner; name spelled 'Howlen' in some findings
  • Ed Campy (tennis club president)
    Informed Petitioner Horn of the November meeting
  • Robert Miller (homeowner)
    Asked a question at the July 6th board meeting
  • Felicia Kuba (witness)
    Homeowner proposed as witness by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Emily H. Mann (HOA attorney)
    Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC
    Appeared on behalf of Respondent Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1
  • Kelly Haynes (general manager)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Testified as a witness for Respondent
  • Janice Cornoyer (board president)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Called as a witness by Petitioner
  • Jimmy Burns (facilities manager)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Called as a witness by Petitioner
  • Chris Johnston (Senior Account Manager)
    USI Insurance Services LLC
    Listed as c/o for Respondent HOA
  • Steve Howell (board member)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Read in motion at board meeting
  • Emily Jones (HOA employee)
    Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.
    Employee of General Manager Kelly Haynes

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner ADRE)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted copies of orders
  • c. serrano (transmitting agent)
    OAH/ADRE
    Transmitted copies of orders
  • Mark Gotman (observer)
    Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
  • Dennis Anderson (observer)
    Observed pre-hearing conference/hearing via Google Meet
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)
  • labril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Listed as recipient of copies (Attn:)

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222044-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner David G. Iadevavia Counsel —
Respondent Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
  • A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  • A.R.S. 41-1092.07
  • A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking
Additional Citations:

  • CC&R Section 2.16
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
  • Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:08 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:12 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:15 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:20 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:23 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:26 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:31 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:34 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:38 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:42 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:44 (55.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ clarified that a homeowner cannot successfully argue that the HOA violated a CC&R section designed to regulate homeowner conduct (e.g., parking restrictions). Such sections govern what a homeowner can or cannot do, but do not impose a direct duty on the HOA itself that can be violated in the manner described.

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

  • CC&R Violations
  • HOA Obligations
  • Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners should make all necessary arguments during the hearing. The procedural rules for the Office of Administrative Hearings do not entitle a petitioner to a rebuttal closing argument, especially if one was not requested during the hearing itself.

Alj Quote

Petitioner is not entitled to a rebuttal closing argument pursuant to the rules that govern hearings at the Office of Administrative Hearings. … Furthermore, Petitioner did not request a rebuttal closing at the time of the hearing.

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

  • Hearing Procedures
  • Homeowner Rights
  • Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a motion to amend the hearing issue to include violations of duties to 'treat members fairly' and 'act reasonably' (citing the Restatement of Property) was denied by the ALJ specifically due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

  • Jurisdiction
  • Amending Claims
  • Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

A homeowner's request for a subpoena will be denied if it fails to satisfy the specific requirements outlined in the administrative rules (R2-19-113). It is not automatic; the correct form and substance are required.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

  • Evidence
  • Subpoenas
  • Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

If a petition includes multiple distinct issues (e.g., CC&R violation, notice violation, open meeting violation), the homeowner may be required to pay a higher fee. In this case, three issues required a total of $1,500, whereas a single issue was $500.

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

  • Filing Fees
  • Petition Process
  • Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

  • Virtual Hearing
  • Accessibility
  • Procedure

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title
David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • David G. Iadevavia (petitioner)
  • Jill H. Perrella (attorney)
    Snell & Wilmer LLP

Respondent Side

  • Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
    Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC
  • Bill Borg (witness/board member)
  • Jason Bader (witness/board member)

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • c. serrano (OAH staff)
  • M Alvarez (OAH staff)
  • A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • D. Jones (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • L. Abril (ADRE staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Rick Abbott (spectator)

Emery Herbert v. Lakebrook Villas II Homeowners Association INC

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222047-REL / 22F-H2222052-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-18
Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $1,000.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Emery Herbert Counsel —
Respondent Lakebrook Villas II Homeowners Association Inc. Counsel Maria G. McKee

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)
Section 9

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed both petitions, concluding the Association did not violate the statute or the CC&Rs. The HOA was already taking reasonable steps to replace the aging community roofs, and the cost was properly categorized as a regular maintenance assessment rather than a special assessment.

Why this result: The petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the statute or the declaration. The HOA's actions were within its authority to manage and maintain the common areas.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide prompt repair

Petitioner alleged the Association failed to promptly repair a roof leak affecting her unit, violating the statutory requirement to maintain and promptly repair common elements.

Orders: Petition 1 dismissed. Petitioner bears the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)

Failure to obtain vote for special assessment

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Section 9 of the Declaration by increasing monthly dues to fund a roof replacement project instead of holding a membership vote for a special assessment.

Orders: Petition 2 dismissed. Petitioner bears the $500.00 filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: loss

Cited:

  • Declaration Section 9
  • Declaration Section 13

Decision Documents

22F-H2222047-REL Decision – 979855.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:25:22 (46.3 KB)

22F-H2222047-REL Decision – 981946.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:25:22 (49.0 KB)

22F-H2222047-REL Decision – 993566.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-28T18:25:22 (207.3 KB)

**Case Summary: Emery Herbert v. Lakebrook Villas II Homeowners Association Inc.**
**Docket Nos.:** 22F-H2222047-REL (Consolidated with 22F-H2222052-REL)
**Judge:** Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn

**Overview & Key Facts**
Petitioner Emery Herbert filed two petitions with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Lakebrook Villas II Homeowners Association (HOA), which were consolidated into a single administrative hearing held on July 11, 2022. The dispute centered around a failing, 40-year-old roof system, the timeline for repairing a leak over the Petitioner's unit, and the financial mechanism the HOA used to fund a community-wide roof replacement project.

**Issue 1: Failure to Promptly Repair (Petition 1 – 22F-H2222047-REL)**
* **Petitioner's Argument:** Herbert alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1247(A) by failing to "promptly" repair her leaking roof and drain pipes after she reported the issue in March 2022, which allowed ongoing water intrusion and mold growth in her unit.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The HOA argued that the statute's "prompt repair" requirement applies exclusively to damage inflicted by the association while accessing a unit, not to general deterioration of common elements. The HOA maintained it was fulfilling its statutory duty to maintain and replace common elements by systematically rolling out a contracted, community-wide replacement of the irreparable 40-year-old roofs.

**Issue 2: Improper Assessment/Capital Improvement (Petition 2 – 22F-H2222052-REL)**
* **Petitioner's Argument:** Herbert alleged the HOA violated Section 9 of the community's Declaration (CC&Rs) by drastically increasing regular monthly dues (from $303 to $885) to pay for a $362,586 roof replacement project. She argued that completely replacing the roofs constituted a "capital improvement" rather than routine maintenance, which legally required the HOA to obtain a 75% membership vote for a "special assessment".
* **Respondent's Argument:** The HOA argued that replacing 40-year-old, failing roofs is a matter of necessary maintenance and restoration, not a capital improvement. Furthermore, under Section 13 of the Declaration, the Board holds broad discretionary authority to adjust regular monthly cash requirements to cover necessary common area maintenance, operations, and renovations without needing a community vote.

**Final Decision &

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Emery Herbert (petitioner)
    Represented herself
  • Colton Hoover (witness)
    Walker and Armstrong CPAs
    Audit associate, testified for petitioner
  • Karen Hoover (attendee)
    Signed in with Colton Hoover
  • Hildelu Sandoval (witness)
    Homeowner in Lakebrook Villas
  • Luv Brito (witness)
    Homeowner in Lakebrook Villas

Respondent Side

  • Maria G. McKee (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Lindsay Sherwin (property manager)
    Peterson Company
    Community manager, testified as witness for HOA
  • Edwin Escobar Diaz (witness)
    Desert Canyon Roofing
    Co-owner of roofing company, testified for HOA
  • Daniel Noalk (property manager)
    Peterson Company
    Original representative mentioned in emails
  • Terry Troy (property manager)
    Peterson Company
    Regional director and acting community manager
  • Brenda (board member)
    Lakebrook Villas II HOA
  • Victoria (board member)
    Lakebrook Villas II HOA
  • Cynthia (board member)
    Lakebrook Villas II HOA
  • Suzanne Hilborn (attorney staff)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Copied on minute entries/decisions
  • Eadie Rudder (attorney staff)
    Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen LLP
    Copied on final decision

Neutral Parties

  • Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (commissioner)
    ADRE
  • Bonnie Hard (roofer)
    Hardacher Roofing
    Provided a quote via email
  • Paul Davis (inspector)
    Inspected water damage
  • c. serrano (administrative staff)
    OAH
    Clerk who mailed copies

Other Participants

  • Cassie (homeowner)
    Spoke during HOA meeting

Dennis Anderson v. Tara Condominiums Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222062-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-10
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller Counsel —
Respondent Tara Condominiums Association Counsel —

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Section 11

Outcome Summary

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof that the Respondent HOA violated CC&R Section 11. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioners themselves violated Section 11 by constructing the shed without prior written approval.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the HOA violated CC&R Section 11; the construction of the shed occurred prior to seeking or obtaining architectural approval, violating Section 11.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged unfair, arbitrary, and capricious rejection of Architectural Change Form based on a non-existent rule (shed must not be higher than patio wall).

Petitioners claimed the HOA violated CC&Rs Section 11 by arbitrarily denying their request to construct a shed based on an unwritten rule regarding shed height (must be 3 inches below the wall). Petitioners acknowledged they constructed the shed prior to obtaining approval.

Orders: Petition dismissed; no action required of Respondent.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Architectural Change, CC&R Violation, Prior Approval, Shed
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 33-1221
  • CC&Rs Section 11

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 986010.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:53 (48.4 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991586.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:58 (114.3 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 991600.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:04 (6.5 KB)

22F-H2222062-REL Decision – 996350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:09 (47.3 KB)





Study Guide – 22F-H2222062-REL



Select all sources